tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-40525939450545956752024-03-19T12:47:48.230+11:00Dr Kevin BonhamELECTORAL, POLLING AND POLITICAL ANALYSIS, COMMENT AND NEWS FROM THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CLARK.
WELCOME TO 2024, YEAR OF THE TRAGEDY OF INDEPENDENT COMMONS.Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comBlogger952125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-30467906490050235142024-03-17T15:03:00.015+11:002024-03-19T12:47:16.559+11:00There Aint No Stability Clause<p>This article is part of my 2024 Tasmanian state election coverage; <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide.html">main page includes</a> a link to effective voting guide and candidate guides and other articles.</p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>I feel somehow responsible, but it is probably coincidence. A few days ago I decided to put a bit of low-level Hung Parliament Club propaganda back in its box by explaining <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/03/why-i-dont-support-fixed-four-year.html">why I do not support four year fixed terms</a> for Tasmania. Among other things they infringe undesirably on the Premier's ability to seek a fresh mandate when the Parliament goes pearshaped. I explained at the bottom why I do not consider New Zealand style party hopping laws to be an alternative solution. Days later, along comes the government with a policy for ... <a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/news/2024/03/17/restoring-stability-certainty-and-integrity-tasmanian-parliament-new-stability">New Zealand style party hopping laws</a>. What hell is this? </p><p>For those who came in late, we are here in part because the former Gutwein Liberal Government preselected one Lara Alexander to run as a candidate for Bass in 2021. She wasn't seen in the campaign except for her campaign manager complaining that she was being muzzled. She got next to no votes but was later elected on a recount. It has subsequently transpired that Alexander is a very odd politician - in particular her talent for inscrutable and apparently self-contradictory comments about confidence in government. Had the Liberals allowed her to speak for herself before nominations closed this would probably have been obvious within minutes and they could have disendorsed her and picked somebody else. But they didn't. We are also here because - for some reason that has never been explained though I've <a href="https://www.edo.org.au/2022/05/16/legal-win-over-forest-clearing-plan-at-ansons-bay-tasmania/">wondered if it was anything to do with this</a> - the Government later decided to make a former TV presenter Primary Industries minister instead of a career farmer, and the latter started or continued accumulating grudges. </p><p>This is not the first time the Liberals have had unity problems - in the previous term Sue Hickey nabbed the Speakership against her party's nominee Rene Hidding and then voted against party policy on gender birth certificate reforms and mandatory sentencing. However Hickey remained a Liberal until she was disendorsed, precipitating the 2021 election.</p><p>Another party-hopping incident involved Madeleine Ogilvie, who lost her seat as a Labor MP in 2018, was later elected on a Labor recount, but chose to sit as an independent. (She later joined the Liberals and won the crucial final seat for them in the 2021 election.) So Tasmania has had four party-hops in the last two parliaments, five if you count David O'Byrne who left the parliamentary Labor Party ahead of a likely expulsion from the PLP on grounds unrelated to voting behaviour. </p><p>One might think from this that party-hopping was a common problem in Tasmania. But it's not. Ogilvie declining to sit as a Labor MP was the first lower house case of it since a short-lived and inconsequential defection by Geoff Davis in 1987, and before that the more significant Lowe/Willey defections in 1981. Also in that time while there were sporadic cases of MPs voting against their party on the floor on particular issues, there was no MP I recall doing it with any regularity until Hickey came along. </p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Proposal</span></b></p><p><a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/news/2024/03/17/restoring-stability-certainty-and-integrity-tasmanian-parliament-new-stability">The Liberals' proposal</a> includes the following detail. They have attempted to avoid the problems I outlined in my fixed-terms article (that such laws are either toothless or give too much power to parties to expel their own MPs from the parliament) but my view is that this is impossible to define:</p><p><i>“Our proposed amendment will mean that if a person is elected as a member of one party, and then chooses to become an independent, or join another political party during the term of the Parliament, they will be required to forfeit their seat.</i></p><p><i>“We will consult closely with legal, Parliamentary and constitutional experts to ensure that this new Stability Clause, which may also require enabling amendments to other legislation including the Electoral Act, is drafted and implemented in a way which is practical, workable, and consistent with the principles of representative democracy.</i></p><p><i>“This includes giving consideration to removing from the Parliament MPs who may seek to “game” the Stability Clause by refusing to quit their party despite acting consistently contrary to that Party’s position; as well as providing safeguards to ensure that MPs are not ejected from their Party, and therefore the Parliament, without just cause. This could, for example, include the provision of a 75 per cent “super majority”."</i></p><p>The supermajority rule (similar to NZ where there is a two-thirds rule) would mean that only parties with party status (four MPs or more) would have access to the rule. </p><p>There is a saying that hard cases make bad law. While this proposal might seem like a sensible response to the defections of Tucker and Alexander, for which said MPs had absolutely no voter mandate, it creates bad outcomes when applied to past defections that <i>were</i> justified.</p><p>In 1979 Labor Premier Doug Lowe was elected with among the greatest personal mandates in Tasmanian electoral history. His government won 54.3% of the vote and 20 of the 35 seats, though one was lost in a subsequent by-election caused by spending cap infringements. Lowe himself recorded the highest percentage vote in Tasmanian history, albeit assisted by drawing on top of the ALP column in the pre-rotation days. Clearly Tasmanians voted for a Labor government with Lowe at its helm.</p><p>During the subsequent term Lowe lost the confidence of his party over his handling of the Franklin Dam dispute, with one flashpoint being Lowe's desire to include a formal "No Dams" option on a "referendum" (Tasmanian for plebiscite) called on the issue. Labor MPs insisted that this not be allowed thereby disenfranchising Tasmanians who were opposed to dams in the south-west. Soon after Lowe was removed as leader and replaced with Harry Holgate.</p><p>Lowe responded by quitting the party and moving to the crossbench with another Labor MP, Mary Willey, depriving the government of a majority. After a lengthy and widely detested prorogation that saw Holgate record approval ratings as low as 6%, the doomed government called an election. The people had their say and had an opportunity to return Labor <i>sans</i> Lowe if they wanted to. Instead, Robin Gray's Liberals were elected.</p><p>Under the current Liberals' proposal, Doug Lowe would not have been able to resign from his party without his seat becoming vacant. Tasmania could have been stuck with the Holgate Government for 18 months!</p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Can they do this?</span></b></p><p>A widespread response to the proposal has been "that's unconstitutional". But in Tasmania the Constitution is the <a href="https://www.legislation.tas.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-1934-094">Constution Act</a> - it is what legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament makes it. Except where those powers are removed, Australian Parliaments have expulsion powers that are drawn from common law, but it is <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Pages/expulsion-of-members-of-the-nsw-parliament.aspx">very doubtful</a> whether the common law power would include expulsion for bucking party policy. There would have to be an amendment to the Constitution Act specifically (and any serious amendment to the Tasmanian Constitution is a <a href="https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UTasLawRw/2016/2.html">potential can of worms</a>). Whether there would be any way to invalidate such an amendment based on the federal constitution is outside my experience, and I will note any useful comments. It might depend on what exactly the amendment said; Prof Gabrielle Appeleby describes the matter as <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-19/experts-respond-to-tas-liberals-stability-clause/103599746?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=twitter">untested</a>.</p><p>My main concern here is whether the expulsion provision would be automatic based on a 75% majority of party MPs (which is way too much power for parties to exercise over minor internal dissents, effectively negating the voters' ability to shape their own parties) or whether there would be an additional test. If the latter, what on earth does "acting consistently contrary to that party’s position" mean? Would Sue Hickey prior to her quitting the party qualify? On the surface no, she only intermittently did so, albeit to a more significant degree than other occasional floor-crossers. In the current New Zealand legislation the party must say that the expelled member is distorting and is likely to continue to distort proportionality, but there is no test for whether that statement is true. </p><p>Because of the vagueness in the government's proposal, in my view voters are entitled to assume the worst. They are entitled to assume, until it is specifically ruled out by commitment to a specific provision, that the government could legislate to allow a party to define "acting consistently contrary" for themselves and to expel a member who was actually voting loyally but who the party for whatever reason did not like. </p><p>However if the legislation did provide an additional trigger then that opens up other problems - because either the trigger must be defined in terms of behaviour like voting on the floor (which will always be gameable by finding other ways to disrupt) or the trigger will be defined in terms that are justiciable. And we cannot have a court deciding whether an MP's rebellion is sufficiently severe for them to be booted, since that gives courts subjective power over political careers and is a breach of separation of powers.</p><p>The Government would need the consent of the Legislative Council to pass such laws. At present it and Labor have a combined majority, so in theory Labor might be wedged into going along, but this seems unlikely. It is also not clear if the majors will have a combined majority after May's elections.</p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">What About David O'Byrne?</span></b></p><p>The O'Byrne situation is an important test case for two reasons. Firstly O'Byrne quit the Parliamentary Labor Party, before he could be pushed, but did not quit the broader Labor Party. Secondly there was no problem with his voting behaviour; rather, revelations of an incident from before his parliamentary career had made him unpalatable to the majority of the PLP. (Or perhaps been used as a pretext to declare him so).</p><p>Assuming the legislation was defined in terms of parliamentary parties and a 75% rule with no extra triggers, this would mean the Labor Party could simply have expelled O'Byrne from parliament without any obligation to provide him with natural justice concerning just how bad his pre-political conduct had been and whether it was seat-forfeit material. O'Byrne in this case admitted his behaviour "did not meet the standards I would expect of myself" but in theory expulsion could be weaponised against a candidate who had admitted nothing. Do we want the courts wading into internal party affairs, investigations and private lives to decide whether or not somebody can be expelled from parliament?</p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">How to reduce party hopping</span></b></p><p>Given that party-hopping has been a non-thing for so long before the recent spate of it, here are some ways parties can reduce the risks instead of resorting to such desperate fixes:</p><p><b>1. Vet candidates properly </b></p><p><b>2. Don't preselect candidates who are flight risks</b> (religious extremism, grudges, weird Shoppie tendencies or membership of the Sky News ecosphere are all warning signs here)</p><p><b>3. Don't muzzle candidates before nominations close.</b> Give them some time to speak on the campaign trail so that unsuitables you might have missed will give themselves away in time to replace them</p><p><b>4. Listen to all your MPs and the voters and consider their skills.</b> The Liberals brought the Hickey situation on themselves by assuming a recent Lord Mayor with strong business experience would love to just be a backbencher, even though the same party in the past had put male outside talents straight into the ministry.</p><p><b>5. If all else fails, you can call an election.</b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Problems Of Waka-Jumping Law</span></b></p><p>Guy Barnett has cited NZ's proportional representation system as a similar case to ours. But NZ's system is essentially a party-list system with a local representation component tacked on. That's because New Zealand tried to answer the question "how do you get proportional representation and local representation together in a single house?" without finding the correct answer, which is "a single house is dangerous and stupid." An MP's mandate in New Zealand derives from party preselection only; a loyal voter for a specific party has no say in which individual MPs will represent the party in the parliament. Beyond being also vaguely proportional, New Zealand's electoral system is a hodgepodge of crud compared to ours, and we should not be importing anything from it at all.</p><p>Another notable difference is that some NZ MPs are elected directly to vacancies that are filled by by-elections. This means they have the opportunity to defend their waka-jumping at a by-election and retain their seat. Tasmania has no such recourse.</p><p>Waka-jumping law in New Zealand - a hobby horse of Winston Peters - started in 2001, expiring in 2005, and was reinstated in 2018. It has not gone smoothly. The 2001 version encountered issues when it came to how to deal with party formations changing, but more significantly its sole successful usage that actually got rid of an MP for good took 11 months. That's more time than the eternity Jeremy Rockliff took to call an election after the defections of Tucker and Alexander! Far from being a recipe for stability that would create an explosive situation: a loose-cannon independent fighting to delay or stave off expulsion, with an incentive to get as much oxygen as possible in the meantime. </p><p>The new waka-jumping law created <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/489284/why-has-the-waka-jumping-legislation-not-been-invoked-for-meka-whaitiri">a farce in 2023</a> when Meka Whaitiri quit Labour to sit as an independent but provided notice in a form sufficient for the Speaker to treat her as an independent for parliamentary purposes but not sufficient to constitute a resignation for waka-jumping law purposes.</p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Insert Here Majority Government</span></b></p><p>A particularly hopeless line was the Premier's claim that “This new Stability Clause makes it certain that if Tasmanians vote for a majority Rockliff Liberal Government this Saturday, they will get a majority Rockliff Liberal Government.” </p><p>Tasmanians voted for a majority Gutwein Liberal Government in 2021. They got a majority Gutwein Liberal Government too ... for eleven months and seven days! Then Peter Gutwein resigned. His own party now dishonours Gutwein's legacy by <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/liberal-agrees-tasmanians-are-ostriches.html">preselecting at least one candidate</a> who maintains that Tasmania at the time was an autocratic tyranny where the government was not in charge and the people were asleep. This is no isolated example; seven of the last twelve Tasmanian majority governments have had a mid-term change of Premier. </p><p>If this nonsense is passed, it will be easier not harder for the conservative flank of the party to remove Rockliff and replace him with Michael Ferguson or Eric Abetz. The reason for this is that there will be no disincentive to doing so no matter how horribly it is done, because Rockliff will not have any recourse. Lowe's behaviour in defecting to the crossbench fired a warning shot against spilling future Premiers, and no Tasmanian Premier has been openly removed by a party spill or even formally challenged for the leadership since (though some doubtless quit under pressure). But under the proposed Stability Clause if Rockliff was rolled and wanted to sit as an indie, doing so would trigger his expulsion, and his place would be filled by another Liberal on a recount.</p><p>This proposal therefore has the potential to greenlight a new phase of coup culture in the Tasmanian Parliament. It is also a potential gateway drug to fixed terms and the increased power they give to the more demanding crossbenchers in a hung parliament, since passing it would remove what I have advanced as the best argument for not having fixed terms in the first place. </p><p>Stability Clause? Hardly. It would make more sense to add Santa Claus to our Constitution Act than this.</p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Update Monday: O'Byrne Enlisted</span></b></p><p>In another presser <a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/news/2024/03/18/david-obyrne-backs-parliamentary-stability">Guy Barnett</a> has sought to enlist David O'Byrne as a supporter of the concept underlying the party hopping ban based on O'Byrne's <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/unions-fund-exiled-independent-david-obyrne-despite-labor-scrambling-for-every-seat-in-tough-tasmanian-election/news-story/11fd936285b1dd0238fd4ffaaebe4f16?amp">comments in The Australian</a>. But all O'Byrne said was that if elected as an independent he would have a contract to vote independently (so presumably wouldn't be rejoining Labor in the parliamentary term). That didn't entail any support for the Liberals' proposal to enforce a ban on party-hopping, and indeed had the ban existed in the form stated by Barnett today, O'Byrne would have been expelled from Parliament in the aftermath of being kicked out of the PLP in August 2021. </p><p>O'Byrne's responsed to this with "<i>You really are desperate in these last few days aren’t you, stop making stuff up</i>" and after the Liberal social media account said "<i>Direct quote David</i>." he followed up with "<i>You have gone from being desperate to not very clever. You are deliberately confusing two very different principles. Give it a rest</i>".</p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Also see</span></b></p><p><a href="https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/hobart-drive/hobart-drive/103579898">My interview with ABC</a> (at 1:04)</p><p><a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/KGW86/upload_binary/kgw863.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22library/prspub/KGW86%22">Politician Overboard (PDF): </a>2002-3 APH paper taking a dim view of party-hopping law proposals</p>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-88072721114059041252024-03-16T19:16:00.036+11:002024-03-17T18:59:42.729+11:00Ipswich West and Inala Live<p><b>Ipswich West (ALP 14.4% - resignation of Jim Madden (ALP)</b></p><p> Labor loses seat with 2PP swing of around 18%</p><p><b>Inala (ALP 28.2% - resignation of Annastacia Palaszczuk (ALP)</b></p><p><b> </b>Labor retains with 2PP swing in low 20%s.</p><p><b>Comments scrolling to top - refresh every 15 mins or so during counting for new comments</b></p><p><b>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------</b></p><p><b>11:30 End of night wrap: </b>Although the ABC haven't called this seat yet for some reason, I want to make it clear there is no coming back for Labor in Ipswich West and why I called it hours ago. They are currently over 1300 behind on 2PP counted votes, but adding in primary votes yet to be added that jumps out to over 1500, and it will probably be more (or at least not substantially less) after preferences. And then, apart from the pretty standard Yamanto booth that has not reported yet (assuming it will do so) there are only about 3000 postals to come and there would have to be a swing to Labor on them, which there will not be (though they may not swing nearly as badly as the booths). There is nothing in the booth counts to suggest any errors either. [UPDATE 12:00 Many postals have now been added and have been similar to the booth swing.]</p><p>I expected both of these to go over the historic swing averages (in the case of Inala as adjusted for a Premier retirement) but they have done so by close to 10%. They are reminiscent of the famous Stafford and Redcliffe beltings suffered by the Newman government on the way to the enormous swing against it in 2015. I am not expecting the Miles Labor government to suffer anything like so large a swing at this year's election but I have for a long time been expecting Labor to lose in October and to probably do so decisively (but it might yet be close). This is simply what is to be expected given that it will be a nearly ten year old government that is the same party as the party in power federally. </p><p>Aside from the LNP, tonight's other winner is Legalise Cannabis who have again done very well in a by-election, including beating One Nation in a seat where One Nation was finishing second at a general election as recently as 2017. </p><span></span><span><a name='more'></a></span><p><br /></p><p><b>10:24 </b>As with IW the prepolls in Inala are worse than the booths so I'm no longer convinced the swing will drop off below about 22. </p><p><b>10:19 </b>The other big IW prepoll is in on the primary vote and it's got even worse for Labor there. </p><p><b>10:15 </b>Three Inala booths now in on 2PP and we could be looking at the biggest 2PP swing of the last 40 years in Queensland as the swing is running at 23% though I think it will go down a few points from there. </p><p><b>9:32 </b>The Inala count is terribly slow with still only one booth counted to 2PP perhaps because of the large number of candidates but I still expect the swing to come in around the very high teens, similar to Ipswich West. </p><p><b>9:04</b> Labor's share of Legalise Cannabis preferences in Ipswich West is continuing to drop back, now at only 57%. <b>Called.</b></p><p><b>8:47 </b>A big prepoll has come in in IW with an even worse primary swing result than the booths so far. </p><p><b>8:29</b> First Inala booth to 2PP had a 22.6% swing but the other booths are less bad on primary vote so so far this looks like dropping down. </p><p><b>8:17 </b>Three more booths in in 2PP and Labor are now in <b>very serious trouble.</b> What has happened so far is that there was one booth where Labor gained on preferences but it was atypical, in most booths they are not doing so no matter how well or badly the LNP are doing. </p><p><b>8:14 </b>A few booths in Inala - Labor will retain but the swing looks like it will land somewhere around mid to high teens so far.</p><p><b>7:58 </b>A 32% swing against Labor in the first Inala booth but a lot of it is spraying, only 14% to LNP so nothing to see there in terms of the seat being at risk. </p><p><b>7:53 </b>A weird one in Leichhardt booth, Legalise Cannabis 30.3%. </p><p><b>7:50 </b>The fourth IW booth in on 2PP, North Ipswich, was bad for Labor in that although it is a poor booth for the LNP, the preference flow for LNP was quite good. </p><p><b>7:43 </b>In the third IW booth in on 2PP, Raymonds Hill, the LNP share of preferences was only about 44%, compared to 59% in the earlier two. More of this will make the seat close. Still nothing in Inala.</p><p><b>7:30 </b>Sixth booth in in IW, Haigslea, was shocking for Labor (25.6%/-17.4%). However a couple more, North Ipswich and One Mile, were more benign. There's a definite trend that the swing is bigger so far in the little booths than the big ones and that will keep Labor in it. </p><p><b>7:23 </b>Pine Mountain the fifth IW booth in on primaries and that doesn't look flash for Labor either (20.5% to LNP, 13.6% against Labor) but Legalise Cannabis is getting big swings to it. We need to see more preference throws though to see if it tightens up once there is more information there. </p><p><b>7:15 </b>Two more booths in in Raymonds Hill and Rosewood. Here the primary swings are 17% to LNP and about 13% against Labor - that is not as bad as the earlier booths but not enough to put Labor out of trouble yet. The Pollbludger swing estimate is 17.4%, that may come down if those early small booths turn out to be unusual, and possibly Labor's preference share will improve. Another thing to note here is that One Nation appears to be joining the list of minor parties smoked by the dope party in a by-election; they are running last in a historically strong area.</p><p><b>6:55 </b>Off and running with some small booths in Ipswich West and they have primary vote swings into the low 20s which is an interesting start. The first booth in on 2PP is Marburg with a whopper 22.8% 2PP swing. (The 2020 Green candidate's name was Raven Wolf!)