Tasmanian election called, likely for March 23

The stadium is definitely polarising but I wouldn’t assume that means a Labor Premier after the election.

Definitely most of the people I personally know are against it. Although this is not representative of the general population. That said it’s not just a left/right issue. In my inner city Green voting suburb I’ve seen quite a few cars with yes stadium stickers. Comparing that to other local development issues such as the UTAS campus move and kunanyi/Mount Wellington cable car and all I’ve seen are signs against those issues in my suburb.

I think a Liberal majority will be very difficult but with no changes to donations laws since the last election and the AFL on their side a lot of money could be spent on a scare campaign like pokies in 2018.

the lnp will retain government whther thats with JLN or solo. They can work with JLN but the rigue liberals wouldnt and now theyll be out of work

Nether, I respectfully disagree, The most important issue in Tassie is the housing shortage and the lack of bulk billing GP’s. Federal has more power over the 2nd issue. But state can still do something. There are 0 bulk billing GP’s in Tasmania as of 2024 according to the ABC, furthermore it is extremely hard to find a rental property let alone one to buy in the state. I know when I was looking at moving to Tassie I was warned it would be extremely difficult without allot of money due to the housing crisis. Even in Hobart and Launceston. it is difficult.

Again, while the stadium may be alright for young lads, and tourists to an extent. It doesn’t appeal to middle Tasmania struggling with the issues I mentioned. the election will be won or lost on who is going to fix the housing shortage, and improve the health system, over the stadium which is a waste of money because it doesn’t fix the very 2 issues I mentioned. Blaming the feds is no use because when you guys were in power for 9 years federally, that is when the issue started and they refused to fix it.

This will be a close election but Labor should be narrowly favored. But if they don’t succeed and mess up like Michael Daley and Bill Shorten did. then Labor will need a Tony Blair (Dean Winter) to lead them to a large win at the 2027/2028 election. I think should Labor win this year. they will be a 1-term government in Tassie. whoever wins almost certainly losses in 2027/2028. And don’t even suggest the Libs go towards 20 years in power. it doesn’t happen. not in a 2-party system and not in a progressive state like Tasmania, and not with 3+ (probably 4 by then) premiers. No government lasts forever.

@Daniel T Labor under Michael Daley wasn’t favoured to win in NSW in 2019. Bill Shorten’s Labor in 2019 was heavily favoured to win but lost because the polling was wrong.

Labor was favoured to get a “minority” in NSW as polls either had Labor in front (51-49) or 50-50 and it was anticipated that he would be able to get to 47 through the crossbench. But a hung parliament was predicted in NSW with Labor with the edge as most hung parliaments in Australian history tend to go to Labor.

The average length of minority governments are suprisingly long in this country compared to Canada which the average is around 18-24 months. However elections are more frequent or at least they were for a while before states switched to 4 year terms like Canada.

I actually find it puzzling as to why Canada gets so many minority governments despite using FPTP which makes it harder for minor parties to get up. Is Canada just a more multi-party democracy. Or is Australia just unlucky? I would love to hear analysis on this.

Does preferential voting actually aid the formation of a majority government or the opposite? Of course I speak generically because we all know the coalition wins more seats under FPTP but I think there would be allot of tactical voting and Green voters voting Labor much more often if FPTP was used.

@Daniel T……. I cannot see either party being able to form government in their own right. If you are right and this is a one term govt
The question becomes who wants to try and government with a rather large cross bench. The numbers are confusing but each major party would have a minimum of 10 seats and a maximum of 13 to 15 seats. This means a Cross bench of at least 7.

Re the stadium…. it is certainly an issue in Bass and Lyons.and would be more of an issue in the 2 Hobart based seats. The liberals have tried to be all things to all people… but will satisfy none. You cannot promise to go ahead with it but at the same time limit the funds spent to a specific amount. There will likely be a cost over run

@Daniel T not true heaps of polls had the Coalition ahead and Gladys was almost always preferred Premier, plus she had never received a single net negative approval rating in any opinion poll ever. The bookies also had the Coalition as the favourites for that election.

