ARE you a real person? Think carefully now. If recent definitions set by Tasmanian political parties are applied, the answer is far from simple. Labor kicked off the election with an advertising campaign featuring "real people", to counter the Liberal party's pollie-centric ads and re- establish itself as the party of the workers. The Liberal party swiftly exposed this blatant lie and revealed that several stars of the ads were not real people at all but were in fact unionists, who everyone knows are not real people but some sort of Marxist-android hybrid intent on destroying the real real people, small business owners. Enter Bill Lark, who is a small business owner and also supports Labor Franklin MHA and former union organiser David O'Byrne. Mr Lark caused more of a definition problem, mainly because no one wants to offend a man who might be persuaded to give them free whiskey, but the general consensus seems to be that confirmed Labor voters are not real people either. Taking into account the conditions for personhood applied by Labor and the Greens as well, the working definition of a "real person" is a Tasmanian-born undecided voter between the ages of 18 and 55 who is neither a big business owner nor a non-front-line public servant, union member, journalist, lawyer, doctor, environmentalist, welfare recipient or person who earns more than $70,000 a year. Doesn't include you? Don't worry. It seems there are more "not real" people than real this election. Take Opposition Leader Will Hodgman. Cameras off, Mr Hodgman is intelligent, thoughtful, engaging and clearly passionate about Tasmania - the kind of person you wouldn't mind voting for. Cameras on, he is a never-ending loop of approved slogans and Liberal Party platitudes. It's telling that the only comment from Mr Hodgman that has cut through this election campaign was let slip when he was conveniently close enough to the microphone for the ABC to pick up, but not so close as to be accused of officially speaking against the federal government. Somehow, quietly yet audibly telling another Liberal politician the National Broadband Network "could cost us the election" is seen as honest and up-front enough to excuse habitually refusing to provide a straight answer at a press conference. Why do we need a manufactured gaffe - for there's no way a person so tightly media-managed would make such a slip unintentionally - for the likely future Premier to talk frankly with the electorate? And speaking of premiers, why is Lara Giddings more interested in spouting about meetings that Mr Hodgman should have attended two years ago than sounding like one? Who decided it was better to reduce the election campaign to an economic tally of spending versus savings, with jobs as the only currency, rather than have an actual policy debate? Labor's plan to form a Charter of Human Rights (which it also promised and then failed to deliver because of "budget constraints" in 2010, so don't get your hopes up) was dismissed by Denison Liberal MHA Elise Archer - not because it was an unnecessary extra piece of legislature or would complicate an already dense legal system, but because it "won't create a single job (except for lawyers)". Surely Tasmanians are not so simple as to be unable to concentrate on more than one issue at once. That was the argument of Greens leader Nick McKim, who has not escaped the cycle of frustrating idiocy that is campaign politics after this week proclaiming that a new GBE should take over the NBN roll- out, without any indication of how much it would cost or how it would actually work. At least there's one thing to be said for the election - it's only three weeks away.
Think carefully now. If recent definitions set by Tasmanian political parties are applied, the answer is far from simple.
Labor kicked off the election with an advertising campaign featuring "real people", to counter the Liberal party's pollie-centric ads and re- establish itself as the party of the workers.
The Liberal party swiftly exposed this blatant lie and revealed that several stars of the ads were not real people at all but were in fact unionists, who everyone knows are not real people but some sort of Marxist-android hybrid intent on destroying the real real people, small business owners.
Enter Bill Lark, who is a small business owner and also supports Labor Franklin MHA and former union organiser David O'Byrne.
Mr Lark caused more of a definition problem, mainly because no one wants to offend a man who might be persuaded to give them free whiskey, but the general consensus seems to be that confirmed Labor voters are not real people either.
Taking into account the conditions for personhood applied by Labor and the Greens as well, the working definition of a "real person" is a Tasmanian-born undecided voter between the ages of 18 and 55 who is neither a big business owner nor a non-front-line public servant, union member, journalist, lawyer, doctor, environmentalist, welfare recipient or person who earns more than $70,000 a year.
Doesn't include you? Don't worry. It seems there are more "not real" people than real this election.
Take Opposition Leader Will Hodgman.
Cameras off, Mr Hodgman is intelligent, thoughtful, engaging and clearly passionate about Tasmania - the kind of person you wouldn't mind voting for.
Cameras on, he is a never-ending loop of approved slogans and Liberal Party platitudes.
It's telling that the only comment from Mr Hodgman that has cut through this election campaign was let slip when he was conveniently close enough to the microphone for the ABC to pick up, but not so close as to be accused of officially speaking against the federal government.
Somehow, quietly yet audibly telling another Liberal politician the National Broadband Network "could cost us the election" is seen as honest and up-front enough to excuse habitually refusing to provide a straight answer at a press conference.
Why do we need a manufactured gaffe - for there's no way a person so tightly media-managed would make such a slip unintentionally - for the likely future Premier to talk frankly with the electorate?
And speaking of premiers, why is Lara Giddings more interested in spouting about meetings that Mr Hodgman should have attended two years ago than sounding like one?
Who decided it was better to reduce the election campaign to an economic tally of spending versus savings, with jobs as the only currency, rather than have an actual policy debate?
Labor's plan to form a Charter of Human Rights (which it also promised and then failed to deliver because of "budget constraints" in 2010, so don't get your hopes up) was dismissed by Denison Liberal MHA Elise Archer - not because it was an unnecessary extra piece of legislature or would complicate an already dense legal system, but because it "won't create a single job (except for lawyers)".
Surely Tasmanians are not so simple as to be unable to concentrate on more than one issue at once.
That was the argument of Greens leader Nick McKim, who has not escaped the cycle of frustrating idiocy that is campaign politics after this week proclaiming that a new GBE should take over the NBN roll- out, without any indication of how much it would cost or how it would actually work.
At least there's one thing to be said for the election - it's only three weeks away.