</p><p><b>Intro 6:15 (times in Qld time)</b></p><p>Welcome to some quick (or not quick if one of them is close) coverage of tonight's Queensland by-elections for Ipswich West and Inala. A Newspoll out this week suggested that a small bounce for the transition from Annastacia Palaszczuk to Steven Miles had faded if not then some, so it will be interesting to see just how big the swings will be. I'll be focusing on these tonight while not distracted by the looming Tasmanian state election; I'll leave the Brisbane Council coverage to others since I normally don't cover local election counts outside my home state.</p><p>One reason I have for covering these by-elections is to put up some notes on benchmarking the swings. It is actually very difficult to benchmark Queensland by-election swings from online material because results more than 40 years old are hard to find, and those since are all over the place in terms of usability. Often either the source election or the by-election finished as non-2PP contests, or preferences were not distributed at the by-election, or one major did not contest, or there is a demarcation issue surrounding which of the Liberals and/or Nationals should be treated as the 2PP candidate in the seat. (At one stage the Liberals were a crossbench party while the Nationals governed alone). </p><p>The best estimate I could come up with was an average of 7.7% 2PP swing to opposition in 9 usable government vacancy by-elections since 1984. I also found four usable opposition vacancy by-elections, with an average swing of 1.2% to the government (which said more about what a weird bunch of contests they were). Averages that merge these two types of by-elections are misleading and should be avoided.</p><p>The former average is blown out by a couple of monsters (17.1% and 19.2%) against the one-term Newman government on the way to it being dumped with a 14% 2PP swing; all these numbers were inflated by a few points by optional preferencing which no longer exists. There were also some sizeable swings against the Beattie/Bligh governments in their decline to electoral mere mortal status through the mid-2000s. (There were no by-elections in the 2009-12 term).</p><p>I am thinking that while the OPV factor may mean the historic averages are a bit excessive, Labor would be nonetheless doing well in the circumstances to pull up below 7.7% in Ipswich West. In Inala the loss of a Premier means the historic benchmark should be adjusted to well into double digits, so the 2PP swing has to get up to at least 15% before any attention should be paid to it.</p><p>There has been some interest in the Greens not running in Ipswich West (but they only got 6.5% there last time, why should they bother) and an amusing account in The Australian of minor union operatives trying to get Legalise Cannabis HTVs handed out to assist Labor. Relatively few Greens voters follow how-to-votes but the lack of a Greens attempt might in theory cost Labor most of a point, all else being equal.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-86710953606291996172024-03-14T09:41:00.002+11:002024-03-18T22:47:29.041+11:00Why I Don't Support Fixed Four Year Terms For TasmaniaThis is part of my 2024 Tasmanian state election coverage (link to <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide.html">main page here</a> including link to effective voting advice), but is also a standalone article.<div><br /></div><div>-----------------------------</div><div><br /></div><div>The last two Tasmanian Parliaments have ended early. The 2018-2021 parliament ended ten months early after independent-minded Liberal Sue Hickey was disendorsed and quit the party, and then-Premier Peter Gutwein argued the loss of the Liberals' majority meant an election was desirable. The 2021-2024 parliament has ended thirteen and a half months early following trouble for the Rockliff Government with two backbenchers who moved to the crossbench in May 2022. Tasmania is the only state that has not moved to fixed-term elections, but there had not been a seriously early election before these two since 1998, and there is a widespread lack of understanding about the historic conventions under which the Governor considers requests for an early election. (A note that Tasmania's upper house does have fixed terms, but with elections on a rotating basis.)</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-governors-role-in-2021-tasmanian.html">I covered many</a> of the misconceptions about calling an early election in 2021, and 2024 has seen a lower-level repeat of many of the same incorrect claims. A Premier who holds the confidence of the House based on votes that have been cast on the floor - whether or not that looks likely to remain the case - is well entitled by precedent to be granted an early election in order to seek a fresh mandate based on newly arising issues or policies, because the workability of the Parliament is in question or for many other reasons. It is not even clear that a Premier who is well into their term needs much of a reason at all. The spurious idea that the Premier should test their support on the Parliament's floor before seeking an election has also been doing the rounds again - this confuses what happens at the start of a Parliament to the end. </div><div><br /></div><div>Together with this I'm starting to see a few calls to make early elections less likely by moving to fixed four year terms, a position that has been floated several times in the past, and I've been asked what I think about this. The Field Government introduced a fixed-terms Bill in 1990 but it never got past the second reading stage. In 1992 the then Groom Government passed a fixed-term Act for just their first term in office (it lapsed thereafter). In 2008 there was at one stage in principle agreement from Labor, Liberal and the Greens to move to fixed terms, but there was soon a change of Premier from Paul Lennon to David Bartlett and the then Labor government never introduced the foreshadowed legislation. (The Liberals introduced Bills in 2006 and 2008 and the Greens in 2005 and 2008). </div><div><br /></div><div>In my view, Tasmania should not move to fixed terms for the Assembly and the circumstances under which the last two elections were called - especially the most recent - show exactly why we should not.</div><div><br /></div><div>The advantages of fixed terms are obvious enough. The dates of elections are known years in advance, barring exceptional cases. This is good for business and investor planning and also good for those of us who work on elections and have to plan our lives around them. Fixed terms also mean that a Premier does not have the advantage of being able to call an election at an opportune time in the term (for instance while benefiting from a crisis, or while the Opposition is in disarray). And fixed terms mean that it's easier to manage the implementation of laws that require a leadup (like the government's electoral law amendments passed late last year), and also to manage the committee processes of Parliament. It's also easier for MPs to arrange their constituency affairs, and it reduces the potential for Governors to have to exercise discretion.</div><div><br /></div><div>Given these substantial advantages, why would I not support fixed terms for Tasmania? The main reason that I do not support them is that I am concerned that fixed terms would lumber Tasmania with parliaments that lack a mandate for what they are doing, because of defections. I think this matters far more than any of the advantages, because democracy is the ultimate value and the other factors are side-benefits. If a Parliament has ceased to reflect the last election and the Premier wishes to seek a new mandate, I say let the people decide. </div><div><br /></div><div>The situation that developed prior to the calling of the current election is a case in point. Ex-Liberal independents John Tucker and Lara Alexander had made explicit threats and very ambiguous comments, respectively, concerning whether the government would retain their confidence under certain circumstances. However, no no confidence motion had been passed, and Tucker's threats had been withdrawn (albeit following a meeting with disputed outcomes). The Liberal Party had been elected in majority with candidates running on a platform to which majority government was crucial. But because of the defections, the parliament had ceased to represent the will of the electors - those who voted for or gave critical preferences to John Tucker or Lara Alexander would mostly not have done so if they had known that these candidates would defect if elected. </div><div><br /></div><div>Supposing that Tasmania had had fixed term laws, what escape would have been possible from the charade of this parliament with its balance of power altered by defections? If the independents continued playing no-confidence chicken but never actually brought down the government, it would simply have to continue in a chamber that passed votes against the originally elected government's wishes - unless a Labor government took over. A Labor government would have been doubly illegitimate in terms of Labor having also run on a theme of avoiding minority government in 2021. </div><div><br /></div><div>To the extent that fixed term laws might have allowed an escape hatch (like the government voting no confidence in itself, or the parliament passing a law to allow an election anyway) it would have been a similar purpose-defeating farce to the UK Fixed Term Parliaments Act. Supposed five year fixed terms in the UK were avoided by a parliamentary vote after two years in 2017, and then by a new Bill passable by simple majority in 2019; the Act was later rescinded. </div><div><br /></div><div>Another important Tasmanian example was the 1956 defection of Carrol Bramich. At the time Tasmania had 30 seats and there was a requirement that in the case of a 15-15 result the party with the lower popular vote would provide the Speaker enabling the popular vote winner (in that case Labor) to govern. Bramich defected from Labor to the Liberals giving the Liberals a 16-14 majority in the parliament and a 15-14 floor majority. The Liberals passed a censure motion against the government. Premier Cosgrove was able to obtain a dissolution based on a Liberal government being not what voters had wanted at the previous election. Under any of the fixed-term parliament models I have seen the Bramich defection would have resulted in a Liberal government that the voters had not supported governing without any mandate for three and a half years of the government's then five-year term. </div><div><br /></div><div>The Tasmanian commentariat includes a fairly large groupthink-prone faction, mostly left-leaning, that I call Hung Parliament Club, which considers minority government to be both unproblematically good and perpetually likely. (In contrast, I think that past minority governments in Tasmania have had both good and bad points and that there is no simple overall answer to which form of government is best for the state.) Hung Parliament Club types hold that when a Premier who is having issues with the Parliament requests an early election, the Premier is trampling on the will of the Parliament which should be supreme. But the Parliament should only be supreme to the extent that it remains a reflection of the voice of the voters. An illegitimate balance of numbers created through defections is a rogue Parliament that has nothing to do with representative democracy in a system that in practice strongly features party endorsements and party-based policy campaigning. </div><div><br /></div><div>Whatever his reasons for doing it, Jeremy Rockliff's decision to put what was becoming a significantly rogue Parliament out of its misery so the voters could decide the Parliament's future was correct and good for democracy. If (as polling strongly suggests if anywhere near accurate) the voters now give neither major party a majority, that will be a genuine minority parliament that has been chosen by the people. It puzzles me that many of those who argue that "power sharing parliaments" are more democratic would go in to bat for the parliament of the last several months, which does not reflect the democratic will of the voters of 2021 that there be a majority Liberal government. (I add that in any other state that will of the voters would have resulted in a massive Liberal majority, and that there is no evidence that the lopsided 2021 result had anything to do with bandwagon effects.) </div><div><br /></div><div>Even if there had not been defections to the crossbench, an early election would still have had some merit in this very particular case. The Liberal Government's re-election campaign in 2021 was strongly centred around the image of one of Australia's most popular Premiers of all time and his government's responses to a public health emergency (and yes it was an emergency even if the same party now preselects at least one candidate who claims otherwise). Come 2024 the Premier is different and the issues mix is different, in particular the contentious Macquarie Point stadium proposal. I think it would have been reasonable for the Premier in this situation to seek a mandate for himself and his new policies.</div><div><br /></div><div>It's probably no accident that those who support fixed-term parliaments tend to support Greens or left/centre independents (and I say this as one who has voted for plenty of the latter and from time to time the former). The harder it is for a minority government to obtain a new election when it finds the parliament insufferable, the more power the crossbench has. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Other States Are Different</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Yes, other states all have fixed terms - and it's a nuisance as well as an advantage sometimes because federal governments can have their options limited by the fixed timing of state elections, and close federal and state elections sometimes affect voter understanding and the informal voting rate. However, there are significant differences between Tasmania and the other states in terms of the strength of the arguments for fixed terms. While these differences were probably not that relevant to how the other states got fixed terms in the first place, I think they're very relevant to why Tasmania shouldn't have them. </div><div><br /></div><div>Firstly, all the other states have single-seat electoral systems and larger parliaments. While results where a single MP defecting could change the government do happen in other states, they are relatively rare. In contrast, there have been seven cases in the past 18 Tasmanian elections in which either the very formation of government or the support that the government relied upon, was determined by a single seat. (In 1996 for instance one more Liberal seat would have given Bruce Goodluck a share of the balance of power with the Greens.) There have been only a few governments in this time that could have survived a two-MP defection with their numbers and structure intact. </div><div><br /></div><div>Then, there are the different structures of the upper houses. In four states, state elections habitually coincide with upper house elections (for half the upper house in NSW and SA and the whole in Victoria and WA). In Queensland (and also in the Territories, although the ACT shares Tasmania's electoral system) there is no upper house. The advantage for incumbents in calling early elections at the right time in all these states would be much greater because far more control over each state's legislative process is at stake. In Tasmania, the calling of an early election has no effect on the upper house, so if a government does have to go at an opportune time and voters judge its decision to do so too kindly, there is still the upper chamber to review its efforts. And I also think the opportunistic-timing advantage argument is overrated anyway. Voters around the country quite often threw out governments that went early without any sensible reason. If a government goes early and is re-elected strongly in spite of voter suspicion of early elections, I say good luck to it. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Party-Hopping Laws Are Not The Answer</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>In response to my view that defections are a critical reason not to have fixed terms I am sometimes told that we should have fixed terms but ban defections via laws that entail that anyone who quits their party loses their seat. New Zealand's on and off waka-jumping laws are often cited as an example. I believe that party-hopping laws, depending on how they are written, would be either too useless or too dangerous in our system. The key issue for such laws is whether or not they permit a rebel MP who wishes to notionally remain within their party to be kicked out of the parliament if they are expelled from their party. If the answer is no, then there is nothing to stop a rebel MP from, for instance, claiming to be still a Liberal while continuing to vote against a Liberal government on legislation or even confidence and supply. If the answer is yes then parties develop supreme power over their own incumbents' careers, which is grossly inappropriate in a state where voters choose which candidates will represent the parties that they vote for. A party machine that did not like an individual MP who belonged to a party could expel them from the party, causing them to lose their seat, which the party would get back on a recount. </div><div><br /></div><div>--</div><div><br /></div><div>There is a separate debate regarding fixed terms for federal parliament that I may cover in a separate article should a serious proposal develop. There is currently more debate about four-year federal terms, to which I'm totally opposed if they result in eight-year Senate terms. I am also cautious about the proposal last rejected in 1988 (four-year unfixed terms with every election a double dissolution) though I think I'd be less so if the malapportionment of the Senate could ever be fixed. I completely reject the Prime Minister's claim that the defeat in 1988 was caused by "misinformation" (of course there was some as there always is, but there were weighty arguments against it too in terms of it being a power grab by the lower house that would alter the balance of our system.)</div>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-59923273083910640942024-03-12T15:14:00.003+11:002024-03-17T20:52:28.291+11:00uComms: Labor Just 23: How Much Stock Should We Put In This?<div style="text-align: left;">This article is part of my 2024 Tasmanian election coverage - <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide.html">link to main page</a> including links to electorate guides and effective voting advice.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>uComms (Australia Institute) Liberal 37.1 Labor 23 Green 13.7 JLN 8.5 IND 12.8 others 5.0<br /></b><b>Seat estimate if poll was accurate Lib 14 ALP 10 Green 4 JLN 2-3 IND 4-5<br /></b><b>Poll should be treated with caution.</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Today saw the the release of the third Tasmanian campaign poll by an established and identified pollster, this one being a <a href="https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/polling-tasmanian-state-election-2024/">uComms for the left-wing Australia Institute</a>.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">From the outset I should note some usual cautions. uComms polls by automated phone polling (formerly all robopolling, lately a mix of SMS and voice robopolling). The poll employs very primitive weighting (age, gender and location only, with no attempt to weight by any indicator of political engagement such as education). At the 2021 election an Australia Institute uComms poll which I disputed at the time (<a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2021/04/whats-this-then-commissioned-poll.html">What's This Then? Commissioned Poll Claims Liberals In Trouble</a>) was hopelessly inaccurate, underestimating the Liberals by over 7% and overestimating Labor by nearly 4 and independents by nearly 5. There was never any attempt to explain why this poll got it so wrong. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><span><a name='more'></a></span><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Many of the other cautions listed in the 2021 article still apply, though these uComms polls are using forced choice on voting intention rather than the previous option of allowing a respondent to be undecided on the first attempt then forcing on the second. On the other hand, uComms just scored as close to a bullseye as seat polling gets with their poll of the Dunkley by-election. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">While this poll is more recent than the others going about (it was taken wholly on Mar 4-5 with a decent sample size of 1177) I would, for the above reasons, treat this poll with more caution than the <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/emrs-liberals-have-big-lead-but-still.html">fairly similar poll by EMRS</a>. And I suspect both polls could have the independent vote a bit high. On my first of two campaign visits to Bass this weekend, the independents had almost zero corflute presence.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">One more caution for this poll regards the Lambie Network. There is no indication in the poll whether JLN was on the readout everywhere, so I am taking it that they were. Based on Senate results from 2022, any poll that has JLN on the readout everywhere will overestimate their vote share by up to 14% of that share, which means the 8.5% of JLN could be really 7.3%, their weakest result this year. That said the overestimate could be less as a fair proportion of Clark voters may have been aware JLN aren't on the ballot in Clark. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">But the really bad result in this poll, if this poll is anywhere near accurate, is Labor on just <b>23%</b>. This is lower than some numbers polled by the Greens in the 2010 election, and only barely higher than what the Greens in fact got. I don't believe Labor is doing that badly, but to be doing badly enough that that number can even appear in a poll is a worry enough. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">In seat terms, using the EMRS breakdowns as a baseline, I get this poll at something like 14 Liberal, 10 Labor (some of those only just), 4 Green (outside chance of one or two more), 2-3 JLN and 4-5 independents (with a small chance of just 3). But as with the <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/03/redbridge-says-its-multi-party-mess-as.html">Redbridge poll</a> the combined major party vote is getting so low - it was 65 in EMRS, just 62 in Redbridge and now even lower at 60.1. Can such things be true, or are some of these polls getting too many engaged voters in their samples?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I am intending to prepare an aggregate of all the recent polls but I expect it to show something broadly similar to the EMRS poll. Polls continue to show the Liberals in a position to be easily the largest party and with multiple paths to retaining power among a mess of potential crossbenchers who in most cases have not indicated any clear preference. Even the Greens have given Labor a free hit with leader Rosalie Woodruff saying she couldn't rule out working with the Liberals. Labor has, however, to a large degree brought this on itself with its own disinterest in forming government via any kind of deal. If voters are looking for a prominent candidate who is committed to throwing out the Liberals and to doing whatever deals can be reasonably done to have them thrown out, that voter will struggle. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Choose Your Fighter!</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">This poll also included some fun leadership polls with the following unusual question form:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">"If there is a hung parliament where no one party has a majority, which senior Liberal parliamentarian</div><div>do you believe would negotiate with the crossbench most effectively?"</div><div><br /></div><div>Results are Jeremy Rockliff 39.4% Michael Ferguson 7.3% Eric Abetz 11.1% Don't know 42.3%. Individually, over half of voters for each of Labor, Greens, JLN and Others were in the don't know camp. The inclusion of Abetz is interesting as while he brings the gravitas of 28 years in the Senate he is not even a state parliamentarian at all yet. The fact that he beats Ferguson including among supporters of his own party is an embarrasing number for the latter. </div><div><br /></div><div>Then ditto for Labor, and results are Rebecca White 31.2% Anita Dow 7.6% Dean Winter 19.4% and the great negotiator Don't Know was again in the lead with 41.8%. This one is a bit odd too in that Dow has served as interim Leader and is now Deputy Leader but is not generally seen as a likely leadership option; perhaps Josh Willie would be the most likely third name to come up. Anyway given that this is a sort of preferred leader poll albeit wierdly worded, the fairly high number for Winter is a signal of some discontent among voters generally with White's leadership. This is as usual more so from voters who would not vote Labor as from those who would. </div><div><br /></div><div>A few more interesting snippets from the poll: those voters still voting Liberal overwhelmingly think Tasmania is heading in the right direction (75.1-9.5) but nobody else much does, and a plurality of Liberal voters think there will be a Liberal majority government (49.0%) compared to 4.2% of anybody else. (This is in a choice between Liberal majority, Labor majority and hung parliament).