The results of an exit poll also confirmed the Coalition’s victory. Source: https://www.9news.com.au/national/nsw-election-exit-poll-gladys-berejiklian-michael-daley-political-news/6e2990f6-9f6e-41f1-8e95-0b5fb40cadbf

Daniel
Canada is largely a 4 party system with very particular characteristics.

Firstly – the Bloc Quebecois has a big presence in Quebec but nowhere else.
Secondly – the New Democrats, the third party is larger than any third party that we have ever had and being the party of organised labour is quite regionally focussed as well.
Thirdly – various parties have regional strengths, the Liberals have at times swept the Maritimes and the Conservatives almost sweep Alberta so these become regional bases.

Prior to the rise of the Bloc, the Liberals were the main party in Quebec at federal level so they became the almost natural party of government. Liberals held majorities in the 1990s under Jean Chretien even after the rise of the Bloc but that was because the Conservatives were reduced to oblivion in 1993 and the Liberals swept Ontario.

Traditonally, Quebec was the block to Conservative success – the Liberals being dominant. The Conservatibe landslides of 1958 and 1984 was because the Conservatives made the occasional sweep of Quebec as well.

An additional point is that Canadian minority governments don’t form coalitions or lock in long term support – they prefer to slog it out on the floor of the House – hence the shortish length of the minority governments.

@nether.. the 2019 election.was not.far off a hung parliament. It is fair to say the leaking of the video against Daley harmed Labor
In the absence of this a hung parliament would have been probable

One big issue for Labor is that it’s not easy to see them getting 3 in any seat unless their polling improves dramatically. The Lib vote has fallen but mostly gone to independents, JLN, etc….Labor is kind of stuck around 25-30% or so.

I doubt they can get 3 in Bass or Braddon, while their ‘strongest’ seats in Franklin and Clark have Greens or left-ish independents to take votes off them. Possibly Lyons is their best bet.

So a 2-2-2-2-3 outcome (with Lyons being the “3”) only gives them 11 seats, which is not a strong negotiating position given the Liberals will probably finish only a couple of seats short of a majority. It makes it hard for Labor to push the idea that they can govern without a formal coalition with the Greens (as I imagine the Greens would make very strong demands given Labor’s likely weak position).

I reckon the Greens would most likely get 3 seats, or 4 if they’re lucky, in 2024 in an expanded House.

Does anyone know what has happened to the TAS Greens in the past decade or so?

The Greens got 5 seats (out of 25) and 21.6% of the statewide primary vote in 2010 under Nick McKim. Tasmania used to be their strongest state both by far at state and federal elections, especially during the 1990s and 2000s. They’ve been getting 2 or 3 seats and primaries in the low teens since then.

I get that the Liberals have really upped their game and have taken over Braddon, Bass and Lyons. I also get that Tasmania is the poorest state and its median age is the highest and there’s been a brain drain, but still the sharp decline in the Greens astounds me.

Votante, another reason for the decline in Green vote is that the Greens have expanded their base beyond just ‘environmental issues’. They now focus on an overall social justice theme that includes environmentalism, which sort of shifts their support away from blue-collar, working-class voters to those from more affluent backgrounds who usually reside in the inner city.

Reading responses alp11
Gr 3 to 4
My ideas……. jln 2 to 5
Ind 2 to 4
Liberal 13 to 15

Labor would win if David O’Byrne was still leader. Too bad the sexual harassment allegations cost him the job.

And yes, the Greens would easily run all over Rebecca White.

@Yoh A yes absolutely. The Greens aren’t just an environmentalist party anymore: they’re a woke left-wing/far-left party that pushes radical ideas as part of a woke agenda. Those things are divisive and really only popular among uni-educated (but still dumb to a regional person) elites (who are usually very young) in the inner-inner-city, and of course the inner-city elites who moved to the once-hippie town of Byron Bay.

Even “hippie” voters are moving away from the Greens, part of the fact that hippies aren’t as big as they used to be and are in decline. In Lyne, a very safe Nationals seat, the hippie town of Elands (a Greens booth) had a swing against Labor on TPP of over 5%. But then of course there’s the ones in Mullumbimby who are anti-vax and and Nimbin who are vigorously pro-weed, very different to Elands or Crescent Head (a hippie-ish town in the Nationals seat of Cowper, but it’s actually usually a Nationals booth but in 2022 was independent).

I always find it funny when people are described as “elites” just because they have a university degree. They’re pretty common now actually, universities aren’t all that exclusive any more. The term just sounds like an anti-intellectual epithet, designed to foster resentment amongst people without degrees, against those with them.

And using the term this way ignores a couple of things:
– the true elite in our society are the very rich, for they are the ones who really have control over the media and political parties.
– a lot of university graduates are not wealthy, and find it hard to obtain high salary positions even with their degree, because there are many others who have degrees now and competition can be fierce. This also drives down wages in white-collar professions.
– due to skills shortages and the construction boom, many blue-collar jobs pay much more than they used to, with many of those workers out-earning university graduates.

If a tradie can afford to buy a home, a new car and go on holiday overseas, and a university graduate can’t afford any of that, which one is truly more elite?

@Wilson I’m talking about uni-educated upper-class often selfish people in the inner-city. You know what I mean. The type of people who live on TikTok.

Nether Portal, no, I have no clue what you mean. I don’t even know what upper class means in Australia beyond people who have vast amounts of inherited wealth. I wonder if you’ve formed a stereotype in your mind based on who the media have told you that you ought to dislike.

Agree Wilson, also I would consider many social justice issues that Green voters strongly support as not ‘radical’ more like trying to get a fair go. If you are someone that is benefitting from a flawed system, naturally you would want to try and preserve it at all costs which is why there is strong pushback against things like negative gearing.

Wilson and Yoh An make very good points.

Inner city people have far more in common with their outer city and regional cousins than they do with the genuine ‘elites’ – the leaders of politics, corporations, and media, and the extremely wealthy. These true elites all hold far more power than everyday citizens, no matter where we reside.

It appears that the powerful like to misrepresent our society as being divided, so that we might fight amongst ourselves. That could distract us from working together to seek real common solutions to our real common problems.

The actual reason that the Tasmanian Greens vote has declined is that the Labor-Greens coalition of 2010-2014 was a disaster that was managed as badly as possible by both parties and heavily damaged both of them. Neither has really recovered from that yet. The Tasmanian Greens in particular also used to attract in part an apolitical ‘protest against the majors’ vote that their disastrous time in government killed, along with more firmly establishing an identity in the public view as being left of Labor. There were similar (althoguh less severe) declines for the Greens post-2010 at federal elections in other states, but the Greens in other states have generally recovered from that, unlike the Tasmanian Greens (both state & federally).

The base of the Tasmanian Greens was never ‘blue-collar working-class voters’ and they’ve always been the strongest in the inner city – Hobart has always been by far the strongest area for the Greens in Tasmania. Blue-collar workers have typically come into particular conflict with the Tasmanian Greens over environmental issues.

The “young inner-city university-educated leftist elite” narrative is complete fiction. The intersection of those five demographics is minuscule.

It’s all Bob Browns, Christine Milnes and Nick McKims fault (all Tasmanian Greens) for the destruction of the party in the state and federally somewhat in the state. They haven’t recovered since and they have severely damaged Labor since 2013/2014 in the state.

The Greens need to take responsibility for the damage they did to Labor because they did. Sure, Labor didn’t have to do government with them but it would’ve meant a new election or Liberal minority in both 2010 elections.

The Greens goal was to destroy Labor as badly as they could and hope that they would gain from it, the opposite as happened. And the Liberals keep winning in Tasmania and have done well federally in Tasmania except for 2016 when they were shut out federally.

The Liberals aren’t popular, if they win it is because of Labor still having the baggage of the Giddings-McKim government, nothing more. Rebecca White is personally popular, just not her party.