</div><div><br /></div><div>There were more questions in this poll yet to be released, including logging in "peace deal" forests, limiting rent increases to inflation, banning donations from gambling, property and salmon interests, a pony poll about having a real Integrity Commission, and a question about salmon farming that only the Australia Institute thinks is salient to voters. I may comment on these later as they appear. </div>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-9819353797060873062024-03-05T00:00:00.006+11:002024-03-05T21:45:37.889+11:00Redbridge Says It's A Multi-Party Mess As Voters Flee Liberals<div style="text-align: left;"><b>This article is part of my 2024 Tasmanian election coverage - <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide.html">link to main page</a> including links to electorate guides and effective voting advice</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Redbridge Lib 33 ALP 29 Green 14 JLN 10 IND/Other 14<br /></b><b>My estimate 13-14 Liberal 10-12 ALP 4-5 Green 2-3 JLN 2-6 IND</b></div><p>The second Tasmanian campaign poll by an established and known pollster is out, with Victorian-centred outfit Redbridge releasing its <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/tas-libs-labor-sniffing-around-lambie-in-search-for-majority-20240304-p5f9q8">first ever public poll of Tasmanian voting intention</a>. The sample size is smallish (753 voters) and the sample is spread out over two weeks (Feb 14-28). </p><p>They have also released these combined breakdowns: Bass/Braddon/Lyons Liberal 35 Labor 27 Green 11 JLN 14 Other 14, Clark/Franklin Liberal 30 Labor 31 Greens 18 JLN 4 (ie 8 in Franklin as not running in Clark) Other 17</p><p>There is more to come on this poll, including one of the most amusing crosstabs you will ever see, but for now just a quick note on the voting intention numbers. The Redbridge numbers are significantly worse for the Liberals than both the <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/emrs-liberals-have-big-lead-but-still.html">EMRS public poll</a> and the <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/03/mystery-poll-why-are-we-still-playing.html">huge-sample mystery poll </a>of unknown veracity and quality, and very similar to the <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/01/lambiemania-what-should-we-make-of.html">YouGov poll from January</a>, except that they have treated the Lambie and IND/others votes more normally. (They've only listed parties in seats they are running in.)</p><p>Redbridge have released a seat estimate of 12 Liberal 11 Labor 6 Green 3 JLN 3 Independent based on modelling off mini-samples. I would expect off these state primaries (based on testing them against my model of the recent EMRS breakdowns) that the Greens would not do quite so well; six seats off 14% would be very lucky. I got estimates of 13-14 Liberal, 10-12 ALP, 4-5 Green, 2-3 JLN and 2-6 IND for these numbers. </p><p>A couple of notes regarding my estimates. Firstly JLN could be very vulnerable to leakage because they have not run clear lead candidates and some of their votes will be for people who know and like one of their candidates but not others. A single Independent starting 2% or even more behind a JLN ticket could very well run them down. JLN will also be at risk of losing votes to unintended informal voting, though I estimate the extra impact of that on them will be about 0.2% per seat. </p><p>Secondly it's often difficult to convert projected Independent/other votes to seats because the missing piece of the puzzle is how concentrated is that vote in one or two lead candidates. That's why I am often getting broad-range estimates like 2-6 Independent seats in my models.</p><p>If this poll were accurate, the Liberals would be the largest party but would need to work with either several independents or a mix of independents and JLN to govern, they could end up with their own <i>"coalition [sic] of chaos". </i>Labor would be unlikely to have a path to government that did not go through the Greens. It would be quite a fascinating parliament.</p><p>Redbridge is still a relatively new poll on the public polling scene, albeit one with decent results overall so far. Its findings are sometimes quirky. EMRS has a long and good track record here and a larger sample size. Nonetheless this is an interesting polling data point to add. </p><p>The AFR report refers to claimed internal Liberal polling, but that is in fact the EMRS public poll.</p><p>The AFR article also features more baffling Jacqui Lambie pronouncements (albeit some paraphrased) including that her candidates are 'all political cleanskins' (yeah right one was a Tory mayor in England) and 'have been forced to rule out making a play for the ministry within their first 12 months' (how?). We also get “But we have told them that we don’t do preference deals. We want voters to number all three boxes with Lambie candidates,” Er, nobody does preference deals in Hare-Clark and the voters have to number at least seven. (By the way this is not the first time JLN have contested, they also did in 2018). </p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Full report</span></b></p><p><a href="https://redbridgegroup.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Redbridge-Tasmanian-state-vote-intention-and-public-opinion-feb-2024.pdf">The full report is here.</a> The most hilarious crosstab (albeit based on only about 75 intending JLN voters is that 40% of intending Jacqui Lambie Network voters (more than any other party bar the Greens) say policies will be a major factor affecting their vote. JLN has been attracting much criticism for being just about a policy-free zone. </p>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-70853066831493724492024-03-03T23:29:00.018+11:002024-03-04T11:58:17.206+11:00How To Best Use Your Vote In The 2024 Tasmanian Election<p><b>This piece is part of my Tasmanian 2024 election coverage - link to <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide.html">main guide page</a> including links to my electorate guides and other articles. </b></p><p>This piece is written to explain to voters how to vote in the 2024 Tasmanian election so their vote will be most powerful. It is not written for those who just want to do the bare minimum - if you just want to vote as quickly as possible and don't care how effective your vote is then this guide is not for you. It is for those who care about voting as effectively as possible and are willing to put some time into understanding how to do so. </p><p>Please feel free to share or forward this guide or use points from it to educate confused voters. Just make sure you've understood those points first! I may edit in more sections later.</p><p><b><u>Please do not ask me what is the most effective way to vote for a specific party or candidate as opposed to in general terms.</u></b></p><p>Oh, and one other thing. Some people really agonise about their votes, spend many hours over them and get deeply worried about doing the wrong thing. Voting well is worth effort, but it's not worth <i>that</i>. The chance that your vote will actually change the outcome is low. </p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Effective Voting Matters!</span></b></p><p>I'll give a recent example of why effective voting matters. In 2021 the final seat in Clark finished with 10145 votes for Liberal Madeleine Ogilvie, 9970 votes for independent Kristie Johnston and 8716 votes for independent Sue Hickey. As there were no more candidates to exclude at this point Hickey finished sixth while Ogilvie and Johnston took the last two seats. Had the two independents had <b>1606</b> more votes in the right combination, Ogilvie would have lost instead, and the Liberals would not have won a majority. But during the count,<b> 2701</b> votes had been transferred from Labor and Green candidates to "exhaust". All these were voters who did not number any of Ogilvie, Johnston and Hickey. Many would have voted 1-5 for Labor and Green candidates (mostly Labor) and then stopped. There were enough votes that left the system because voters stopped numbering that the outcome could have been different.</p><p>That's not to say it <i>would</i> have been had everyone kept numbering - the voters would have had to somehow sense that Hickey needed preferences more than Johnston, or else the flow to the two independents would have had to be extremely strong (which wouldn't happen). But it is possible for voters who choose to stop numbering to cause the election of parties they would not want to win. And this year with the lower quota and the broader spread of voters, it's probably more of a risk than last time. </p><p>Some of these voters would have stopped because they didn't care about other candidates - but I suspect most really would have had a preference. Most of those stopping most likely stopped because they didn't realise they had the potential to do more with their vote, or because they couldn't be bothered. </p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">There Is No Above The Line / Below The Line</span></b></p><p>Tasmania does not have above the line party boxes in state elections. All voters vote for individual candidates and decide how many preferences (if any) to give beyond the required seven, and which parties or candidates if any to give their preferences to. There are no how to vote cards. Your most preferred party may recommend you put its candidates in a particular order but you don't have to follow that. While a lot of voters will vote 1-7 all for the same party, plenty of voters vote across party lines for a mix of different candidates. </p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Your Party Doesn't Direct Preferences</span></b></p><p>If you vote 1 to 7 for a party and stop, your party does not decide what your vote does next once all your party's candidates have either won or lost. At this point your vote plays no further role in the election. Your vote can only even potentially play a role between other parties if you make it do so. The same applies if you vote for seven candidates across party lines, or for seven independent-ish candidates. Your vote can only do the work you tell it to do. </p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">You Cannot Waste Your Vote! (Sort-Of)</span></b></p><p>The idea that voting for minor parties or independents that won't get in or form government is a "wasted vote" is an evil and pervasive myth smuggled in from bad voting systems where it's actually true (like first past the post). Some major party supporters spread this myth, including in Hare-Clark, to try to scare voters off voting for anyone else. In Tasmanian elections if you vote for a candidate who is not elected, your vote flows at full value to the next on your list and so on. You can't waste your primary vote except by not casting a formal vote - but you can waste your preferencing power by stopping early. If your vote only numbers a limited number of candidates then once all those are excluded or elected, your vote might hit the exhaust pile and be a spectator for all the remaining choices. If the candidate you like the most is from a minor party or is an independent, ignore anyone who tells you voting for that person is a "wasted vote". They're wrong.</p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Make Sure Your Vote Counts - No Mistakes In First 7</b></span></p><p>A vote must include at least the numbers 1 through 7 without mistake because our politicians are not committed to protecting voters from losing their votes as a result of unintended errors. <b>Do not use ticks or crosses. </b> If you number six boxes and think you just can't find a seventh candidate and stop, your vote won't count at all. If you're one of those people who starts at the top then goes to the bottom to number all the boxes and works up, and you accidentally end up with two 6s, that will not count either. When you have finished your vote check carefully to make sure you have the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 each <b>once and once only</b>. (Also check that you have not doubled or omitted any later numbers, but that's less critical, as if you have your vote will still count up to the point of the mistake.) If you make a mistake while voting at a booth you can ask for another ballot paper. </p><p>Voters for parties like Jacqui Lambie Network and Shooters Fishers and Farmers should be especially careful here. If you vote 1-3 for JLN and stop, your vote will not be counted. </p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Gold Standard - Number Every Box</span></b></p><p>The most effective way to vote is to <b>number every box</b>. That means that your vote has explained where you stand on every possible choice between two candidates and there is no way that your vote can ever leave the count while there are still choices to be made. </p><p>But doesn't this help candidates you dislike? This is a common myth about the system. By numbering all the way through, if you've numbered a candidate you dislike and your vote reaches them, it can only help beat candidates you dislike even more! The reason for this is that every candidate you put above the mildly disliked candidate must have already won or lost before your vote can get there. If your vote reaches that point then one of the candidates you dislike is going to win no matter what you do. You may as well make it the more bearable one and use your vote to speak for the lesser evil. </p><p>In terms of the primary election you can stop when you've numbered every box but one, and it makes no difference. But because of a weird quirk in the recount system, numbering every box could help your vote to have a say in a recount for your worst enemy's seat! </p><p>Numbering every box takes some preparation - it is best to plan your vote before you go to the booth, There are sometimes automatic tools to help with this and if I see any I'll link to them here. </p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Silver Standard - Number Everyone You Can Stand</span></b></p><p>If you don't want to number every box then a lower-effort alternative that is still better than numbering 1-7 and stopping is to number all the candidates/parties who you think are good or on balance OK and that you have some idea about. That at least means your vote will never leave the count while candidates or parties who you think are at least so-so are still fighting with the baddies. </p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">I Don't Care Who Wins But I Want Someone To Lose!</span></b></p><p>Then number all the boxes and put that party and/or person last. You may also find the strategic voting section interesting in this case. You can <b><u>never</u></b> help a candidate to win by putting them last.</p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Minor Exceptions</span></b></p><p>An exception to the gold standard is if you reach a point where of the candidates you have not numbered, your response to any choice between them is that you absolutely do not care. If you get to that point, and you've numbered at least 7, it's safe to stop. (That said I would keep going and randomise my remaining preferences at this point, for potential recount reasons.)</p><p>Another one is if you slightly prefer one party to another but are so disappointed with the first party that you want to send it a message by not preferencing it, in the hope it fights harder for your preference next time. In that case you can also stop (if you've numbered at least 7 boxes), but in this case you should tell the first party that that's your view (anonymously if you prefer); otherwise they will have no idea you felt that way.</p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Who Are These People?</span></b></p><p>Numbering every box is hard work - who are all these people? I write guides about elections and even I know nothing about lots of them! If you've never heard of a candidate and they're not running for a party that you like, I'd recommend putting them between the candidates you dislike slightly and those you're sure you cannot stand. Even if they're running for a party you like, it may be worth doing some research because sometimes parties preselect candidates they shouldn't. Ultimately it is up to the candidates to make themselves known to you. If they haven't done that, you are entitled to mark them down. </p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">What Is Group B, Group G and So On?</span></b></p><p>Some independent candidates have registered their own columns so they stand out on the ballot paper, while others are just listed in the ungrouped column on the far right. In this year's election both these kinds of candidates have the same status, it's just that some of them have lodged 100 signatures to stand out more. If a candidate is a party candidate you will see their party name. (Oh and if a group has "Network" in its name, it's still a party.)</p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">How Does Your Vote Work? Why Your Number 1 Matters</span></b></p><p>This is not the place for a full account of how Hare-Clark voting works, there's <a href="https://www.tec.tas.gov.au/info/Publications/HareClark.html#">one here</a>. There's a common misconception that when you vote for seven candidates the order doesn't matter much because your vote will help them all. In fact, that's often not true and your vote only helps one candidate at a time, and helps them in the order you put them in. Who you vote 1 for can be very important. If your number 1 candidate is excluded then your vote flows on to the next candidate who is still fighting for a spot at that stage at full value. If your number 1 candidate is elected straightaway with over 12.5% of the vote in their own right, part of your vote's value is used on helping them to win, and part flows on to other candidates you have numbered. If your number 1 candidate doesn't win off the first ballot but never gets excluded, then all your vote's value goes to helping your number 1 candidate either eventually win or at least try to (if they finish eighth). For this reason it's not just who you choose as your first seven that matters, but also the order that you put them in.</p><p>That ends the main part of this article, and the rest is something specialised I threw in because ... people do ask. </p><p>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;"><i>Special Sealed Section: Strategic Voting (Advanced Players Only!)</i></span></b></p><p><b>This section is an optional extra and is rated Wonk Factor 4/5. If you read it and are not sure you understood it, pretend you never read it and certainly don't try explaining it to anyone else! </b></p><p>Most voting systems are prone to tactical voting of some kind; indeed, in some it's necessary. Under the first-past-the-post system in the UK it is often necessary for voters to vote tactically for their second or third preference party to ensure their vote isn't "wasted". In the 2022 federal election, some left-wing voters voted 1 for teal independents because they were more likely to win from second than Labor or the Greens were. Our preferential systems are much fairer than first-past-the-post, of course, but there are still ways of voting that can make your vote less than optimally powerful, and ways to get around that if you want. </p><p>In this case I am not arguing that voters <i>should</i> vote tactically - I'm just explaining how they can do it if they want to. The ethical decision involved (since voting tactically effectively reduces the value of other voters' votes) is up to them. There's also a problem with tactical voting in that if everyone did it it would stop working and create bizarre outcomes. (But no one should let that alone stop them, because that will not actually happen. Immanuel Kant was <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M-cmNdiFuI">wrong about everything</a>.)</p><p>The scope for tactical voting in Hare-Clark is mainly around quotas and the way the system lets votes get stuck. One simple principle of effective tactical voting for those who want to do it is to <b>not vote 1 for any candidate who you know or strongly suspect will be elected straightaway. </b></p><p>Suppose I am weighing up between these three candidates, whose surnames indicate their voting prospects: Morgan Megastar, Nico Nohoper and Lee Lineball. And I decide they are my equal favourites. Morgan always polls a bucketload of votes and will probably be elected in their own right, or at least will surely win. Lee might get in off the first count, on a good day, but I don't really know if they'll win at all, and Nico has run in 17 elections and got two deposits back but I like them anyway. Now in this situation I will vote 1 Nico 2 Lee 3 Morgan (and on and on to 35). </p><p>Why? Because I know Morgan doesn't need my #1 vote. If they get it and they're elected at the first count, the value of their excess votes is one vote greater, <i>but that vote won't all be mine</i>. A part of the value of my vote stays with them and the rest of it flows on to other candidates, but I've also slightly increased the value of all their other votes to make up the difference. And these could be votes cast by Hung Parliament Club op-ed writers or other witless philistines. I'd rather have my vote flow on at full value! Also, Morgan might not quite get quota on the first count, and in that case my vote never goes anywhere else, and I might be boosting whatever vote detritus <i>does </i>put them across the line (shudder!) There is even an extremely rare scenario here where by voting 1 for Morgan I could boost the votes of Lee's key opponents to the point that it actually harms Lee.</p><p>So I vote 1 for Nico Nohoper. A few counts in Nico will be excluded, again, by this stage Morgan is already over the line, or will be soon, and now my vote flows at full value to Lee who may need it. And if Lee eventually gets eliminated, it will flow on at full value to #4, and so on. I do this sort of thing a lot - among my top five or six candidates I will often put them in order from least promising to most, so that my vote will hang around a while and might even be able to flow on past those candidates at full value. But it takes a lot of knowledge of who is likely to poll well to pull it off. </p><p>One can get carried away with this idea and try to thread the needle in an order one <i>doesn't</i> support (eg candidates one dislikes above candidates one likes) to try to get one's vote still on the table at full value at #30 in Franklin trying to defeat You Know Who. I call this "<b>quota running</b>" and I really don't recommend it, as it's too easy to fail to predict something that happens in the count and wind up with your vote doing something that you don't want. Most likely your vote will never get that far anyway. </p><p>And there's another thing worth knowing here. Suppose I'm tossing up at some point between two similar candidates who I think will both be borderline contenders, but I really do not have a view between them. This could happen if I was a major party voter, but it could also be two leading indies. Now in this case I could go for the one I think will poll less well. Why? Because this increases the chance that both of them stay in the count and can both beat a single candidate from some other force (aka the <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2012/10/getting-gininderraed-another-for-hare.html">Ginninderra Effect</a>).</p><p>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Donations welcome!</span></b></p><p>If you find my coverage useful please consider donating to support the large amount of time I spend working on this site. Donations can be made by the Paypal button in the sidebar or email me via the address in my profile for my account details. Please only donate if you are sure you can afford to do so.</p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><div><br /></div>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-30261650980082682292024-03-03T16:24:00.010+11:002024-03-17T20:51:58.399+11:00Making Seats "Marginal" At By-Elections Is Meaningless<p>Last night saw the Labor government get the good end of the stick in the <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/03/dunkley-by-election-live.html">Dunkley by-election</a>, easily retaining a seat that was precariously above the long-term average swing for government vacancy by-elections. It's no disaster for the Liberals who have got a modest swing with some mitigating factors but they (especially Jane Hume) were out in force last night spinning the outcome as a triumph. Together with the usual nonsense about first-term governments not in recent decades losing seats and governments not losing by-elections caused by deaths (both based on trivially small sample sizes) I heard a lot about how they had turned Dunkley marginal and they were coming for the seat.</p><p>Marginal seat status where a seat is retained is determined by general election results not by-elections (so Dunkley is no more a marginal seat than it was before), but this made me wonder, does getting a seat inside the marginal range at a by-election predict anything at all? I've found that such seats have historically almost always been retained by the government at the next election, although on average the election-to-election swing has been worse than the national average in such cases. The idea that the Liberals have put Dunkley in serious danger next time with a swing that is not even bog-average for a government vacancy by-election has no basis. </p><span></span><span><a name='more'></a></span><p><br /></p><p>I've previously written about the impact of a <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2015/01/queensland-ashgrove-redcliffe-and-other.html">change of mid-term ownership caused by a by-election</a>. Where there is a change of party occupancy in the middle of the term, the new party's MP can build a personal vote at the expense of the previous party. It is also more likely in such cases that there is some lasting local issue driving the result, or that the government is losing anyway. </p><p>But when an opposition merely makes a seat closer but the governing party carries on, does that do anything? I looked through all previous federal by-elections I could find since 1910 that fit the script. (I do not use pre-1910 as the 2PP concept does not make sense with three main parties.) Here they all are:</p><p>Prev - previous election 2PP</p><p>GB Swing - swing at by-election</p><p>B/E - the 2PP of the by-election</p><p>Next - the 2PP for the government at the next election</p><p>BN Swing - swing from the by-election to the next election</p><p>GN Swing - swing between the two elections surrounding the by-election (adjusted for redistribution where required)</p><p>Nat Swing - the national 2PP swing at the next election</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi1jqCMPT_wWV_RAE-B06G7ciBgTRgZdWVhLE4BMVQi_uBzwHCyMR8FhaLWPFOkjR109uMrr9VNYi8-OMBxvzV0Sj7_BWxiWK0bXayoYF2Q5EhROWHsDujU-i-MbcbhQMsAxinb4FpMxrn6KJBYXSxi9pa0lsBrgA-7yuXViKIaYwDCXpFQL9yaSr5B4OkU" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="409" data-original-width="960" height="272" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi1jqCMPT_wWV_RAE-B06G7ciBgTRgZdWVhLE4BMVQi_uBzwHCyMR8FhaLWPFOkjR109uMrr9VNYi8-OMBxvzV0Sj7_BWxiWK0bXayoYF2Q5EhROWHsDujU-i-MbcbhQMsAxinb4FpMxrn6KJBYXSxi9pa0lsBrgA-7yuXViKIaYwDCXpFQL9yaSr5B4OkU=w640-h272" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>Overall, I found 13 by-elections since 1910 where the 2PP margin has moved from outside the marginal zone (56+ 2PP) into the marginal zone (50-56) without the seat falling. Asterisks are noted for Bennelong (recontesting incumbent), Grampians (incumbent defected to the proto-Country/Nationals Victorian Farmers Union between the by-election and the next election) and I'll come to Swan in a moment.