The more the former Tasmanian Green leaders speak, the more likely the Liberals stay in power. It’s time for them to be part of the solution than be part of the problem.

I dont understand when the right argues they are the party of the working class now such as tradies, farmers & Coal miners they dont include retail workers, hospitality workers, uber drivers/others in the Gig economy and aged care workers.Often these workers dont have a university degree may rent a walk up flat in the inner city and dont have asset ownership. There was a good podcast below which talked about the ecological fallacy, Asset ownership and how income is earned (self-employed versus employed by others) is probably more an fault line rather than income level & educational attainment. I dont understand why a tradie who ownes a 4 acre property in the Hawkesbury and has children who attend a private school is a battler while a bar tender who rents in the inner city in a share house and votes Greens is a latte-sipping hipster. The podcast below suggests that the Greens are party of young renters including those who dont have a degree such as hospitality workers.

https://www.tallyroom.com.au/49071

Very good analysis (as usual), @Nimalan.

Daniel T, that seems like a very one-sided view of history, and it has a fundamental problem to it: why would the Greens be trying to destroy Labor while they were in government together? You’ve said it would be to gain at Labor’s expense, but the Greens are smart enough to know they would never be able to form a majority government in Tasmania, they’d always have to be forming a coalition government with Labor. It doesn’t make sense for the Greens to destroy the reputation of a party the they intend to keep forming government with, because they’d be attaching themselves to that reputation they just damaged. And a fall in Labor’s popularity won’t always benefit the Greens the most, because there are plenty of Labor/Liberal swing voters who would instead pick the Liberals if dissatisfied with Labor.

I have heard an alternative version of events from others, which is that Labor, forced into a shotgun wedding to form government, wanted to make the Greens unpopular while preserving their own reputation, so that in the next election they could win majority government and not have to compromise with the Greens any more. There are few Liberal/Greens swing voters, so a fall in the Greens’ popularity would be more likely to benefit Labor.

According to this version of events, Labor gave Nick McKim the education ministry and then cut his budget, forcing McKim to have to close down or merge smaller schools, to public uproar. But it hurt both parties at the next election rather than just the Greens.

It’s hard to know what the truth is. Given the history of disdain Tasmanian Labor showed the Greens and their precursors in the late 80s and early-mid 90s, I find the second version of events to be entirely plausible.

Both parties made absolutely terrible, short-sighted decisions when negotiating an agreement, which resulted in maximum tensions between the parties and both making compromises that damaged their standings with their bases.

The view in the Tas Greens at the time was that it was important to get ministries out of the negotiations so that they had real political power. The deal that was eventually agreed to gave the Greens two ministers, but of Labor’s choosing, and the Greens also negotiated a bizarre arrangement where the three Greens MPs who were not ministers could vote against the government, even giving those backbenchers ‘shadow ministries’. Labor then deliberately gave the Greens difficult ministries where unpopular cuts were planned, clearly to damage them – though I would expect Labor planned the cuts regardless. It is worth noting that the Tas Greens did not really take an economic stance to the left of Labor at the time and generally agreed with Labor about the need for funding cuts, but overseeing such unpopular decisions was still heavily damaging and seen as a betrayal by some.

This whole situation left the Greens with the responsibility of being in government and being forced to oversee unpopular funding cuts, but without enough influence in cabinet decision making to really accomplish much positive change, while also still trying to somehow position themselves as an opposition party. Most of the policy concessions they gained from Labor were over environmental issues that maximised tensions with Labor’s base but did nothing to win any further voters to them.

Both parties would have likely been better off agreeing to a confidence & supply arrangement with Labor governing in minority as the messy coalition they did form served neither of them well at all.

ERMS poll (apparently the ‘main’ Tasmanian pollster) shows:
Liberal 39 Labor 26 Greens 12 JLN 9 IND 14 others 1

Keeps with the general trend of the Liberals losing votes since 2021, but splintering among Independents and minor parties, with Labor remaining stuck in the mid-high 20s and being unable to really bridge the gap.