<p></p><p>In every case except Swan and Grampians the government retained the seat at the next general election. In nine cases the seat went back outside the marginal zone. In all cases but four, the next election was less close than the by-election. </p><p>In every case bar the irregular Grampians example there was a swing against the government from the election before the by-election to the election after. However of the average 4.7% swing, about half (2.4%) was captured by the national uniform 2PP swing. So on average non-marginals with a marginal by-election result were deflated by a further 2.3%. This can be attributed partly to the loss of the sitting member's full personal vote (replaced with a part-term vote for a new sitting member), and probably also partly to such by-elections having tended to have slightly larger than average swings for a government vacancy in the first place (7.1%), but there may be something here beyond those two things. If there is, it is doubtful it applies to Dunkley where the by-election swing has been much lower. </p><p>(Incidentally here we see another issue with the Liberals' claims about what would happen if the swing was repeated at the federal election. By-election swings generally <i>aren't</i> repeated. The average swing against governments at government vacancy by-elections is about 6%, but the average 2PP swing against governments at elections is 2.3%).</p><p>Now to Swan 1940 - the only federal case since 1910 where a seat that moved into the marginal range fell at the next election! In this case there was a mid-term change of government on the floor of the House and so while the seat was retained by the UAP government at the by-election, by the time of the next election they were no longer the government. The national swing was such that by uniform swing the seat would have fallen anyway, and the new Prime Minister being Western Australian could well have been the icing on the cake. So, the exception that proves the rule.</p><p>Overall, there is no evidence that Oppositions that make seats marginal tend to make those seats competitive at the next general election - usually, in fact, the margin increases from the by-election. There is no case where such a seat fell when it would not have fallen anyway. </p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">What about seats that become more "marginal"?</span></b></p><p>Dunkley (6.3%) is closer to marginal status than any of the non-marginals I found above and looks set for a closer by-election finish than all bar maybe three of them. So for completeness I thought I'd look at cases where an already marginal seat became more "marginal" at a by-election. These are a rare beast - because the average swing for government vacancy by-elections is around 6%, a by-election called below that level is quite often simply lost, and governments tend to avoid calling them if they possibly can. So I only found six examples, two of them very old.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiKVu3_rDM5-wOLSGC6ecfv1_zXzS17IzmRsHRy11ba75fQU-9TooB-boTzQKle6w6aK_gqSvR_vwNH9RMhi4ElRDU0ggfSB1kg07tEMd5MJKW3MHMj0d-cGOmR2qJxAoeAQ8m1uSCda5XzlpNvZuRTa6hY-_OxsIUd5tDgW1_VQQ_bNUNjvV7eZ5yl8sBF" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="206" data-original-width="960" height="138" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiKVu3_rDM5-wOLSGC6ecfv1_zXzS17IzmRsHRy11ba75fQU-9TooB-boTzQKle6w6aK_gqSvR_vwNH9RMhi4ElRDU0ggfSB1kg07tEMd5MJKW3MHMj0d-cGOmR2qJxAoeAQ8m1uSCda5XzlpNvZuRTa6hY-_OxsIUd5tDgW1_VQQ_bNUNjvV7eZ5yl8sBF=w640-h138" width="640" /></a></div><br />In three of the cases where a government seat became more marginal at a by-election, the government actually lost that seat at the next election. But in the case of Bendigo 1915, the government changed from Labor to Nationalist and the national swing was such that the seat would have been lost anyway if one treats the 2PP swing as even meaningful. In the case of Werriwa 1912, there was an unfavourable redistribution and the new government MP decamped to safer pastures; that seat too would have fallen by uniform swing.<p></p><p>This leaves Flinders (1982) as the one and only case I've found where a government retained in a by-election with a marginal result (whatever the baseline), lost at the next election, but would have just held on by uniform swing. And this was a case with curious resonance with Dunkley. Frankston Mayor Rogan Ward was the Labor candidate but the unsatisfactory 2.3% swing against a reeling government on the retirement of 16-year incumbent Phillip Lynch was considered not good enough, and Ward was replaced for the 1983 election by Bob Chynoweth, who briefly dislodged Peter Reith. And again here in the general election there is a home state effect with Bob Hawke taking over as Prime Minister from Bill Hayden. </p><p><br /></p>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-73902894258726098342024-03-02T17:55:00.047+11:002024-03-07T22:34:04.027+11:00Dunkley By-Election Live<div style="text-align: left;"><b>DUNKLEY (ALP, Vic 6.27%)</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Jodie Belyea (ALP) vs Nathan Conroy (Lib) and others<br />By-election caused by death of Peta Murphy (ALP)</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>CALLED 8:42 pm Labor retain</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">---------------</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Updates appear here, scrolling to the top. When counting is underway refresh every 10-15 mins for new comments. </b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Thursday: </b>Labor is now very close to winning the postal count and the 2PP is now 52.71; it is likely to finish between that number and 53. The Australian published an incorrect article today referring to a 10% drop in turnout; the count does not finish until all postals that can be admitted are received 13 days after polling day. The turnout is currently 83.5% and there should be about 1% or so to come; the turnout decline will be smaller than at least 16 of the last 20 by-elections, potentially 18. Media should not publish turnout doomery articles without consulting with the AEC or someone who has a clue. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Tuesday: </b>With vote totals unlikely to change by even 1% from here it's worth noting an outstanding performance by the uComms seat poll. I've been critical of poor results from this pollster recently (especially Tasmania 2021) but this one is remarkably good by seat poll standards especially. uComms' numbers with undecided redistributed are below with the actual current numbers in brackets:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div><b>ALP 40.1 (41.1)</b></div><div><b>Lib 39.3 (39.3)</b></div><div><b>Grn 8.2 (6.3)</b></div><div><b>LTN 1.6 (2.5)</b></div><div><b>Ind/Other 10.8 (10.8)</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>2PP 52 (52.6)</b></div><div><br /></div><div>n=626.</div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Tuesday: </b>Postals are doing next to nothing now, the 2PP is 52.63 and won't change much from there.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Sunday: </b>There has been a correction in Labor's favour in the Langwarrin booth, taking them up to 52.7. I have <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/03/making-seats-marginal-at-by-elections.html">written an article</a> regarding Liberal claims that making this seat "marginal" is meaningful. History says otherwise. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>10:36 Late night wrap: the loser is ... Advance! </b>The Carrum Downs PPVC just came in leaving Labor on 52.5, which after perhaps 11,000 remaining postals might make it down to 52 though I would suspect not. This is a good night for Labor; they've retained a very loseable seat with a swing below the average swing for government vacancies (which is around 6% since Federation). But for the Coalition it isn't terrible. The biggest losers here are Advance, who spent heavily on Willie Horton tactics to zero visible effect. They thereby proved that credit given to their inane behaviour for the Voice result was spurious; the Yes23 campaign defeated itself. There is a question mark over whether the Liberals have established outer suburbia as a path to victory (if they can't win Dunkley in a by-election, why should they win it in a general?) though the answer may be different outside Victoria. Labor are right that it is great for them that their primary vote is intact; the final preference flows will be of interest as they do appear underwhelming. Overall, this is another one of those by-elections like Fadden where one side should be clearly the happier but we can pretty much go back to sleep. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><span><a name='more'></a></span><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">10:05 Looking at the minors, the Greens result is bad, aside from votes lost to VicSoc and maybe Democrats (though losing votes to a barely living fossil party is inexcusable anyway) I think they've also bled to Animal Justice, Labor and perhaps even Liberals, and partly a result of not announcing a candidate til the last minute perhaps. Animal Justice have done quite well with a 1% swing. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">9:27 For what it's worth the Carrum Downs PPVC hasn't done anything much either.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">8:51 Jane Hume has referred to the fact that no by-election caused by a government death has been lost since 1966. There have only been five in that time until now. Three were on margins above 10%, the others being the famous Aston 2001 by-election on John Howard's road back to victory, and a weird one in McPherson 1981 which had had a huge swing to Labor at the previous election. Sussan Ley has added to the copium with nonsense about first-term by-election average swings - first-term by-elections are usually in opposition seats not government. Also, a seat does not become marginal because of a close by-election. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">8:48 One thing to see here is that the preference flow to Labor is quite weak. This is partly the poor result by the Greens but it will be interesting to see the flows. Their primary vote has held up well. This is a good result for Labor, the remaining suspense is whether it is OK for the Liberals or bad (my cutoff is 53-47). </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">8:42 Called. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">8:40 Dunkley prepoll is in and the swing is not enough there either. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">8:20 The first prepoll has arrived and it is Mt Eliza and there is not enough for the Liberals there. The first lot of postals are also in and the swing there is 5.9% but the swing on early postals is often stronger than on later-received postals. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">8:11 Before this by-election I set 53% to Labor as the threshhold for the Liberal result to be deemed bad. At the moment we're wobbling around that level but have to see what happens later. It isn't looking like the Liberal result will be better than OK at any rate. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">7:56 There continues to be some ebb and flow and we will have to wait for prepolls and postals to be sure Labor has won this, though they remain well ahead for now. Some things are being made of the Greens' indifferent result but they will be dropping some votes to Vic Socialists and Democrats. The idea that Greens are generally bad in by-elections has <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2023/08/do-greens-do-badly-at-by-elections-when.html">not much in it</a>. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">7:45 Brief dinner break - now things have closed up and there are better booths for Liberals appearing, with the Pollbludger projection down to 52. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">7:20 Now nine booths in and only one of them is strong enough for Liberals so far.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">7:16 Another Mt Eliza booth in and the big thing to see here isn't the majors, it's the Greens being clobbered.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">7:12 Seaford North, nothing to see here either, a small primary swing that won't amount to much on 2PP. Overall four out of five booths have been fine for Labor - if things are vaguely close we do need to keep an eye on postals/prepolls to see if they have a different swing. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">7:06<b> </b>Very variable swings so far - Mt Eliza Central in. This was the best Liberal booth in 2022 and they've got nothing here, possibly a swing away after preferences. However this booth could be affected by the prepoll location. I'd be a bit cautious re drawing too much from the Mt Eliza booths yet.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">6:59 The 2PP swing in Mt Eliza North came in at 10% to Liberals, so no evidence of weakened flow for Labor in that one. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">6:56 Two more in, a big swing in Frankston Heights East on primaries (but I think not quite enough on estimated 2PP) but nothing much in Carrum Downs. The idea that Conroy is unpopular in Frankston might be struggling. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">6:47 First booth in, Mt Eliza North. A big swing to the Coalition, 13% on primary and 6% away from Labor, though the right-wing candidates aren't getting a lot. My 2PP estimate is about the same as the ABC's, about 11%. Single booths can be unreliable as we saw in Aston.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">6:45 Tony Barry on ABC has said that scrutineers say the ALP primary is up but the Liberal primary is up substantially - that doesn't really suggest anything out of the ordinary to me if so. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">6:30 No figures as yet. </div><div style="text-align: left;">----------------</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Introduction (5:55 pm)</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Welcome to my live and postcount coverage of the Dunkley by-election, a much anticipated test for how the Albanese government is travelling on its own outer-suburban turf. <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/01/2024-dunkley-by-election.html">My preview post is here</a>; it has had little attention in recent weeks as the Tasmanian election hots up but I have just added a few morsels concerning some of the expectation spin from the major parties. Overall, history suggests that on average chances should be close to evenly balanced here, and a rotten ballot draw for Labor is one dampener on subjective factors in its favour, especially the claimed Victorian Dutton factor.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">In the final week the government has had a wobble in national polling and has dropped 0.9% in my aggregate to <b>51.5-48.5</b>, though 0.4 points out of that is caused by the assumption that Resolve still has a large house effect in Labor's favour. This week's Resolve was very similar to other polls, so based on past history my aggregate treated it as a great poll for the Coalition. There could be a bigger wobble if it loses this one.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">That said, expectations don't suggest it will lose - the major parties are setting boundaries with Labor claiming that a win by 50% plus one vote is a good result while the Coalition claims holding Labor to 53% will be good (I do not agree with the latter, anything over 53 for Labor would in my view be a recognisably bad result for the blue team). It has been notable that in the last weeks the campaign seems to have gone off the track of cost of living to a red-meat attempt on immigration by Advance, which probably wants to strengthen its hand as a player by claiming credit if the result goes the Liberals' way. The Liberals have increasingly bought into this as well.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://antonygreen.com.au/dunkley-by-election-tracking-the-early-vote/">As noted by Antony Green</a>, the Dunkley prepoll turnout has held up very well at almost the same level as 2022, contrary to earlier by-elections. Postals are also holding up well with 21983 issued (typically about 14% will not make it back). The on the day turnout will determine whether the turnout holds up well by by-election standards. As usual there will be people on social media whinging about the turnout but the final turnout is not known for about two weeks, and turnout should be a complete non-issue in this result.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">There are two major prepolls Carrum Downs 12957 votes taken and Frankston 12468 taken (both similar to 2022) and a more interesting moderate sized one Mt Eliza with 4503 taken. Mt Eliza replaces the Mornington prepoll which was outside the electorate. It is in a very Liberal voting area and could be a very strongly Liberal prepoll booth - something to keep an eye out for tonight as a Liberal margin of over 1000 votes could occur in this prepoll if the race is at all close. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">A notable change in the field is the absence of UAP and One Nation - this should boost the Coalition primary and possibly also the primaries of Darren Bergwerf (IND) and the Libertarians. However I expect this to be counterbalanced by a weaker preference flow from the more left-leaning field of minor candidates. It will be an interesting test of Green preference flows given some of the recent respondent-preference polling. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-19495590760002401772024-03-01T12:33:00.008+11:002024-03-03T17:19:20.022+11:00Mystery Poll: Why Are We Still Playing This Game?<p>(This is part of my 2024 Tasmanian election coverage. For main page with links to all other pages <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide.html">go here</a>.)</p><p>Today's Mercury carried a front-page report of a "phone poll" of Tasmania with a massive sample size of 4000 voters. Unfortunately the newspaper report did not state who the poll was done by or for, making it impossible to immediately assess how useful it was. I have been told (officially unconfirmed) that it is for the Tasmanian Hospitality Association and do not yet know the pollster, though the large sample size is most often seen with automated polls like uComms. (I should also add that Community Engagement was reported in the field by some people early in the campaign, but the issues questions I was told about were different.)</p><p>Anyway, at the risk of sounding like a broken record or even more like a polling analyst with severe frustration management issues, it should be required by law for all media reports of polling to state the pollster and the commissioning source. (Or if not known, all details should be published as this often makes the poll easy to identify). Media frequently express frustration with governments that are not being transparent. They must lead the way by reporting basic polling details better and refusing to allow sources to supply polls on the condition that the pollster should not be named. This is especially so when they run Your Right To Know campaigns. As for sources who try to prevent media from publishing the details of polls they supply, <i>those</i> should be classified as "juvenile career criminals". </p><p>For what it's worth, this looks like neutral polling by someone who actually wants to know the answer, and not a loaded poll released for political purposes. That doesn't mean it's necessarily good in quality terms, but it's worth checking out especially if we get clearer details.</p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p><br /></p><p>What we have so far is:</p><p><b>- sample size 4000, conducted in first week of campaign</b></p><p><b>- Bass Lib 37 ALP 28 Green 13 JLN 15</b></p><p><b>- Braddon Lib 45 ALP 26 Green 5 JLN 15 </b></p><p><b>- Clark Lib 26 ALP 24 IND 25 Green 16</b></p><p><b>- Franklin Lib 33 ALP 24 Green 20 JLN 8 IND 8</b></p><p><b>- Lyons Lib 34 ALP 35 Green 12 JLN 8 IND 10</b></p><p>These results respectively sum to 93, 91, 91, 93 and 99. In the case of Bass and Braddon I would assume that there is an IND option or an IND and an IND/other option that has not been included, but that does not explain what has happened with Clark and Franklin and why they are significantly short of 100 while Lyons (where there is likely to be more Shooters support) is not. A common issue with some polls is whether undecided voters are included in the primary vote numbers or not.</p><p>A few things are notable here: the JLN vote is higher in this poll in Bass than Lyons, contrary to the federal pattern and the (albeit very small) EMRS subsample. The Independent vote in Franklin is very low. The Labor vote in Lyons is surprisingly high - there are some comments about suggesting Labor could do well in Lyons and win three seats there, but a lot of those I hear are based around White's leadership. She was also leader in 2018 and 2021 so she's already in the baseline. (I understand the 35 is not an error.)</p><p>Anyway taking what we have on face value:</p><p>* Bass would be 3 Liberal 2 Labor 1 Green 1 JLN</p><p>* Braddon would be probably 4 Liberal 2 Labor 1 JLN or perhaps 3-2-1 and an independent (but the latter would need a large share of what is left, which is unlikely)</p><p>* Clark would be 2 Labor 2 Liberal 1 Green 2 Independent. On those numbers even if the second independent, say Hickey was on 6% because of a scattered independent vote, she would still win. </p><p>* Franklin would be 3 Liberal 2 Labor 1 Green with the final seat between the second Green, JLN and presumably David O'Byrne - there is a scenario here where whichever of JLN or the leading independent goes out first could help the other pass the Greens on preferences.</p><p>* Lyons would probably be 3 Liberal 3 Labor 1 Green as the Independent vote would not be all Tucker and he would probably be too far behind (and ditto JLN).</p><p>So my estimate on what we have of this poll 15 Liberal, 11 Labor, 4 Green, 2 JLN, 2 IND and a mess for the last in Franklin. <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/emrs-liberals-have-big-lead-but-still.html">A broadly similar picture to EMRS.</a> </p><p>It should be noted that polling from the first week of the campaign predates many of the notable Independent announcements, which are likely to have affected voting intention in some areas. </p><p>More comments if I get more details on this poll. </p>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-43772359333350717132024-02-28T12:35:00.018+11:002024-03-03T17:19:47.365+11:00EMRS: Liberals Have Big Lead But Still Well Short Of 50<div style="text-align: left;">This article is part of my 2024 Tasmanian state election coverage - <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide.html">link to main article page</a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>EMRS Liberal 39 Labor 26 (-3) Greens 12 JLN 9 IND 14 others 1 <br /></b><b>Liberals would clearly be largest party</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Seat estimate if poll is correct Lib 15-16 ALP 10 Grn 2-3 </b><b> JLN 2-3 </b><b>IND 3-5</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Just one poll - there will be others!</b></div><p><b>Advance Comments</b></p><p>A quarterly poll by Tasmania's most experienced state pollster EMRS, which has a rather good track record, has just dropped. It shows a complex scenario that is also, if correct, a sorry one for Labor. This poll will have the Liberals happy in that it has them as the only party within reach of a majority while Labor are bleeding votes to independents and JLN. It follows a <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/01/lambiemania-what-should-we-make-of.html">YouGov poll </a>that differed mainly in having the Liberals in the low 30s and a much higher Lambie vote. The poll suggests that <i>if</i> there is a hung parliament, it will be one where Labor will only be able to govern deeply in minority with multiple partners, while the Liberals may have simpler paths to government if anyone will help them. </p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p><br /></p><p>Often I can eyeball a statewide EMRS poll and have an immediately good idea of the rough seat breakdown, but this one is particularly complex because the "Independent" vote needs to be assigned subjectively pending more detailed data (which may be coming in a few days). The poll was taken from 15-21 Feb so the last week of campaigning is not included. </p><p>This is only one poll and others' mileage may vary but it continues the term-long trend of Labor being unable to break through the 30% mark, and suggests state Labor could be suffering from "federal drag" (the impact of being in government federally on a state election). This is Labor's worst primary vote since polling the same in December 2021 while Peter Gutwein was still Premier and prior to the reopening of the state's borders. Prior to the 2020-2021 COVID moat phase, they were last polling this badly in November 2015. </p><p>The point of the title of this piece isn't that the Government needs 50% to win outright (they didn't get that last time) but that they probably need to be close to that mark. Jim Bacon won outright in 1998 with 44.8% but would not have done so in the 35-seat system. This year 45% might be enough if the Government can get there, but 39 most likely isn't.</p><p><b>Subjective seat model</b></p><p>I have done a model that attempts to translate what this poll would mean if these numbers, or the nearest reasonable numbers, happened at an election. This is based on a uniform swing model initially to which I have made various tweaks:</p><p>* setting the Others vote at about 3% because Shooters, Animal Justice and the Local Network political party must be good for more than 1% between them (difference deducted from Independent)</p><p>* using the Senate as a basis for JLN (edit: model has been adjusted slightly as JLN were not on the readout in Clark)</p><p>* adjusting Bass and Braddon for the Liberals by 2% each way for the change of Premier. </p><p>* adjusting Labor up in Clark for a less chaotic campaign and the addition of Josh Willie, and Liberals down for loss of Elise Archer and perhaps some vote bleed to Louise Elliot</p><p>* minor campaign based adjustments of the Greens based on candidate factors or disputes (Bass down, Clark down, Lyons up)</p><p>* a bunch of guesstimates of Independent votes based on who is running and my best guess of what they might get, and the YouGov poll (although its samples were tiny)</p><p>* put all the pieces in the box and bash them with a hammer til the lid shuts (crude manual equivalent of reweighting)</p><p>This is what came out as a possible estimate. I have the most doubts about Franklin (size of O'Byrne vote), Braddon (one IND needs to get the bulk of the IND vote to win, which means Garland does well and Freshney gets not much or vice versa) but really everything is very rubbery here. The overall point is that what goes up must come down; if my estimates have a party too low somewhere it will probably be too high somewhere else and the number of seats won will be about the same. For instance will JLN and independents really eat into the Liberal vote enough in Braddon that they have a lower primary there than Bass? It seems unlikely but that's what I got.</p><p>Overall it's really more about the indicative totals than the specific breakdowns. I will refine this very rough model if EMRS releases sufficiently fine scale electorate detail. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjtW6rFEnwPxR9YHAwltoj4Xf4Dls0vnlh8S_L_q09M8wIPUO-TLDK6-kBc_ZKPEeEHcXkIAstAuYguWwDSR3wjxfUF_KWswnv1ca2fg5IjVkor63G90B8pofBVRkjc-VbIZYz6PM_N3S0jp3_WTBKbg2vCqG8mtYSCA_mi0v3H7KQhn376P9CuJ8V8-DDG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="707" data-original-width="708" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjtW6rFEnwPxR9YHAwltoj4Xf4Dls0vnlh8S_L_q09M8wIPUO-TLDK6-kBc_ZKPEeEHcXkIAstAuYguWwDSR3wjxfUF_KWswnv1ca2fg5IjVkor63G90B8pofBVRkjc-VbIZYz6PM_N3S0jp3_WTBKbg2vCqG8mtYSCA_mi0v3H7KQhn376P9CuJ8V8-DDG=w640-h640" width="640" /></a></div><br /><br /></div><br /></div>My indicative breakdowns <b>if this poll is accurate</b> then are:<p></p><p><b>Liberal 15-16</b></p><p><b>Labor 10</b></p><p><b>Green 2-3</b></p><p><b>JLN 2-3</b></p><p><b>IND 3-5<br /></b></p><p><b>others 0</b></p><p>If my breakdown is a little bit off Labor could get an 11th seat in Lyons, but not realistically more. Likewise the breakdown would not have to be that far out for the Greens to get four. </p><p>So this poll as suspected would leave Labor only able to govern via a rainbow alliance that would have to include the Greens and that would need to throw the Liberals out on the floor of the parliament because the Liberals would surely request to meet the Parliament in such a case. It's more likely on these numbers that even if Labor entertained this prospect, there would be some crossbenchers willing to support a Liberal minority government because it involved fewer moving pieces and they could get more bang for their support. That said, if the past few years have shown us anything about the likely crossbench, it is that we should not underestimate the Liberals' ability to drive away those they'll need to work with. </p><p>Again, this is just one poll, albeit from a pollster with a good track record that has frequently shown it can get within a few points even when its poll is not the freshest come election day. Voting intention can change fast here (this especially applies to JLN who crashed as time went on in the 2018 campaign, but also to the major party balance.)</p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Leaderships</span></b></p><p>It is again surprising that Rebecca White continues to poll so well on Better Premier (now trailing only 38-41) when that indicator normally favours incumbents. A lot of her support as Better Premier, however, will be coming from Greens voters, many of whose votes will not flow back to Labor even if the Greens are excluded in certain seats, because of semi-optional preferencing. </p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">EMRS Breakdowns</span></b></p><p>EMRS have also issued electorate by electorate breakdowns (bear in mind these are based on very small samples of around 200 per division). The most surprising aspect of this sample is the Green vote is higher in Bass than anyone else; no sane person should believe this (small samples are very volatile). This is what I get as the seat breakdown off EMRS's samples:</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiwK0swKtGDe7OgaQ2mTmC30buAq03qB7DuDQaCyqRbptbA8HyAajP29lbeCLzdZwrKL-rSWmsaYRjlbPY1JTtowkmwqN7jCmtXHci8LOIaoPzudrXREAk930iSxaMtxmocsBQef6wCTxuOZ4OnCGOn3zxttWvzSpg0XIcJLcx0ezuEAkd_t9348PWQ7EgI" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="710" data-original-width="609" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiwK0swKtGDe7OgaQ2mTmC30buAq03qB7DuDQaCyqRbptbA8HyAajP29lbeCLzdZwrKL-rSWmsaYRjlbPY1JTtowkmwqN7jCmtXHci8LOIaoPzudrXREAk930iSxaMtxmocsBQef6wCTxuOZ4OnCGOn3zxttWvzSpg0XIcJLcx0ezuEAkd_t9348PWQ7EgI=w549-h640" width="549" /></a></div><br /> Later I may attempt an aggregate using the previous EMRS samples as well (this gets a bit tricky with assigning JLN). For now I get 15-16 Liberal, 9-10 ALP, 4 Green, 2-3 JLN, 2-4 IND. <div><br /></div><div>And another one ...</div><div><br /></div><div>This is a model based off the last three EMRS poll breakdowns scaled to the current poll, but I have set Others uniformly at 3 (possibly too high in the case of Franklin which has no Shooters candidates). This creates some rough edges in the case of JLN but it comes out something like this:</div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhOWFzyIM5GlVOgO15aGtiOMAM6FHn3QGfbtsXL_sWgXCO3Zz15yUGHPSrlfHzs6RLDxPhB9uUGK8Ijmm7oGttvrMdya6fdj0S0-hDtgpmvMmEx5IU5Q5WuuVjpLLBTJDn26qOHH6HfxyKhEKurQIsxuunOWJYZkJOljsmwxtCeuhvWTY782-g_VgfIc8if" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="710" data-original-width="609" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhOWFzyIM5GlVOgO15aGtiOMAM6FHn3QGfbtsXL_sWgXCO3Zz15yUGHPSrlfHzs6RLDxPhB9uUGK8Ijmm7oGttvrMdya6fdj0S0-hDtgpmvMmEx5IU5Q5WuuVjpLLBTJDn26qOHH6HfxyKhEKurQIsxuunOWJYZkJOljsmwxtCeuhvWTY782-g_VgfIc8if=w549-h640" width="549" /></a></div><br /> 14-16 Liberal, 10 ALP, 3-4 Green, 2-3 JLN and 2-6 independents. <p></p></div>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-9087950118398231002024-02-25T08:05:00.022+11:002024-03-03T17:20:03.132+11:00Liberal Agrees Tasmanians Are Ostriches<div><i><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><i style="text-align: left;">(This is a special article for my Tasmania 2024 election coverage; <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide.html">click here for link to main page</a> with links to other articles)</i></div></i></div><div><br /></div><div>--</div><div><br />It's been widely expected that when Tasmania's supposed AFL team name is unveiled days out from the election (hmmm) the name will be the Devils, Warner Bros' outrageous trademark nonsense based on their cartoons about <i>our</i> animal notwithstanding. Just in case "Devils" isn't available, I've been scratching my head for an alternative, and I've found one. We can follow the lead of Liberal Bass candidate Julie Sladden and we can call our team the <b>Tassie Ostriches</b>! Here is a jumper mockup.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjCiVGORNngQzcq__FlddYa8jQIRD-CAxQpRdmxfnU4wrcfTWmZPjYNtL87V0vdrS4F4ypcIW0jQbhCCJYm8lbbNloMpdrjBlzgkI1El3R1lTKzZPE4LFKf8LBFfD6h2la_mbkz7CnRO2xjDLx5TNKmgi-zCSOKejzc2pdfqN90pK3WTj-5gdjWDLBRTj4k" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="365" data-original-width="301" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjCiVGORNngQzcq__FlddYa8jQIRD-CAxQpRdmxfnU4wrcfTWmZPjYNtL87V0vdrS4F4ypcIW0jQbhCCJYm8lbbNloMpdrjBlzgkI1El3R1lTKzZPE4LFKf8LBFfD6h2la_mbkz7CnRO2xjDLx5TNKmgi-zCSOKejzc2pdfqN90pK3WTj-5gdjWDLBRTj4k" width="198" /></a></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><span><a name='more'></a></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Background</span></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div>I have been commenting on Twitter, and in <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide-bass.html">my Bass guide</a> as the Premier continues to defend a candidate who:</div><div><br /></div><div>* <a href="https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2022/09/30/my-government-turned-me-into-an-anti-vaxxer/">believes</a> that our COVID response, vaccines clearly included, was "not healthcare", was "not saving lives" and "never was". </div><div><br /></div><div>* believes (same article) that COVID vaccines are too dangerous and do not work, but <a href="https://www.scienceandfreedom.org/articles/all-of-a-sudden-ivermectin-is-safe-again/">also that </a> Ivermectin does. ("They can't all be wrong")</div><div><br /></div><div>*has <a href="https://www.examiner.com.au/story/7763011/tasmanian-public-health-act-gives-too-much-control-to-one-bureaucrat/">said</a> Tasmania's pandemic response was an "autocracy" and that when Premier Gutwein won the last election with a huge personal vote, he wasn't actually "in charge". </div><div><br /></div><div>* has been working, this year, for Russell Broadbent, who believes much of the same and has defected from the Liberals to the crossbench. </div><div><br /></div><div>* on Twitter follows Cory Bernardi, David Limbrick, Louise Elliot and the <a href="https://twitter.com/kevinbonham/status/1760514828928770085">dunce of the Senate Ralph Babet</a> but no individual Liberal MPs. I will cut her some slack here for such follows perhaps being for professional reasons, but even so ...</div><div><br /></div><div>* has in recent months, apparently approvingly, liked tweets (not all on COVID issues) not by mainstream Liberals but by Malcolm Roberts (PHON), Julian Fidge (Libertarian), Topher Field (Libertarian), Elliot (ex-Lib), Broadbent (Lib defector), Antic (Lib), Rennick (LNP disendorsed), Hanson (PHON), Deeming (Ind Lib) and Craig Kelly (UAP) and has even liked a tweet by The Real Rukshan cheering Tucker Carlson's suck-up interview of Putin. </div><div><br /></div><div>* in no way other than Liberal endorsement appears to me to resemble a remotely mainstream Liberal and who in general (including views on other social issues) seems a much better fit for UAP, Libertarians, One Nation, Aus Christians or "freedom parties", none of those being registered in Tassie. (This said, her local Council Facebook page seems positive and harmless, and I've seen no reason to doubt that she's a good Councillor). </div><div><br /></div><div>* is so much a part of the right-wing alternative media culture-war sphere as a writer and show guest that she has been twice interviewed on the same episode of a radio show as Simeon Boikov (whose other views I am not saying she shares, but this shows the sort of audience that she is reaching)</div><div><br /></div><div>* is involved (at least as a writer for its website) with the <a href="https://canberradeclaration.org.au/join-us/read-declaration/">Canberra Declaration</a> movement which proposes ripping up all anti-discrimination and similar laws that limit "religious freedom and freedom of speech", which casts vague but obvious aspersions against same-sex marriage and which flatly opposes abortion from conception. (She is also a former member of Australian Christians). </div><div><br /></div><div>This candidate's selection has been <a href="https://www.ama.com.au/articles/liberal-partys-anti-vaccine-doctor-selection-misstep">condemned by the AMA Tasmania</a> and still Jeremy Rockliff will not budge!</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">So what's this about ostriches?</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>On Friday night I came across an October 23 episode of <a href="https://rumble.com/v3r3avm-tonight-we-are-joined-by-dr-julie-sladden..html">"freedom movement" video Cafe Locked Out</a>, featuring Dr Sladden, the host Michael Gray Griffith, and Dr Paul Oosterhuis (an anaesthetist of similar views who was suspended in September 2021 over social media posts, was reinstated by the NSW Supreme Court in May 2022, but has now retired from the field.) </div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgfhBRkpFdhZbml-nGoINNN12_0RenXe74ko-wQ8K-oZLld3S8OQRpfIS71p3PTez8hQwtXfHDKywp9JD4R8p0VDN4msHUF7oVtBj6ftrHrwHrAFyRDonCPMD4zkP46JxLdvznqmxCvhvup0re2TNZTECDsUuy99r4pJM4c_-b3d142jC3RzN4QhQCe09ob" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1315" data-original-width="1888" height="446" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgfhBRkpFdhZbml-nGoINNN12_0RenXe74ko-wQ8K-oZLld3S8OQRpfIS71p3PTez8hQwtXfHDKywp9JD4R8p0VDN4msHUF7oVtBj6ftrHrwHrAFyRDonCPMD4zkP46JxLdvznqmxCvhvup0re2TNZTECDsUuy99r4pJM4c_-b3d142jC3RzN4QhQCe09ob=w640-h446" width="640" /></a></div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>I have been cautious about using the term "cooker" to refer to people who object to COVID vaccines, mandates and lockdowns, as the term can carry overtones of class snobbery, especially when used too indiscriminately. But parts of this video are <i>gloriously</i> cooked, and if you haven't sampled the freedom movement before, you may find dipping in it eye-opening. This fringe even has its own songs, and they make Christian rock appear subtle and good. The video's awash with self-congratulations about how the freedom movement is on the path to victory (though there's a brief debate which this philosophy grad found amusing as to whether "God" has made this certain (Sladden) or would that would be an affront to "free will" (Griffith)). Griffith and Sladden reverently praise "Forests of the Fallen", a creepy form of <a href="https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/unauthorised-forrest-of-the-fallen-display-in-murray-bridge-removed-ahead-of-anzac-day/news-story/de23bf0c4b7a08d100d3cc5200859ecf">often unauthorised</a> protest installation where photos and stories of claimed COVID vaccine victims culled from the internet are posted on stakes in a park. </div><div><br /></div><div>But it's the Tasmania-related comments that are of most interest here. At 13:00 Sladden calls Tasmania's mandates response, as overseen by the government she is seeking to join, "quite draconian". At 26:40 Griffith asks Sladden how she managed to remain sane during the lockdowns, and said that he travelled to Tasmania and <b>"Tassie, no offence, was basically a community of ostriches, </b>I was driving down there, everyone's got their head in the sand, I just saw feather-dancers everywhere I went" (and then goes on to praise exceptions, including the illegal ones). Through all this Sladden laughs along, and nods her head, says "Yep". </div><div><br /></div><div>Sladden says <i>"I've always said, there's a special kind of person that lives down in Tasmania you know [..] you've got to want to be prepared to be about five years, 5-10 years behind the times," </i></div><div><br /></div><div>She goes on to talk about and praise anti-lockdown communities and rallies in Tasmania, dismissing Hobart as a "mini-Canberra" while referring to pockets elsewhere where people were "very awake". She refers to rallies in Launceston of "several thousand" (one thousand, at best, in the videos I've found so far). She describes most Tasmanian newspapers as "pretty closed" and at 30:50 returns to the ostrich theme:</div><div><br /></div><div>"<i>But yes, Tasmania's pretty special like that, we've pretty much got our heads in the sand, we like to get on with our own lives and not be too upset with what's sort of happening in the rest of the world"</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>She then goes on about how insular Tasmanians are and were even <u>before COVID</u>:</div><div><br /></div><div><i>"people, they just wanted to be safe in their island and, you know, just be able to get on with their lives and I think I didn't realise how entrenched that was until COVID arrived. Basically I've spent the last few years trying to wake people up"</i></div><div><br /></div><div>The cultishness of this aside, it's an insulting view of Tasmanians as people who don't want to know about the rest of the world, and it's extremely disrespectful of other views - if you don't agree with her on COVID, it can only be because you are asleep. The "sleepers" would include most of her fellow Liberal candidates.</div><div><br /></div><div>Need I spell out the problems with running even the nicest of "freedom movement" candidates as a potential member of a Liberal Government? One, MPs who turn up in the right-wing culture war sphere are a known flight or expulsion risk, witness Bernardi, Broadbent, Craig Kelly, Elliot, Bernie Finn for starters. Running such a candidate while claiming to be able to restore stable government, after having a government become unworkable over defections, is just Groundhog Day without the happy ending. Two, as the most medically qualified MP in a government with constant reshuffles and resignations in this term, Sladden could in theory end up as Health Minister. In fairness, the odds on the double of her winning and them winning is probably pretty long but we have seen from Lara Alexander that any major party candidate, however badly they poll, can get elected on a recount, so who knows. </div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">They Don't Do That</span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEisNO7aL0i_44u8KMFW7J-gMDFFqV89JEe7B61UM0D2JNrKf35iuFAdXhqQIkbTbGc7pFJNexdc9yZ3RwHjyML3r4ykxh5qFutn3dRdDS8A2bzyy0UfEI8IgIyVte_Wn_4xBRR931t7mhLWaHJ-RrTjRbeZLewQHr9OFB5Xe1MPLZ_dqTPeaM6xd7FZ0X_-" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="799" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEisNO7aL0i_44u8KMFW7J-gMDFFqV89JEe7B61UM0D2JNrKf35iuFAdXhqQIkbTbGc7pFJNexdc9yZ3RwHjyML3r4ykxh5qFutn3dRdDS8A2bzyy0UfEI8IgIyVte_Wn_4xBRR931t7mhLWaHJ-RrTjRbeZLewQHr9OFB5Xe1MPLZ_dqTPeaM6xd7FZ0X_-=w400-h266" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>People say we do WHAT?</b> (<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/blieusong/7234085108"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">credit</span></a>)</td></tr></tbody></table></span></b></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Now, <b>ostriches. </b> In defence of these fine birds I would like to point out that they do not in fact bury their heads in the sand and suffocate themselves in futile attempts to hide from danger. Only Premiers who are defending lousy preselections do that. An ostrich standing with its head near the ground could be feeding (with its head not visible from a distance), turning eggs, observing its environment or ingesting grit or pebbles for food-grinding. An ostrich lying on the ground may be hiding from a predator by pretending to be something else but its head does not go underground. </div><div><br /></div><div>The most common response from an ostrich to danger it can't dispose of is to run away as fast as I'll be running from the Liberals on my ballot paper if this candidate is still endorsed at close of nominations.</div></div>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-66839435347619558612024-02-17T00:22:00.052+11:002024-03-12T18:58:51.525+11:002024 Tasmanian State Election Guide: Lyons<p>This is the Lyons electorate guide for the 2021 Tasmanian State Election. (<a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide.html">Link to main 2024 election preview page, including links to other electorates.</a>) If you find these guides useful, <b>donations are very welcome </b>(see sidebar), but please only donate in these difficult times if you can afford to do so. Note: if using a mobile you may need to use the view web version option at the bottom of the page to see the sidebar. </p><b>Lyons (Currently 2 Liberal 2 Labor 1 IND). </b><div><b>(2021 Election Result 3 Liberal 2 Labor)<br /></b><div><div>Most of the state</div><div>Rural, outer suburban and forested. </div><div>Lots of tiny dispersed towns that take many years for an MP to work</div></div><b><span></span><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b><b><span style="font-size: large;">Candidates (36)</span></b><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b><div><i style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">Note to candidates: </i><i>As the number of candidates becomes large, continually changing link and bio details could consume a lot of my time. It's up to you to get your act together and have your candidacy advertised on a good website that I can find easily well ahead of the election. On emailed or Twitter request I may make one free website link change per candidate at my discretion; fees will be charged beyond that. Bio descriptions and other text will not be changed on request except to remove any material that is indisputably false. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Where a link is available, a candidate's name is used as a hyperlink. Emails from candidates who do not understand this will be ignored. </i></div><br /><div><div><b>The ballot order for Lyons is Greens, Labor, JLN, Tucker, Shooters, Liberal, AJP, Offord, ungrouped. Candidates within each column are rotated where there is more than one candidate.</b></div></div><div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Liberal</u></b></div><div><a href="https://www.guybarnett.com.au/"><b>Guy Barnett</b></a>, incumbent, Attorney-General, Justice, Health, Veterans Affairs, former Senator</div><div><b><a href="https://www.tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/mark-shelton">Mark Shelton</a></b>, incumbent, Speaker, former minister Police, Local Govt etc, former Meander Valley mayor</div><div><b><a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/jane-howlett">Jane Howlett</a></b>, incumbent first-term MLC for Prosser, former Sports, Small Business etc minister, 2018 candidate</div><div><b><a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/gregory-brown">Gregory Brown</a></b>, recent candidate for Pembroke and Rumney, farmer, former bartender/licensee</div><div><b><a href="https://www.tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/stephanie-cameron">Stephanie Cameron</a>,</b> Deputy Mayor Meander Valley, farmer, deputy president of party</div><div><a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/justin-derksen"><b>Justin Derksen</b></a>, advisor to Guy Barnett, background in building, Derwent Valley Councillor, 2021 candidate</div><div><a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/richard-hallett"><b>Richard Hallett</b></a>, prominent Hollow Tree farmer, chair Southern Highlands Irrigation Scheme committee. </div><div><br /></div><div><i>A grant to a distillery headed by Justin Derksen's brother Tarrant Derksen has been a public controversy during this term. </i></div><div><i>(Meander Valley Mayor Wayne Johnston was announced as a candidate before the election was closed but withdrew)</i></div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Labor</u></b></div><div><b><a href="https://taslabor.com/people/rebecca-white/">Rebecca White</a></b>, incumbent, Labor leader since 2017 except for a few months in 2021</div><div><b><a href="https://taslabor.com/people/jen-butler/">Jen Butler</a></b>, incumbent, Shadow Minister Veterans, Building, Consumer Affairs etc</div><div><b><a href="https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100066400575622">Edwin Batt</a></b>, Mayor of Southern Midlands, 2021 candidate, farmer</div><div><div><b><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/ben-dudman/">Ben Dudman</a></b>, Meander Valley Councillor, electorate officer for Brian Mitchell, </div><div><b><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/casey-farrell/">Casey Farrell</a>, </b>CEO Enterprize Tasmania (business startups firm), also Neon Jungle (design/technology)</div><div><b><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/richard-goss">Richard Goss</a>, </b>"high school teacher with a mechanical and construction trade background", Northern Midlands councillor</div><div><u style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/carole-mcqueeney/">Carole McQueeney</a>, </u>Glamorgan-Spring Bay Councillor, registered nurse, company director, teacher etc (five degrees!)