I think what a lot of people forget is that Labor and Green are very different political – at least at the voter level. Labor is, or at least historically was, the party of the industrial worker, while the Greens have morphed from the party of the environment (well, anti-nuclear first) to the party of, yes, the young uni eductated elites*. Not only do these groups not really have a cross over, but Labor was formed specifically to fight the people who vote Green. If you exclude the ACT, where the Unionists are part of that elite, there really is very little cross over, and where they try to cross over it costs Labor votes, because the people you appeal to will only ever gift you their vote temporarily/send it via preferences. When you get into a Coalition, Labor has to at least attempt to govern for all, which always causes friction with the purity of Greens policies an causes both side to lose.

*By elites, I (and many of us) mean the people who go to Uni to do a generic Arts/Humanities type course, which doesn’t train them for anything except become part of the BAMN class (Bureaucracy/Academia/Media/Not for Profit). This is what is meant by elites, the people who actually run the country and control the media/arts/charities.

Here we go with the anti-intellectual rhetoric once again. Not everyone with a university degree is powerful and influential, especially those with generic arts and humanities degrees. And if you think the media is controlled by people with generic arts and humanities degrees rather than very wealthy and/or politically connected people like Rupert Murdoch, Kerry Stokes and Peter Costello, I don’t know what to tell you, I think that’s very naive.

The groups you mention have some obvious crossover interests actually: workers rights, housing affordability and the cost of living outstripping average wage growth. These apply to young people regardless of whether they’re blue collar or white collar workers. Although skilled blue collar workers are more likely to be business owners nowadays than previously. And these days the Labor Party has embraced the business lobby more and workers interests a bit less. So while they may cooperate with the Greens on things like the right to disconnect from work, I doubt they’re going to join the Greens in advocating for the four day working week without a loss of pay.

You’re telling me I could have become an elite if I had studied the humanities or arts?

Why did I bother with my engineering-science double degree?!

I know many people my age who studied humanities or arts. They are the very opposite of “elite”. They’re just trying to get by.

Agree Nicholas and Wilson, I think the term ‘elite’ is just a catch term to describe those who prefer to work in government or service based industries style compared to those who are more entrepreneurial and business oriented in nature.

The word “inner city elite” is used as a pejorative, similar to “Latte Liberal” or “Chardonnay Socialist”.

It is to describe someone who is progressive because they’re living in the inner city, allegedly wealthy and out-of-touch with middle Australia. The typical inner-city dweller is more likely to be a student and/or renter who may or may not be in a sharehouse. They’re more likely to vote to the left, but mainly part due to their interests in public transport and uni/tafe as well as progressive economic policies and housing policies, rather than say Palestine or abortion.

Let’s be honest – people will use “elite” to describe billionaires whose politics they disagree with, particularly on social and human rights and environmental issues, but won’t use it to describe billionaires with similar political views to their own. The irony is that both “conservative” and “progressive” billionaires, more often than not, have a lot in common e.g. deregulation, lower taxes, lax political donation laws and closer relations with China.

Unfortunately @Wilson, I think you are the Naive one. Power doesn’t only stem from money, in many cases information is power and this group are quite prepared to wield it. There is a definite link from activist non profits -> media -> academics -> Government. So activist non profit feeds story to journalist who gets quotes from a friendly academic, then maybe a quote from a Government official that they are looking to do something about it. That is power, and that is how this class wields it.

I also find the use of ‘anti intellectual’ funny. There is a quote ascribed to Orwell but I think it is apocryphal – ‘There are some things so stupid only an intellectual will believe it’. Never a truer word spoken.

@Votante, very well put – although I don’t think your average inner city dweller is poor these days – that I think is an artefact of 20 years ago, not the current situation. Caused, as much as anything, by the inner city dwellers of 20 years ago not moving to the suburbs as they got older.

Labor Voter, if you define power as who can influence policy making, then technically business owners (mostly those running larger organisations, definitely multinationals) also wield considerable influence in lobbying government to implement policies that favour them.