</div></div><div><br /></div><div><i>(Derwent Valley Mayor Michelle Dracoulis was announced as a candidate before the election was called but withdrew)</i></div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Greens </u></b></div><div><b><a href="https://greens.org.au/tas/person/tabatha-badger">Tabatha Badger</a>, </b>past Wilderness Society convenor, Lake Pedder restoration campaigner<b>, </b>former minor Senate candidate</div><div><div><b><a href="https://greens.org.au/tas/person/2024-state-election-candidates-list">Alistair Allan</a></b>, Antarctic and Marine Campaigner, Bob Brown Foundation</div><div><b>Mitch Houghton, </b>2021 Bass candidate when noted here as<b> </b>horticulture business owner/operator</div><div><b>Hannah Rubenach-Quinn, </b>former Break O'Day councillor, chaplain, disability support worker, 2014 state and 2016 federal candidate</div><div><b><a href="https://greens.org.au/tas/person/2024-state-election-candidates-list">Craig Brown</a>, </b>retired GP</div><div><b>Glenn Millar, </b>Landcare group president and tour guide, also ran 2014-21</div><div><b>Gary Whisson, </b>ecologist, 2018 state and 2019 federal candidate</div></div><div><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div><b><u>Independents</u></b></div><div><b><a href="https://www.facebook.com/JohnTuckerMPLyons/">John Tucker</a></b>, incumbent, defected from Liberals May 2023, farmer, former councillor</div><div><b><a href="https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61556019167652">Angela Offord</a>, </b>Launceston vet, has been involved with Voices for Tasmania</div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Jacqui Lambie Network</u></b></div><div><b><a href="https://lambienetwork.com.au/pages/andrewjenner">Andrew Jenner</a></b>, former UK Tory mayor and magistrate (see below), self-employed in catering/leisure, 6th dan judo black belt </div><div><a href="https://lambienetwork.com.au/pages/troypfitzner"><b>Troy Pfitzner</b>,</a> removalist (Little Green Truck), 2022 Lyons candidate for JLN</div><div><b><a href="https://lambienetwork.com.au/pages/lesleypyecroft">Lesley Pyecroft</a>,</b> Army veteran, registered nurse (schools and LGH)</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Jenner's occupation is listed as "Retired Magistrate" but the term "magistrate" in the UK has a different meaning to Australia. A <a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/magistrates/#:~:text=Who%20are%20they%3F,of%20cases%20in%20our%20courts.">UK magistrate</a> is a voluntary position that does not require a law degree. </i></div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Shooters, Fishers and Farmers</u></b></div><div><b><a href="https://www.facebook.com/Carlo-Di-Falco-SFFP-Tas-Candidate-109629477106050/">Carlo di Falco</a> (lead) </b>target shooter, hunter, gun collector, frequent Shooters candidate</div><div><div><b><a href="https://www.facebook.com/PBiggSFF">Philip Bigg</a>, </b>hunter, tradesman, state party secretary, best beard of the election contender</div><div><b><a href="https://www.facebook.com/shootersandfisherspartytasmania/posts/pfbid02YQbwXMprCyGHZCpcDr6oDmEgkG3JLEFnLS9kbaNrCL8oZnnxSNiYxtTWKtSauBkal">Shane Broadby</a></b> trout fisherman and instructor, Nyrstar plant operator, 2018 candidate</div><div><b><a href="https://www.facebook.com/shootersandfisherspartytasmania/posts/pfbid02ekCp3YGF6jt7Mc7R3ARgaSrc5sisGL2YQ37sdfDGCaYtnfa3SZT2QCHBuHEbG11zl">Wayne Turale</a> </b>has been a: policeman, store owner, Rural Health co-ordinator, statewide outreach manager, fly fisherman etc, 2018 candidate</div><div><b><a href="https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100078855546911">Ray Williams</a> </b>owns New Norfolk Mitre 10 and Williams Outdoors, former candidate for Libs (2002), SFF and Citizens Electoral Council</div></div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Animal Justice Party</u></b></div><div><b><a href="https://tas.animaljusticeparty.org/anna_gralton_for_lyons">Anna Gralton</a> </b>2022 Lyons candidate, customer care specialist, sociologist (PhD), gave me some entertainment compiling guide with description of husband as a "rescued animal"</div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Ungrouped Independents</u></b></div><div><b><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/jennifer-branch-allen-938950119/?originalSubdomain=au">Jenny Branch-Allen</a></b>, former Glenorchy councillor, CEO Kidsafe Tasmania</div><div><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/fraser-miller/?originalSubdomain=au"><b>Fraser Millar</b></a>, Southern Midlands councillor, distillery owner, farmer, media platform entrepreneur</div><div><b>Andrew Roberts</b>, Property maintenance contractor</div><div><b><a href="https://centralhighlands.tas.gov.au/council/councillor-details/">Loueen (Lou) Triffitt</a>,</b> Mayor of Southern Highlands</div><div><br /></div><div><i>An Andrew Roberts ran in the 2013 Senate race as a "True Green" independent candidate and had 38,000 anti-gay fliers intercepted by Australia Post and not delivered. Also later ran for Family First However that Andrew Roberts self described as a scientist so I am doubtful if it was the same person. </i></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Prospects for Lyons</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>I usually class Lyons as a "northern" seat because it is more similar to Bass and Braddon than Franklin and Clark, but it is less Liberal-leaning than the first two named. In 2021 the Liberals got 51.2%, Labor 32.5%, Greens 8.9% and Shooters 4.5%. In the 35-seat system (but coming off a 25-seat election) that would be 4-3-0 or 4-2-1. For previous elections Lyons would have gone 4-3-0 in 2018, 4-2-1 in 2014, 3-3-1 in 2010 and 2-4-1 in 2006.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Liberals have lost Tucker, but the replacement of Tucker with Howlett means they probably haven't lost anything in profile terms (he only polled 6.5% anyway). Nonetheless if there is more than a few points against them then winning four (Barnett, Shelton, and probably at least one of Cameron and Howlett) will get hard. That's not to say Howlett has a perfect form guide; she resigned from Cabinet in 2022 for <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-25/tasmanian-minister-jane-howlett-resigns/100860740">personal reasons</a> but was also under pressure over <a href="https://www.themercury.com.au/news/politics/peter-gutwein-reacts-to-affair-claims-of-jane-howlett-tasmania-jackjumpers-boss/news-story/3feb7b567fa14877cfeb6545afbb8bf3">conflict of interest allegations</a>, and despite numerous reshuffles since has not returned, with Labor asking if she is under investigation by the Integrity Commission. Most voters in Lyons are unlikely to care. Cameron performed well in the 2021 election. If Howlett is defeated she can most likely run for Prosser again in May. </div><div><br /></div><div>White will poll a massive vote again (in fact she polled exactly the same number of primary votes in 2018 and 2021) and Butler has had a second term to further build profile and did well off White's preferences last time. The recent history suggests Labor don't need a swing to be well in the mix for three, but the minor party / indies mix is stronger here than before too. Some of the arguments I've heard re Labor getting three here refer to White's leadership, but she was also leader in 2018 and 2021 so that's already in the baseline. If there are only two it will be interesting to see if any of Labor's new candidates (some have suggested Casey Farrell as a chance) can threaten Butler. </div><div><br /></div><div>The Greens were close to the 35-seat mark in the last two elections despite candidates who were problematic (2018) and virtually unknown (2021). Badger seems a way better candidate combining the party's environmental roots with a fresher image for the party, but she doesn't yet have the profile of the Greens' only two previous Lyons winners, Christine Milne (leader of a massive anti-pulpmill campaign) or Tim Morris (who had been Mayor of Derwent Valley). I doubt the Greens can get quota on primaries in Lyons but can they get enough to make the top seven and stay there? Will be interesting to see.</div><div><br /></div><div>Lyons could be the Lambie Network's best or second best prospect based on the federal result for Pfitzner, who polled 10.86% and finished third after preferences. This wasn't all about Brian Mitchell's social media embarrassments either as the Network was only 1% below him in the Senate. Pfitzner is a relatable working class candidate who debates well about basic issues and will have name recognition from the federal run. (Jenner has UK local government experience but wasn't elected to Clarence Council in 2022).</div><div><br /></div><div>Opinions vary about Tucker, the question being whether his high profile as a crossbench rebel can drag voters across the aisle or from other Liberal candidates, and whether there is the anger at the government in rural Lyons that there seems to be in parts of Bass. Not all his 6.5% from last time are going to vote for him again given his defection. Tucker's campaign so far looks well presented though it's short of online presence; I just hope there will be more ads <a href="https://www.facebook.com/abetzau/videos/2000316246650951">like this</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/JohnTuckerMPLyons/videos/356746239075929/">or this</a>. The Liberals running Howlett (and also Hallett and Brown, farmers) will help fight for Tucker's former votes but Howlett's first promise on the campaign trail should be<a href="https://www.facebook.com/reel/312885181740034"> no more shopping videos</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Outlook for Lyons (to be refined):</b> A possible outcome is 3-2-1-1-0 (Lib-ALP-Grn-JLN-IND) but both majors and Tucker are waiting if the Greens or JLN don't get there. </div></div></div>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-37761446707256353902024-02-16T14:05:00.026+11:002024-03-16T10:38:24.330+11:002024 Tasmanian State Election Guide: Franklin<p>This is the Franklin electorate guide for the 2024 Tasmanian State Election. (<a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide.html">Link to main 2024 election preview page, including links to other electorates.</a>) If you find these guides useful, <b>donations are very welcome </b>(see sidebar), but please only donate in these difficult times if you can afford to do so. Note: if using a mobile you may need to use the view web version option at the bottom of the page to see the sidebar. </p><b>Franklin (Currently 2 Liberal 1 Labor 1 Green 1 IND)</b><div><b>(Elected at last election 2 Liberal 2 Labor 1 Green)<br /></b><div><div><div>Eastern shore Hobart (Clarence City), much of Kingborough, Huon Valley, D'Entrecasteaux Channel</div><div>Urban/outer urban/treechange/rural</div></div><div><br /></div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Candidates (31)</span></b><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b><i><b><u>Note to candidates:</u> </b>As the number of candidates becomes large, continually changing link and bio details could consume a lot of my time. It's up to you to get your act together and have your candidacy advertised on a good website that I can find easily well ahead of the election. On emailed or Twitter request I may make one free website link change per candidate at my discretion; fees will be charged beyond that. Bio descriptions and other text will not be changed on request except to remove any material that is indisputably false. </i><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Where a link is available, a candidate's name is used as a hyperlink. Emails from candidates who do not understand this will be ignored. </i></div><br />I am not listing full portfolios for each MP, only the most notable positions. Candidates are listed incumbent-first by position/seniority and then alphabetically, except if stated otherwise. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>The ballot order for Franklin is Greens, Liberal, O'Byrne, JLN, AJP, Mulder, Labor, Glade-Wright, Local Network, ungrouped. Candidates within each column are rotated where there is more than one candidate.</b></div><div><br /></div><div><div><div><b><u>Liberal</u></b></div><div><b><a href="https://www.tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/nic-street">Nic Street</a></b>, incumbent, Minister for Housing, Construction, Sport and Rec, Stadia (yep) etc</div><div><b><a href="https://www.tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/dean-young">Dean Young,</a></b> first-term incumbent elected on recount, backbencher, newsagent</div><div><b><a href="https://abetz.com.au/">Eric Abetz</a></b>, Liberal Senator for Tasmania 1994-2022, Senate Leader for Abbott Govt, famous uberconservative</div><div><b><a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/aldo-antolli">Aldo Antolli</a>,</b> CEO Pathways Tasmania, Kingborough councillor, Huon candidate 2022</div><div><b><a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/josh-garvin">Josh Garvin</a></b>, President Tas and Vice-President Aus Young Liberals, staffer for Madeleine Ogilvie</div><div><a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/jock-mcgregor"><b>Jock McGregor</b></a> aka Michael McGregor, football operations manager Kingborough Tigers, former footballer and coach</div><div><b><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/jacquie-petrusma-02660a249/?originalSubdomain=au">Jacquie Petrusma</a>, </b>MHA for this seat 2010-2022, minister in 3 Liberal govts, advisor to Premier </div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Antolli stated in a Kingborough Council meeting in late 2023 that he believed in climate change but was not a believer in "anthropogenic" climate change.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><b><u>Labor</u></b></div><div><b><a href="https://www.deanwinter.net/">Dean Winter</a></b>, first-term incumbent, Shadow Minister Energy, Finance, Economic Development, Racing</div><div><div><b><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/ebony-altimira/">Ebony Altimira</a>, </b>Business Transformation Lead at MyState, former President Tasmanian Rugby Union</div><div><b><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/simon-bailey/">Simon Bailey</a>, </b>Education Manager TasTAFE, AEU TAFE President, past teacher/tradie</div><div><b><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/meg-brown/">Meg Brown</a></b>, former Sorell Councillor, staffer for David O'Byrne, party branch president/treasurer</div><div><b><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/kaspar-deane/">Kaspar Deane</a>, </b>Kingborough Councillor, public school teacher</div><div><b><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/philip-pregnell/">Philip Pregnell</a>, </b>corrections supervisor, UWU Tas Prison Service delegate, past national Apex president</div></div><div><b><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/toby-thorpe/">Toby Thorpe,</a> </b>Deputy Mayor Huon Valley, 2021 Tasmanian Young Australian of the Year, climate/renewables advocate, previous candidate</div><div><br /></div><div><u style="font-weight: bold;">Greens </u></div></div><div><b><a href="https://tasmps.greens.org.au/person/dr-rosalie-woodruff-mp">Rosalie Woodruff</a>, </b>Greens Leader, incumbent, epidemiologist (Ph.D.) (lead candidate)</div><div><b><a href="https://greens.org.au/tas/person/gideon-cordover">Gideon Cordover</a></b>, Kingborough Councillor, NIDA graduate, past candidate including Huon 2022</div><div><div><b><a href="https://greens.org.au/tas/person/jade-darko">Jade Darko</a>,</b><u> </u> Clarence Councillor, 2019-22 federal candidate, software engineer</div><div><b>Owen Fitzgerald, </b>organised climate school strikes in 2022</div><div><b><a href="https://greens.org.au/tas/person/jenny-cambers-smith">Jenny Cambers-Smith</a>, </b>Huon Valley Councillor, business and content writer, wildlife video filmer</div><div><b><a href="https://greens.org.au/tas/person/2024-state-election-candidates-list">Lukas Mrosek</a>, </b>"professional background in building design"</div><div><b>Christine Campbell, </b>former Huon Councillor, "business woman, community volunteer and
academic"</div></div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Independents With Own Groups</u></b></div><div><b><a href="https://www.davidobyrne.net/">David O'Byrne</a></b>, incumbent, former prominent unionist, briefly Labor leader in 2021, disendorsed by party</div><div><b><a href="https://claregladewright.com.au/">Clare Glade-Wright</a></b>, Deputy Mayor of Kingborough, former eco-tourism operator</div><div><b><a href="https://www.facebook.com/muldernet/">Tony Mulder</a></b>, Independent Liberal MLC Rumney 2011-7, Clarence councillor, estranged from Liberals since 2018, serial upper house candidate</div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Jacqui Lambie Network</u></b></div><div><div><b><a href="https://lambienetwork.com.au/pages/marshallcallaghan">Marshall Callaghan</a>, </b>child safety worker and former Defence social worker</div><div><b><a href="https://lambienetwork.com.au/pages/chrishannan">Chris Hannan</a>, </b>relationship therapist and clinical supervisor, own business</div><div><a href="https://lambienetwork.com.au/pages/conorhallahan" style="font-weight: bold;">Conor Hallahan</a><b>. </b>Engineering, procurement and construction manager for COVA large machinery firm</div></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><i>Surely the most poetic list of surnames a ticket has assembled since the days of federal Labor's "Four As." </i></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Local Network</b></div><div><a href="https://www.localnetwork.au/martine_delaney"><b>Martine Delaney</b></a>, high-profile LGBTIQA+ advocate, Greens candidate Franklin 2016 federal</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Anna Spinaze was announced as a candidate but did not run</i></div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Animal Justice Party</u></b></div><div><b><a href="https://tas.animaljusticeparty.org/jehni_thomas-wurth_for_franklin">Jehni Thomas-Worth</a></b>, retired (librarian/information science), 2022 support Senate candidate</div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Ungrouped Independents</u></b></div><div><b><a href="https://twitter.com/Tamarcordover">Tamar Cordover</a></b>, works in empowering rural women with disabilities</div><div><b><a href="https://twitter.com/BrunyBob">Bob Elliston</a></b>, retired, wildlife sanctuary owner, candidate in 1998, frequent Mercury letters author</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>David O'Byrne Deselection</b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div>A significant change in Franklin that warrants its own guide section is the deselection of David O'Byrne, former Labor leader. O'Byrne was Labor MP for this seat 2010-2014, was defeated at the 2014 election, and was elected again in 2018 and 2021. In my view, "hard left" forces supporting O'Byrne were the biggest culprits for the faction-fights and incidents that marred the party's 2021 campaign. After the 2021 election Rebecca White resigned the leadership and endorsed O'Byrne, who defeated Shane Broad in a member/delegate ballot with nearly three-quarters of the vote. However O'Byrne's leadership lasted just weeks before he was brought down by a scandal involving unsolicited kissing of and text messages to a 22-year old union staffer working for him in 2007-8, before his parliamentary career. (O'Byrne said that he had thought this was consensual but was later caused to "reflect deeply on the nature of consent".) He was also accused of giving the staffer a performance warning after being asked to desist. </div><div><br /></div><div>An investigation found O'Byrne's behaviour to have been "inappropriate and wrong" but to have not breached party rules and no further action was taken by the broader party. O'Byrne says that the report (which is not public) found he had not engaged in harassment or victimisation as defined in party policy. The complainant <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-17/tasmania-former-labor-leader-david-obyrne-report/100382844">rejected the report's findings and processes</a> but O'Byrne's summary of what the report contains has not to my knowledge been challenged. </div><div><br /></div><div>O'Byrne resigned from the parliamentary party (which appeared set to otherwise expel him from caucus anyway) and for the rest of the term has sat as an "independent Labor" member, still a member of the broader party but recognised by the Parliament as an independent. During this time he has been an active representative on traditional Labor community issues, but his fate has distracted the party, with differing opinions even among the federal executive about whether to let him back. Finally and as a result of Rebecca White's firm stance against reselecting O'Byrne, the national executive endorsed a full ticket that omitted him. O'Byrne has now quit the Labor Party completely and is running as an independent. Any Labor member who assists him will be in breach of party rules and risks expulsion.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Government has attacked Labor for not endorsing O'Byrne, but would also have attacked them if they did endorse him, and rather potently so in the days of #metoo and the Commission of Inquiry. The real problem for Labor is that having allowed O'Byrne to remain in the broader party throughout, they have sent a message that it was all no big deal really, and created a big mystery as to why he has not been taken back. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Prospects for Franklin</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Franklin is a left-leaning seat at federal level where it has been Labor-held since 1993, but at state level the difference between it and the northern seats is less pronounced. Votes in Franklin in 2021 were Liberal 42.3%, Labor 33.2%, Greens 18.9%. Under the 35-seat system this would have been a 3-3-1 result. Results in previous elections would have been 3-3-1 in 2018 (close to 4-2-1), 4-2-1 in 2014, 3-2-2 in 2010 and 2-4-1 in 2006. </div><div><br /></div><div>At the last election Petrusma polled nearly 1.7 quotas for the new system in her own right. This will be down because of the competition from Abetz and perhaps her temporary retirement but the Liberal team looks strong if Petrusma is a serious candidate. Abetz is popular in parts of the electorate as witnessed by his high 2022 Senate below the line votes in parts of Kingborough (especially the southern parts of Kingston/Blackmans Bay) - an area which has an element of "bible belt" voting but which still voted Yes in the Voice referendum. Street has had his first full term as a Minister, his performance has been well regarded and he appeals to moderates. I think the Liberals' prospects of three here are good unless the wheels fall off but I don't see who they beat to get more. Although their ticket is strong in experience terms it suffers from a serious gender imbalance with only one woman out of seven. </div><div><br /></div><div>Labor has only one incumbent, Winter, who will get a lot of votes, but it will suffer from the loss of O'Byrne, who polled almost a quota in his own right last time. Some of O'Byrne's past votes will come back to other Labor candidates but it would be heroic to put Labor on three seats as the campaign starts; seems much more likely two. I suppose after Clark 2021 I shouldn't totally write off that O'Byrne leaving and new fourth party competition knocks Labor down to <i>one</i>, but that does seem very unlikely. Polling suggests most likely two and out. Assuming Labor win at least two, they get a new MP - young talents Kaspar Deane and Toby Thorpe are contenders here but I wouldn't write off some of the others either. All of Deane, Thorpe and Winter are from the western side of the disjunct electorate; Meg Brown is one whose profile is more on the eastern side. </div><div><br /></div><div>The Greens will win one, and their second candidate could ride high in the count for a while after Woodruff is elected. Their only pathway to two seems to be O'Byrne flopping. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's generally expected that O'Byrne will get a sympathy vote and romp in, with the Fontcast even joking about whether he could win two seats. The polling on independents for Franklin has been pretty spotty making O'Byrne's seat no guarantee but it would be brave to confidently predict failure. </div><div><br /></div><div>Unusually among medium-profile independents, Glade-Wright started running several months ago but she has lately been overshadowed by O'Byrne. Her council covers about a third of the voter base and she is a good fit for the inner eastern shore too. Views differ - some see her as a potential winner and others as not a significant contender. The arguments here are firstly Clark has very high indie voting and the virus could spread to Franklin, and secondly that community-independent style campaigning might work here as it has worked in the teal seats. I am wary of the latter because in Tasmania there is no strategic reason for a Labor or Greens voter to switch. Mulder also has profile but mostly in Clarence these days and it's a crowded field.</div><div><br /></div><div>Finally, the Lambie Network tend to poll worse in Franklin than the northern seats but did get half a state quota in the Senate election. I'll be surprised if they get close in this field unless they have a really strong result statewide, but a glimmer of a chance has been seen in some polling breakdowns. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Outlook for Franklin (will revise later): </b>Other things could happen but the lead contender is 3-2-1-0-1 (O'Byrne)</div></div></div>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-50381099835165660582024-02-16T00:34:00.057+11:002024-03-18T23:34:07.781+11:002024 Tasmanian State Election Guide: Clark<p>This is the Clark electorate guide for the 2024 Tasmanian State Election. (<a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide.html">Link to main 2024 election preview page, including links to other electorates.</a>) If you find these guides useful, <b>donations are very welcome </b>(see sidebar), but please only donate in these difficult times if you can afford to do so. Note: if using a mobile you may need to use the view web version option at the bottom of the page to see the sidebar. </p><b>Clark (Currently 2 Liberal 1 Labor 1 Green 1 Independent)</b><div><div><div><div>Western shore Hobart, primarily Hobart City and Glenorchy City</div><div>Inner and outer urban</div></div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b><b><span style="font-size: large;">Candidates (35)</span></b><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b><i><b><u>Note to candidates:</u> </b>As the number of candidates becomes large, continually changing link and bio details could consume a lot of my time. It's up to you to get your act together and have your candidacy advertised on a good website that I can find easily well ahead of the election. On emailed request I may make one free website link change per candidate at my discretion; fees will be charged beyond that. Bio descriptions and other text will not be changed on request except to remove any material that is indisputably false. </i><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Where a link is available, a candidate's name is used as a hyperlink. Emails from candidates who do not understand this will be ignored. </i></div><br /><div>I am not listing full portfolios for each MP, only the most notable positions. Candidates are listed incumbent-first by position/seniority and then alphabetically, except if stated otherwise. On ballot papers candidate names are rotated.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>The ballot order for Clark is Labor, Liberal, AJP, Local Network, Johnston, Greens, Hickey, Shooters, Lohberger, Elliot, ungrouped. Candidates within each column are rotated where there is more than one candidate.</b></div><div><br /></div></div><div><div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Liberal</u></b></div><div><b><a href="https://www.tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/madeleine-ogilvie">Madeleine Ogilvie</a>,</b> incumbent, previously Labor then Independent MP, Minister Corrections, Workplace Safety, Science, Arts etc</div><div><b><a href="https://www.tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/simon-behrakis">Simon Behrakis</a></b>, first-term incumbent elected on recount, former Hobart Alderman and Abetz staffer, economist</div><div><b><a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/mohammad-aldergham">Mohammad Aldergham</a></b>, Variety Tasmania CEO</div><div><b><a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/emma-atterbury">Emma Atterbury</a></b>, personal development and tech startup consultant, podiatrist</div><div><a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/jon-gourlay"><b>Jon Gourlay,</b></a> advisor to Michael Ferguson, company director in mining technology and luggage design</div><div><a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/catherine-searle"><b>Catherine Searle</b></a>, office head for global engineering/project management firm Jacobs</div><div><b><a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/marcus-vermey">Marcus Vermey</a></b>, owner of well-known butcher Vermey's Quality Meats, rowing coach</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Catherine Searle is prominent at Cornerstone Presbyterian, a church involved in controversy several years ago over its same-sex marriage views and confrontational street preaching. Searle has not been involved in any such incidents herself but is shown by Australian Christian Lobby as agreeing with all their candidate question proposals including ceasing government assistance to Dark Mofo.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><b><u>Labor</u></b></div><div><b><a href="https://www.ellahaddad.com/contact">Ella Haddad</a></b>, incumbent, Shadow Attorney-General, Justice, Corrections, Housing etc</div><div><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/josh-willie/"><b>Josh Willie</b>,</a> Legislative Council incumbent for Elwick, Shadow Minister Education, Transport, Sport etc</div><div><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/stuart-benson/"><b>Stuart Benson, </b></a>Labor State Secretary since 2017</div><div><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/simon-davis/"><b>Simon Davis</b>,</a> hospitality worker, unionist </div><div><a href="https://cms.australianoftheyear.org.au/recipients/john-kamara"><b>John Kamara</b></a>, co-founder, Culturally Diverse Alliance Tas and African Communities Council Tas, 2023 Tas Australian of the Year</div><div><b><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/rebecca-prince/">Rebecca Prince</a></b>, Australian Public Service Service Delivery Leader, psychology student</div><div><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/susan-wallace/"><b>Susan Wallace</b></a>, communications specialist, former advisor to Senator Anne Urquhart </div><div><br /></div><div><i>(Hobart Councillor Ryan Posselt was seeking preselection but not selected)</i></div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Greens </u></b></div></div><div><i><u>(</u>Greens candidates are listed in endorsed ticket order)</i></div><div><b><a href="https://tasgreensmps.org/your-greens-mps/vica-bayley/">Vica Bayley</a></b>, incumbent elected on recount mid-term, former state campaign manager for Wilderness Society</div><div><a href="https://greens.org.au/tas/person/helen-burnet"><b>Helen Burnet</b></a>, long-term Hobart Councillor and third-term Deputy Mayor, podiatrist</div><div><div><b><a href="https://greens.org.au/tas/person/2024-state-election-candidates-list">Janet Shelley</a>, </b>Sustainability Director, Dpt Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, 2022 federal candidate</div><div><b><a href="https://greens.org.au/tas/person/2024-state-election-candidates-list">Nathan Volf</a>, </b>Behavioural Science graduate, social worker, 2021 candidate</div><div><b><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/trenton-hoare-ab377322a/?originalSubdomain=au">Trenton Hoare</a></b>, student, retail assistant Red Parka, board member Equality Tas</div><div><b><a href="https://greens.org.au/tas/person/2024-state-election-candidates-list">James Zalotockyj</a>,</b> early childhood educator</div><div><b><a href="https://greens.org.au/tas/person/2024-state-election-candidates-list">Peter Jones</a>, </b>former history teacher, prominent Quaker, Islamic Studies (PhD) peace and human rights activist </div></div><div><br /></div><div><div><b><u>Independents With Own Column</u></b></div><div><a href="https://kristiejohnston.com.au/"><b>Kristie Johnston</b></a>, first-term incumbent, former Glenorchy Mayor, criminologist/lawyer and hotelier</div></div><div><b><a href="https://www.louiseelliot.org/">Louise Elliot</a></b>, first-term Hobart councillor, president of landlord advocacy body, "gender critical" culture war figure, briefly in Liberals before quitting over pets in rentals policy </div><div><a href="https://www.benlohberger.com.au/"><b>Ben Lohberger</b></a>, first-term Hobart councillor, founding member Save UTAS, Hobart City Mission worker</div><div><a href="https://www.suehickey.com.au/"><b>Sue Hickey,</b></a> frequently floor-crossing Liberal Speaker 2018-21 (ran as Ind 2021), Deputy Mayor of Glenorchy, ex Hobart Lord Mayor</div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>(Elise Archer announced she was running but withdrew the day after following a media interview in which she appeared to be unwell.)</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>I could write a whole article re Elliot, if not a small book, but I don't think her chances are significant enough to do it right now. Of recent note she was suspended from Council following a Code of Conduct finding, which is now under appeal with the suspension part-stayed, but we're still not allowed by the bizarre Code system to know what the finding or its basis is. She is also currently pursuing an Anti-Discrimination complaint against the Council over alleged discrimination in venue hire. An Anti-Discrimination complaint against her over comments she made at Hobart's failed Posie Parker rally was recently withdrawn.</i></div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Shooters, Fishers and Farmers</u></b></div><div><u style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/adrian.pickin">Adrian Pickin,</a></u> Senior Regulations and Pricing Analyst at TasWater, practitioner of hunting using ferrets, 2023 Rumney candidate</div><div><b><a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=705625581729797&set=a.112297694395925">Lorraine Bennett</a>, </b>former recruitment consultant and HR manager, party secretary, frequent Shooters candidate</div><div><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div><b><u>Local Network</u></b></div><div><b><a href="https://www.localnetwork.au/sam4clark">Sam Campbell </a>, </b>former state co-ordinator Tas branch AUWU, 2022 Hobart council candidate</div><div><u style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.localnetwork.au/frank4clark">Frank Formby</a>,</u> locum palliative care specialist, content producer</div><div><b><a href="https://www.localnetwork.au/david4clark">David Nunn</a>, </b>co-owner Fern Tree Tavern</div><div><b><a href="https://www.localnetwork.au/ranae4clark">Ranae Zollner</a>, </b>student</div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Animal Justice Party</u></b></div><div><a href="https://tas.animaljusticeparty.org/casey_davies_for_clark"><b>Casey Davies</b></a>, storeperson, 2022 federal paper candidate, student of Protected Area Planning<br /><br /></div><div><b><u>Ungrouped Independents</u></b></div><div><span style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.thereluctantpolitician.com/">John Forster</a></span> business analyst, serial candidate but not for a while</div><div><b><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/angela-triffitt-7085621a1/?originalSubdomain=au">Angela Triffitt</a></b> cultural awareness and Indigenous community consultant</div><div><u style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.stefanvogel.com.au/?fbclid=IwAR2xgmkhh3fhwqWZqDVCmFOYK1GdeKPER8t8V9mCbmpG08jT4g_qFmDIimY">Stefan Vogel</a></u> glaciologist and Antarctic scientist, 2018 and 2022 Hobart Council candidate</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Vogel received a low-key Liberal endorsement in the 2018 Hobart Council election but is presumably no longer in the party. </i></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">UTAS Move </span></b></div><div><br /></div><div><div>This is a significant campaign issue (at least as a source of campaign noise and incidents) in Clark, but unlikely to be a thing anywhere else. The University of Tasmania's plan to relocate into the city centre was a major issue at the 2022 Hobart Council elections, at which it was rejected about three to one in an "elector poll" of voters (see the issues section of my <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2022/09/hobart-city-council-elections-candidate.html">2022 Hobart guide</a> for a background to the issue). The University took a back step in response by withdrawing its redevelopment proposal for the Sandy Bay campus, but the issue is still about with several houses still having signs up from the 2022 campaign. </div><div><br /></div><div>Both major parties have been generally seen as supporting the move, but on 27 Feb the Liberals announced they would <a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/news/2024/02/27/majority-rockliff-liberal-government-will-keep-utas-sandy-bay">"keep the University of Tasmania in Sandy Bay"</a>. (The Liberal statement falsely claims Labor amended the Act in 1992 to allow the University to sell land; in fact the Liberals themselves created a new Act containing the provision in question that year. Labor did nothing in office in 1992 except lose an election on 1 Feb.) The Liberals' statement, however, says that "<i>The Liberal Party respects the right of the University to establish new facilities in the Hobart CBD, and elsewhere if they wish.</i>" This has resulted in Save UTAS calling the Liberal policy a scam because it enables a situation where the University facilities all relocate leaving only a rustbucket campus. </div><div><br /></div><div>The Greens have appeared split on the issue with the incumbent Hobart Council Greens having been supportive of the move but the parliamentary Greens opposed, meaning that diehard UTAS move opponents might support Vica Bayley but not Helen Burnet. (And diehard UTAS move supporters vice versa). In late February the Greens formally adopted a policy to oppose the move.</div><div><br /></div><div>Among the Clark independents, Ben Lohberger, Kristie Johnston and Louise Elliot all have form on opposing the move (Elise Archer was also likely to be an opponent if she ran). Elliot announced on 24 Feb that Save UTAS had decided not to endorse her on account of her transgender issues views. (This is always a risk with single-issue movements that draw widely across the spectrum). </div><div><br /></div><div>On 25 Feb the Save UTAS group's website was removed and their public Facebook page was set to private. This site does not suggest or know anything regarding the cause(s), only that the event occurred. The next day the pages were restored and the group, as long expected, endorsed Lohberger. </div></div><div><br /></div><div>Sue Hickey has<a href="https://www.themercury.com.au/news/hobart-south/airbnb-hike-on-cards-as-council-moves-to-tackle-housing-crisis/news-story/b7d22c2f2a45fda42fc6cdeb07fedb63"> worked for the university on supporting the move</a> and strongly supports it.</div><div><br /></div><div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Prospects for Clark</span></b></div></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div>Clark, which I often refer to jokingly as the "People's Republic of Clark", is Tasmania's most left-wing and idiosyncratic electorate. It falls into two halves - the Glenorchy part which was traditionally strongly Labor and the Hobart part which has historically had a high vote for Greens and other left-wing candidates, with a small Liberal enclave around Lower Sandy Bay. At federal level the seat was won by Andrew Wilkie (left IND) from third in a thriller in 2010. Wilkie has since made the seat his own and now gets primary votes of nearly 50%. </div><div><br /></div><div>The 2021 Clark campaign was most notable for the horrendous collapse of the Labor vote, Labor falling from 41.9% in 2018 to 22.1%. Causes of this cratering disaster included the departure of Scott Bacon, the defection of Madeleine Ogilvie leaving only one incumbent, the acrimonious disendorsement of Ben McGregor, obscure support candidates, competition from independents and a bewildered reception to Labor's pokies backflip in the inner city booths. 2021 was also notable for the strong showing from independents Kristie Johnston and Sue Hickey, with Johnston being the only winning independent in the history of the 25-seat system and Hickey coming close to costing the Liberals their majority in <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2021/05/2021-tasmanian-postcount-clark.html">one of the most watched postcounts on this site</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>The 2021 result (Liberal 31.8 Labor 22.1 Green 20.0 Johnston 11.0 Hickey 9.8 and a long tail of others) would have been <b>2 Liberal 2 Labor 1 Green 2 Independents</b> under the 35-seat system. However, previously Labor tended to outpoll the Liberals in Clark, with exceptions being 1992 and 2014. Other recent elections convert to 3-3-1 in 2014 and 2018 and 2-3-2 in 2006 and 2010 (close to 2-4-1 in the former). Clark is a huge problem for both majors in their quest for majority, because if you only get two in Clark you need four fours or a five somewhere else.</div><div><br /></div><div>Three quotas is 37.5%, though a couple of points less would be enough for that. The Liberals need only a modest swing to get there but they have lost Elise Archer. Behrakis almost beat Ogilvie last time and should benefit from Archer's absence, though Ogilvie has had more time now to convince Liberals she's one of them. It's possible the Liberals could drop below two quotas (25%), even so with a likely fairly even vote split I'd expect them to survive. I have been wondering if Ogilvie could be at risk if the Liberals do only get two, though she does have plenty of campaign presence. On paper Vermey seems a strong third candidate. </div><div><br /></div><div>I expect the Labor primary in Clark to grow because of the endorsement of Willie, a high-profile second-term MLC with a good support base in the Glenorchy area. I expect that he and Haddad will win easily with prospects they can rebuild Labor's base enough to be in the mix for a third. But a third seat for either major party most likely depends on the Greens and Independents being held to two between them.</div><div><br /></div><div>With the 35-seat system back the Greens should be pushing hard for two here but I've had early doubts about their shape to do so, and generally they are being outpolled by independents. They are running Bayley as a specified lead candidate when Clark is most suited to running two lead candidates and trying to split the vote between them evenly (this helps parties to win in Hare-Clark - for very wonky technical details <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2012/10/getting-gininderraed-another-for-hare.html">see here</a>). That said they are at least pushing Burnet as a second candidate, unlike in other seats. They're without O'Connor who tended to divide opinions but at least was very high-profile, while Bayley is less established and viewed somewhat coolly by Green voters as seen by his narrow countback victory against much less well known Bec Taylor. Their web presence has been disorganised in the early running (a drop-down link to Bayley was added six months after he elected it and the day after I noticed its absence here.) I also think Johnston who often votes with the Greens and targets some similar issues could eat into their support base. This said, Burnet has a history of often very strong performances for the Greens, including polling over 3000 votes in 2010, the highest ever for a Greens support candidate. Her councillor vote has waned in recent elections - perhaps partly on account of the UTAS move issue in 2022 - but she was still easily re-elected as Deputy that year. </div><div><br /></div><div>Johnston seems likely to be re-elected easily, but if independents only get one it's possible Hickey beats her. Johnston should have a higher profile from incumbency while Hickey has been out of the parliamentary spotlight since 2021. On the other hand Hickey has been active on Glenorchy Council, would as noted above have won last time, and has a strong ground game based on her experience in promotions. Other parties would want the Independent vote to be focused with Johnston to make it easier for them to beat Hickey. Glenorchy Council has not been everyone's cup of tea lately (pool closure, rates rises) but a lot of Hickey's 2021 support came from Hobart. </div><div><br /></div><div>Elliot is a high-profile independent but her views are widely disliked on the left and her profile is mostly in the Hobart section; I doubt she will do more than be a nuisance to the Liberal vote. There is some thought Lohberger is a smokie based on likely appeal to Wilkie voters and the Utas issue but I think his profile is not that high for a relatively short campaign on an issue only half of the seat cares about. Still both these are worth keeping an eye on. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Outlook for Clark (to be revised later):</b> The default scenario (2-2-1-0-2) seems a fair chance of occurring. If it doesn't happen, the second indie seat could be taken by a third Liberal, a second Green or third Labor. </div></div></div>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-17581402379795395282024-02-15T12:55:00.038+11:002024-03-16T00:11:08.663+11:002024 Tasmanian State Election Guide: Braddon<p> This is the Braddon electorate guide for the 2024 Tasmanian State Election. (<a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide.html">Link to main 2024 election preview page, including links to other electorates.</a>) If you find these guides useful, <b>donations are very welcome </b>(see sidebar), but please only donate in these difficult times if you can afford to do so. Note: if using a mobile you may need to use the view web version option at the bottom of the page to see the sidebar. </p><b>Braddon (Currently 3 Liberal 2 Labor). </b><br /><div>North-west and western Tasmania including Devonport, Burnie and Ulverstone</div><div>Regional/rural/remote</div><b><span></span><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b><b><span style="font-size: large;">Candidates (33)</span></b><br /><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b><i><b><u>Note to candidates:</u> </b>As the number of candidates becomes large, continually changing link and bio details could consume a lot of my time. It's up to you to get your act together and have your candidacy advertised on a good website that I can find easily well ahead of the election. On emailed or Twitter request I may make one free website link change per candidate at my discretion; fees will be charged beyond that. Bio descriptions and other text will not be changed on request except to remove any material that is indisputably false. </i><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Where a link is available, a candidate's name is used as a hyperlink. Emails from candidates who do not understand this will be ignored. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>I am not listing full portfolios for each MP, only the most notable positions. Candidates are listed incumbent-first by position/seniority and then alphabetically, except if stated otherwise. </div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>The ballot order for Braddon is JLN, Labor, Liberal, Greens, AJP, Shooters, Garland, ungrouped. </b><b>Candidates within each column are rotated where there is more than one candidate.</b></div><div><br /></div><div><div><div><b><u>Liberal (more to add on some)</u></b></div><div><b><a href="https://www.jeremyrockliff.com.au/">Jeremy Rockliff</a></b>, incumbent, Premier since 2022, Minister State Develpment, Tourism, Mental Health etc</div><div><b><a href="http://www.rogerjaensch.com.au/">Roger Jaensch</a></b>, incumbent, Minister for Education, Children, Environment etc</div><div><b><a href="https://www.felixellis.com.au/">Felix Ellis</a></b>, incumbent, Minister for Police, Fire, Resources, Skills, Racing etc, ex-plumber</div><div><b><a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/patrick-fabian">Patrick Fabian,</a> </b>English and Humanities teacher now at Leyland Christian School, not the actor of same name</div><div><b><a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/sarina-laidler">Sarina Laidler</a></b>, King Island councillor, beef farmer, King Island development admin officer</div><div><b><a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/vonette-mead">Vonette Mead</a>, </b>Deputy Mayor Latrobe Council, operations manager building + construction business</div><div><b><a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/giovanna-simpson">Giovanna Simpson</a></b>, Deputy Mayor Burnie, youth worker, former owner modelling academy, Pres Burnie Harness Racing Club</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Sarina Laidler was in the news when she lost her council seat for missing three consecutive meetings without leave while caring for her dying husband. She was re-elected unopposed in a by-election.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Simpson was (<a href="https://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/8454089/steve-kons-rules-out-running-in-next-state-election/">as of December</a>) secretary of the Jacqui Lambie Network board but JLN were unsuccessful in trying to convince her to run as a JLN candidate. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Tasmanian Times has sent Mead a <a href="https://tasmaniantimes.com/2024/02/questions-for-vonette-mead/">long list of questions</a> surrounding conflict of interest accusations, based on questions raised by a resident of Latrobe LGA.. I will note any reply if I see one.</i></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b><u>Labor</u></b></div><div><b><a href="http://taslabor.com/people/anita-dow/">Anita Dow</a>,</b> incumbent, Deputy Leader, Shadow Minister Health, Mental Health, Ageing, former Burnie mayor</div><div><a href="http://taslabor.com/people/shane-broad/"><b>Shane Broad</b></a>, incumbent, Shadow Minister Resources and Trade, agricultural scientist (PhD)</div><div><b><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/amanda-diprose/">Amanda Diprose</a></b>, Central Coast councillor, 2021 candidate</div><div><div><b><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/sam-facey/">Sam Facey</a>,</b> quality assessor at McCains Foods Smithton, AMWU delegate</div><div><b><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniellekidd/?originalSubdomain=au">Danielle Kidd</a></b>, West North West Working (job hub) project manager, ex UTAS Cradle Coast, 2018 candidate</div><div><b><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/adrian-luke/">Adrian Luke</a>,</b> director of DMS Energy (electrical/renewable energy)</div></div><div><b><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/chris-lynch/">Chris Lynch</a>, </b>Burnie councillor, Braddon 2022 federal candidate, sound engineer/musician, family based care</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Lynch was a controversial candidate in the federal election after a 1994 conviction for possessing amphetamines for sale was revealed.