It is just a matter of what type of policy is best suited for each purpose, but I agree business interests can often conflict with those from the academic space, which is why ‘old school’ Labor values don’t mesh well with the newer social justice type ideals.

Mostly Labor Voter, I think you have a funny idea of how the media works. They advocate for the interests of their owners and executives, because directives come down from on high as to what stance they are. Those who pay the piper, call the tune. I can cite many examples for this, like the Murdoch media’s blatant cheerleading for the Coalition or the AFRs consistent line against the former Andrews government’s spending plans. You haven’t provided a single example for this purported pipeline of influence. I don’t know who these “activist non profits” are either.

*what stance they are to take.

Wilson, I think I can see where Labor Voter’s point is coming from but that relates to ‘smaller’ scale media/journal type organisations like the Guardian which do advocate often for the left-wing type views (which can have a somewhat anti-business narrative).

Governmental owned media like ABC also tends to advocate more for their side, and whilst they do present a fair view can often be seen as hostile by those who have business interests.

Yoh An, I’m not swayed by those arguments. The Guardian only reaches 12% of the Australian population and only 7% access it 3 or more times a week. I wouldn’t call it influential compared to the Murdoch press, who reach 22% of Australians with news.com.au alone, without even factoring in Sky News, its print newspapers or the online versions of those entities. Any smaller scale media don’t even reach 6% of the Australian population, they’re non-entities. I also dispute that any of them take an anti-business narrative, because they are all capitalists at heart. The only truly anti-business news sites I’m aware of that are relevant to Australia are Green Left and Jacobin, both of which no doubt have very dmall readership by comparison to the mainstream media.

Who are you suggesting the ABC regards as “their side”? If you mean to say their staff have anti-business leanings, I’d suggest that has been balanced out by the current and future chairs of the organisation previously being movers and shakers in the Murdoch media empire. And while it may have detractors, it’s also worth noting that the ABC has the highest brand trust of any media outlet in Australia.

Source for the media reach figures and public trust figures:
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2022/australia

@ MLV

Could you please identify the specific policy issues that you interpret as coming from the inner city that you have a problem with?

Also, your “information is power” theory has a major flaw – it completely ignores the role of big money in political donations and direct lobbying. These are far more powerful avenues for influencing government policies than any ideas-based advocacy by not-for-profits or academics.

@Wilson, the Guardian might only be read by 7% of the population, but if you look at academics, government agencies, staff at non profits/charities etc you are looking at close to 50% are regular readers. Much more influential than the Murdoch tabloids, which are hugely influential amongst the powerless. The Australian and The ABC are obviously very powerful, but as one is geared towards business types and the other is part of the activist-> journalist -> academic circle they sort of cancel each other out.

In terms of activist non profits, there are lots in the environment, animal rights, refugee, minority rights etc movements. And many have surprisingly large income streams.

@Peter, there is no flaw in my thinking, because I don’t ignore those groups power. Coming from families steeped in old Labor traditions, I am just able to see where other sources of power are. And it is not money but connections which make them powerful, for both of these groups.

Anyway, back to the state election…

When I originally did some predictions I thought I was being too harsh with Labor’s primary, but the EMRS poll was worse than what I got (26 EMRS vs. 27.28 in my prediction). Lambie, independent and Liberal are all higher in the EMRS.

Even with the problems the government has had since May 2023 they are not doing too terrible and I wouldn’t rule out majority government. JLN and independents seem to be eating at Labor’s primary more than the Liberals. The way Labor is going they could end up with the lowest major party primary in a long time (worse than 2002 Libs and 2014/2021 Labor).

Oh no, those rich elitist activists working for charities are going to use their control of the media to brainwash us all into… donating to charities!

@Wilson – I didn’t say charities, I said activist not for profits. They are 2 completely separate types of organisations with very different goals. I genuinely didn’t think it was that hard to understand….

Agree MLV, if you are referring to organisations such as Grattan institute and others that are considered political advisory groups rather than charity organisations.

Can’t you guys duke this Culture War stuff out somewhere else?