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><b><u>Greens</u></b></div></div><div><i>Green candidates are listed in party-supplied order</i></div><div><b><a href="https://www.facebook.com/DrBriggsforCentralCoastCouncil/?paipv=0&eav=AfY6KEUNFFGRhKvMwT6bvU80s1quHmPazaO17h4kKcXZRkYnOCvzcrVdTMMgafA4iF4&_rdr">Darren Briggs</a>, </b>emergency doctor, small tourist accommodation operator</div><div><div><b><a href="https://greens.org.au/tas/person/2024-state-election-candidates-list">Michael McLoughlin</a>, </b>"community services worker", party volunteer organiser, former union organiser</div><div><b>Petra Wilden </b>"environmental scientist"/teacher, 2022 Devonport Council candidate</div><div><b>Leeya Lovell , "</b>teacher assistant", visual artist</div><div><b><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/susanne-ward-65961b71/?originalSubdomain=au">Susanne Ward</a>, </b>Workforce Australia and Disability Employment Services consultant<b> </b></div><div><b><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/erin-morrow-2ba499123/?originalSubdomain=au">Erin Morrow</a>, </b>psychologist</div><div><b>Sarah Kersey, </b>"retired small business operator"</div></div><div><br /></div><div><div><b><u>Independents With Own Column</u></b></div><div><b><a href="https://www.facebook.com/CraigGarlandIndependent/">Craig Garland</a></b>, charismatic fisherman, serial candidate, prominent Braddon 2018 federal by-election</div></div><div><br /></div><div><i>For longer Garland background see my <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2022/04/tasmanian-house-of-representatives.html">2022 federal guide</a>.</i></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Jacqui Lambie Network</b></div><div><b><a href="https://lambienetwork.com.au/pages/miriambeswick">Miriam Beswick</a>, </b>former director of laser tag business Big Big House, </div><div><b><a href="https://lambienetwork.com.au/pages/craigcutts">Craig Cutts</a>, </b>former SAS medic (Counter Terrorism Squadron) and policeman, </div><div><b><a href="https://lambienetwork.com.au/pages/jamesredgrave">James Redgrave</a>, </b>military veteran, firefighter, private investigator, Tasmanian Times author.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Redgrave's persistent and at least at times robust questioning of Latrobe Council, which has continued in JLN colours (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzwHma6jkkE">10:40</a> in), has contributed to a council report entitled '<a href="https://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/8046144/unusual-step-taken-to-wrangle-councils-difficult-customer/">Dealing with difficult customers options</a>' and an estimate of $14,000 in staff costs. See <a href="https://www.latrobe.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/1271721/Agenda-Open-Council-16-January-2023.pdf">more detail here</a> where Redgrave's name is mentioned 62 times including that he is acting on behalf of clients. Redgrave was also involved in a <a href="https://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/8538755/jln-candidate-james-redgrave-involved-in-port-latta-crash-rescue/?cs=87">rescue incident </a>on the campaign trail.</i></div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Shooters, Fishers and Farmers</u></b></div><div><div><a href="https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61554798644879" style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;">Dale Marshall </a>(lead candidate), Labrador breeder and pigeon racer, former merchant seaman, industrial hydraulics</div><div><span style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration-line: underline;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064098333120">Brenton Jones</a>,</span> launch master and marine engineer, previous frequent Shooters candidate</div><div style="font-weight: bold;"><b style="text-decoration-line: underline;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/Kim-Swanson-SFFP-Tas-Candidate-111955583538986/">Kim Swanson</a>, </b><span style="font-weight: 400;">degree in agriculture, former horse stud manager, boutique winery co-owner, previous candidate</span></div></div><div style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /></span></div><div><span><b><u>Animal Justice Party</u></b></span></div><div><span><b><a href="https://tas.animaljusticeparty.org/julia_king_braddon">Julia King</a>, </b>music teacher</span></div><div><span><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span><b>Ungrouped Independents</b></span></div><div><span><b><a href="https://www.gatty.online/">Gatty Burnett</a>, </b>former youth worker, social media conspiracy theorist, longer profile in <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2023/04/legislative-council-2023-murchison.html">Murchison 2023 guide</a></span></div><div><span><b><a href="https://www.warwyn.tas.gov.au/councillors/cr-andrea-courtney/">Andrea Courtney</a>,</b> Waratah-Wynyard councillor, mental health and hospital worker</span></div><div><span><b><a href="https://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/8531661/latrobe-mayor-peter-freshney-in-independent-state-election-bid/">Peter Freshney</a></b>, Mayor of Latrobe, businessman in communications infrastructure</span></div><div><span><b><a href="https://www.westcoast.tas.gov.au/council/councillors/councillors/hamer,-liz">Liz Hamer</a>,</b> West Coast Councillor, Strahan farmer, ungrouped candidate 2018, 2021</span></div><div><br /></div><div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Prospects for Braddon</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Braddon is an electorate where resource development and employment issues have long been very significant, and the Green vote has lagged behind the rest of the state. It was once very socially conservative and has been a swing seat federally, but seems to be realigning towards the Liberal Party. Braddon gave the Voice referendum a big thumbs down with 72.2% voting No. Gavin Pearce held the seat easily at the 2022 election, with Labor criticised for preselecting Lynch on the basis of the above mentioned old drugs conviction. </div><div><br /></div><div>There was drama in the Braddon count in 2021 with former MP Adam Brooks recovering his seat narrowly at the expense of Felix Ellis, only to resign hours later after being charged with firearms offences. Ellis won the seat back on his recount. </div><div><br /></div><div>From time to time the electorate votes very strongly for a given party, so the seat produced the only 5/7 seat results in the previous 35-seat system (1972 Labor and 1992 Liberal) and in 2014 it produced the 25-seat system's only ever 4/5 seat haul for the Liberals. In 2021 the Liberals polled 57.2%, Labor 26.5%, Garland 6.1%, Greens 5.5% and Shooters 3.8%. This would have been either a 4-2-Garland result or 5-2, depending on candidate effects. </div><div><br /></div><div>The 2018 result would probably have been 5-2 (very close to 4-2 with one JLN), 2014 would have been 5-2 or 4-2 with one Palmer United, 2010 would have been 3-3 with one Green and 2006 when Labor won a majority would have been 3 Liberal 4 Labor. Interestingly if the state election repeats the 2022 House of Reps vote shares, the results would be 3 Liberal 2 Labor and <i>both</i> Lambie Network and Garland - but Garland does not poll as strongly when up against multiple-candidate state tickets. Garland's vote in this case stood up well despite <a href="https://www.themercury.com.au/news/politics/tassie-candidate-craig-garland-shares-bizarre-conspiracy-theories/news-story/ce7c39f6246527027a487f30c6b951a7">controversy over sharing conspiracy theories and links to fringe antivax elements</a>. As at mid-Feb 2024 I am not sensing that Garland is quite as active as in the past but if his vote holds up he is still a contender. </div><div><br /></div><div>Peter Freshney was very popular in Latrobe at the last Council election, polling 36% of the Councillor vote despite not having to campaign for Mayor, so there is a foothold there if enough voters want independents but find Garland too niche or out there. While it is not ideal to be running from the ungrouped column, Garland polled a strong vote there last time. However I am doubting that Freshney's campaign is of sufficient scale to be successful. Latrobe has seen <a href="https://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/8468622/latrobe-mayor-peter-freshney-denies-toxic-workplace-culture/">a lot of turbulence</a> that is boiling over into the state election. </div><div><br /></div><div>Rockliff's elevation to Premier should boost the Liberals further and they have a reasonably strong ticket with Jaensch (who polled a low primary last time but did well on preferences), Ellis (who has become far more prominent in this term, albeit at times controversially, eg the now-dropped fire levy) and also two female Deputy Mayors (Simpson in particular seems a good candidate). But even so for the Liberals to win five they would have to have very little swing against them statewide and that seems ambitious on recent polling. A swing of around 9% would put them in the danger zone for dropping to 3. That seems less of a risk than in Bass. </div><div><br /></div><div>Braddon is the Lambie Network's home base and strongest division although Craig Cutts who appears to be their lead candidate is not a high-profile name (indeed Redgrave may be better known) and the party may struggle with leakage as a result. In 2018 JLN only got 6% in Braddon, whereas in 2022 they got 12.3% in the Senate. They may succeed or fail here on the overall scale of the JLN campaign.</div><div><br /></div><div>I have been expecting Labor to retain two easily but as they have recorded some very bad state polling there has been some question of whether Shane Broad could come under threat, especially if Anita Dow's share of the Labor vote increases. The Greens are an outside to remote chance and would probably have to get very fluky with the distribution of votes for other parties, especially as preference flows for them tend to be bad in the area. The protest vote in Braddon tends to be elsewhere. </div></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Outlook for Braddon:</b> Polling suggests 4-2-0-1-0 (1 JLN) as the default scenario. If JLN falls over Garland, Labor or if very lucky Greens are also possible. Some chance of both JLN and Garland winning at the expense of either major. </div></div>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-14332996640977655132024-02-14T21:17:00.067+11:002024-03-16T23:22:21.157+11:00 2024 Tasmanian State Election Guide: Bass<p>This is the Bass electorate guide for the 2024 Tasmanian State Election. (<a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide.html">Link to main 2024 election preview page, including links to other electorates.</a>) If you find these guides useful, donations are very welcome (see sidebar), but please only donate in these difficult times if you can afford to do so. Note: if using a mobile you may need to use the view web version option at the bottom of the page to see the sidebar. </p><p><b>Bass (2021 Result 3 Liberal 2 Labor, as at election 2 Liberal 2 Labor 1 IND)</b></p><p>North-east Tasmania including most of Launceston</p><p>Mixed urban/small-town/rural</p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Candidates (32)</span></b></p><p><i>Note to candidates: As the number of candidates becomes large, continually changing link and bio details could consume a lot of my time. It's up to you to get your act together and have your candidacy advertised on a good website that I can find easily well ahead of the election. On emailed or Twitter request I may make one free website link change per candidate at my discretion; fees will be charged beyond that. Bio descriptions and other text will not be changed on request except to remove any material that is indisputably false. </i></p><p><i>Where a link is available, a candidate's name is used as a hyperlink. Emails from candidates who do not understand this will be ignored. </i></p><p>I am not listing full portfolios for each MP, only the most notable positions. Candidates are listed incumbent-first by position/seniority and then alphabetically, except if stated otherwise. </p><p><b>The ballot order for Bass is Greens, Walker, JLN, Labor, Liberal, AJP, Brown, Alexander, Shooters, Davenport, ungrouped. Candidates within each column are rotated where there is more than one candidate.</b></p><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Liberal <br /></b><a href="https://michaelferguson.com/"><b>Michael Ferguson</b></a>, incumbent, Deputy Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Transport, former federal MHR<br /><a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/simon-wood"><b>Simon Wood</b></a>, incumbent elected on recount during term, parliamentary secretary, former Launceston councillor (2014-8) and staffer</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/rob-fairs">Rob Fairs</a></b>, high-profile breakfast radio announcer, former TV host, charity fundraiser and sports consultant</div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/chris-gatenby"><b>Chris Gatenby</b></a>, staffer for Sen Richard Colbeck, recent President of state Liberal Party</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/sarah-quaile">Sarah Quaile</a>,</b> public school teacher</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/julie-sladden">Julie Sladden</a></b>, West Tamar councillor, Spectator author, doctor who closed practice over COVID vaccine mandates and <a href="https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/09/my-government-turned-me-into-an-antivaxxer/">maintains that COVID vaccines do not work</a> (see section below)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><a href="https://tas.liberal.org.au/our-team/richard-trethewie">Richard Trethewie</a>,</b> financial advice director</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Labor</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/michelle-o-byrne/"><b>Michelle O'Byrne</b></a>, incumbent, Shadow Minister Police, Women, Heritage etc, former federal MHR</div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://janiefinlay.com/"><b>Janie Finlay,</b></a> incumbent, Shadow Minister Primary Industries, Small Business etc, former Launceston mayor<br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/melissa-anderson/"><b>Melissa Anderson</b>,</a> administrative officer</div><div style="text-align: left;"><div><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/rhoshan-dhingra/"><b>Roshan Dhingra</b></a>, "works in retail, investment and has worked for the Labor Party", challenger for best beard of the election</div><div><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/will-gordon/"><b>Will Gordon</b></a>, nurse in paediatrics at Launceston General Hospital, involved in recent COI process</div><div><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/adrian-hinds/"><b>Adrian Hinds</b></a>, Boags brewer, candidate in 2021</div><div><b><a href="https://taslabor.org.au/people/geoff-lyons/">Geoff Lyons</a></b>, former federal MHR, West Tamar councillor, Windermere candidate 2021, former LGH business manager</div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>(Jenny Hewson was announced as a candidate before tbe election was called but withdrew)</i></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Greens</b></div><div><i>Greens candidates listed in endorsed ticket order</i></div><div><a href="https://greens.org.au/tas/person/cecily-rosol"><b>Cecily Rosol</b></a>, counsellor, foster carer, former nurse and school chaplain, past federal and minor state candidate</div><div><div><b><a href="https://greens.org.au/tas/person/2024-state-election-candidates-list">Tom Hall</a></b>, doctor, anaesthetist, past candidate inc 2019 federal</div><div><b>Jack Fittler, </b>digital and community campaigner for federal Greens</div><div><b><a href="https://greens.org.au/tas/person/2024-state-election-candidates-list">Lauren Ball</a>, </b>BA<b> </b>student (politics and policy)</div><div><b>Carol Barnett, </b>painter</div><div><b>Calum Hendry, </b>teacher</div><div><b><a href="https://greens.org.au/tas/person/2024-state-election-candidates-list">Anne Layton-Bennett</a>, </b>writer, library technician, candidate 2014, 2021</div></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Independents With Own Columns</b></div><div><a href="https://laraalexander.com.au/"><b>Lara Alexander</b></a>, first-term incumbent elected on recount, defected from Liberals May 2023, accountant, former St Vincents CEO</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.brownforbass.com.au/" style="font-weight: bold;">Mark Brown </a>driving instructor, former state director of Australian Christian Lobby</div><div><br /></div><div><b><a href="https://jack4bass.au/">Jack Davenport</a></b>, 2021 Greens lead candidate, advisor to Senator Whish-Wilson prior to campaign, former UK councillor</div><div><br /></div><div><b><a href="https://timwalker.com.au/">Tim Walker</a>,</b> Launceston councillor (first elected as a Green, now independent), former ABC journalist and advisor</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Brown is not the Mark Brown of Yes AFL Team, Yes Stadium - the candidate Mark Brown is in fact anti-stadium.</i></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Davenport stood for Greens lead position preselection unsuccessfully. After his independent candidacy was revealed while in embargo, the Greens issued a statement revealing he had run last in preselection with 11 votes. Greens preselections are normally very opaque. The move attracted criticism.</i></div><br /><b>Jacqui Lambie Network</b><br /><div><a href="https://lambienetwork.com.au/pages/angelaarmstrong"><b>Angela Armstrong</b></a>, lawyer, foster carer, former corporate strategist</div><div><b><a href="https://lambienetwork.com.au/pages/ludwigjohnson">Ludwig Johnson</a>,</b> machine shop manager, fitter and turner</div><div><a href="https://lambienetwork.com.au/pages/rebekahpentland"><b>Rebekah Pentland,</b></a> small business (construction/property/labour/apartments), former pharmaceutical business consultant</div><br /><b>Shooters, Fishers and Farmers</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61552209774155"><b>Michal Frydrych</b></a> (lead candidate), Chairperson Rural Businesses Tasmania, infrastructure projects and business development<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i>(Andrew Harvey was listed as a Shooter but didn't run)</i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Animal Justice</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><a href="https://tas.animaljusticeparty.org/ivan_davis_for_bass">Ivan Davis</a></b>, lead candidate 2022 Senate, former farmer, Army musician and SAS trooper etc</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Ungrouped Independents</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u><a href="https://www.georgerazay.com/">George Razay</a></u></b>, first-term Launceston councillor, 2022 Bass candidate, LGH doctor (Alzheimers, dementia etc)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/gregtubbyquinn"><b>Greg (Tubby) Quinn</b></a>, truck owner/operator</div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i>A Quinn post on his personal site gave a platform of banning heart-shaped parmies in pubs.</i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Julie Sladden Endorsement</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">(Further article:<a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/liberal-agrees-tasmanians-are-ostriches.html"> Liberal Agrees Tasmanians Are Ostriches</a>)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Of a number of eyebrow-raising names in the Liberals' candidate rollout the most surprising of all was Dr Julie Sladden, a West Tamar Councillor (elected in 2022 by 3.59 votes, that's not a misprint) who closed her own medical practice in response to COVID vaccine mandates. Sladden has written for Spectator about COVID and in one of her articles (<a href="https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2022/09/30/my-government-turned-me-into-an-anti-vaxxer/">reproduced here</a>) wrote such things as:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i>"This ‘thing’ that we have been doing the past two years, is not healthcare. I don’t know what it is, but it is not healthcare, and it was obvious from the start. It is not benefiting the ‘greater good’. It is not looking after grandma. It is not ‘doing our bit and protecting others’. It is not saving lives.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>It never was."</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>This is not just a simple freedom-based or risk-reward approach to COVID mandates that Sladden is taking, she specifically believes that <i>"the latest hospital admission statistics do not support the claim that the unvaccinated are more at risk of serious Covid disease, hospitalisation or death." </i>There's heaps more of it out there: she clearly believes COVID vaccines are dangerous and have no net benefit. And in that sphere, she is a very prominent voice, who is interviewed on some pretty out-there radio programs. For instance she was approvingly interviewed in the same episode as Simeon Boikov in two radio shows on TNT in five weeks in late 2023. (This is not to say she shares Boikov's views, just that both are attractive to a similar fringe audience.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Sladden has a Twitter account which is currently @DrJulieSladden but was @JulesSladden until 16 Feb or slightly before. It consists of almost nothing but anti-COVID-vax/mandate material though after several minutes of diligent struggle I did find a few tweets about other matters, including lowering fuel tax and agricultural protests in Germany. (Likewise almost all her culture war press publications are on COVID but there are a few on other things, like one <a href="https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2023/09/01/protecting-children-takes-courage/">against trans-affirmative practices</a>.) She follows not orthodox Liberals but figures prominent in right-wing culture wars: Bernardi, Babet, Limbrick, Elliot. In the past few months she has, apparently approvingly, liked tweets by Roberts, Julian Fidge, Topher Field, Elliot, Broadbent, Antic, Rennick, Hanson, Deeming and Craig Kelly and a tweet by "freedom movement" videographer Real Rukshan praising Tucker Carlson's interview of Vladimir Putin. She has also <a href="https://twitter.com/kevinbonham/status/1764432372609798445/photo/1">approved of an address</a> by notorious anti-vaxxer Sucharit Bhakdi (who has compared COVID vaccination to the Holocaust and suggested that it was an example of Jews learning tactics from Hitler) to the far-right Alternative für Deutschland party.</div><div><br /></div><div>In June 2022 Sladden had a <a href="https://www.examiner.com.au/story/7763011/tasmanian-public-health-act-gives-too-much-control-to-one-bureaucrat/">letter in The Examiner</a> declaring that Tasmanians had been "living in an autocracy" and the Gutwein/Rockliff government had not been "in charge". She also wrote "<i>The Tasmanian Public Health Act must be rewritten to protect our democracy in the event of any future ''health emergency''.</i>", the use of scare quotes around "health emergency" implying that COVID was not really a health emergency. </div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">In April 2023 Sladden attended a conference called "<span style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #212121;"> Dr Peter McCullough Covid-19 Vaccine Conference" that was hosted by, of all things, the United Australia Party. At this she <a href="https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2023/04/26/catastrophic-an-interview-with-peter-mccullough-and-john-leake-on-the-politics-of-covid/">approvingly interviewed McCullough</a>, an Ivermectin supporter. In May 2023 she wrote an article <a href="https://www.scienceandfreedom.org/articles/all-of-a-sudden-ivermectin-is-safe-again/">supporting Ivermectin</a> and saying that she had been "incited" in 2021 by the official response to this drug. </span></span></div><div><br /></div><div>Sladden is active through Legana Christian Church which has the amusing habit of praying for political leaders to "encounter the Risen Saviour" and so on. A former English Channel swimmer, Sladden has coached swimming at a school where Michael Ferguson's wife teaches. In 2014 Sladden was a supporting member for the short-lived state registration of Australian Christians. </div><div><br /></div><div>This. preselection. is. bizarre. In 2021 Peter Gutwein was re-elected as Premier with the biggest personal vote since the advent of Robson Rotation. This was in large part off his almost universally acclaimed handling of COVID. During the campaign he appeared in a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1219266978559843">viral TikTok video</a> where he got "the jab" and in the process showed off his instantly famous panther tattoo. His stance was strongly backed by his Deputy - now in 2024 the Liberals preselect a candidate who thinks COVID vaccines are a con? </div><div><br /></div><div>It's hard to know whether the Liberals picked this candidate in desperation without checking, or were well aware of her views and think that throwing a bone to the freedom movement, or getting their own candidate cancelled, is a plus. Or perhaps, they have just figured not many people will care beyond one news cycle. On that they could be right.</div><div><br /></div><div>Jeremy Rockliff has defended the preselection on the grounds of the party being a "broad church". No. A "broad church" in the original analogy referred to a mix of different Anglican interpretations, not to accepting everything under the sun. I don't have the medical knowledge to comment on whether Sladden's claims about vaccines have any merit, but I do have the political knowledge to say that her positions are fringe politics (and I believe they are fringe in the medical community). The rightful home for such views is in so-called "freedom parties" that are not even registered in Tasmania. </div><div><br /></div><div>Of minor interest but unrelated to all the above, Sladden is involved in legal action against the Australian Taxation Office over the correct taxation of a million dollar insurance lump sum; a few taxation law websites <a href="https://www.mkttax.com.au/assessability-of-commuted-lump-sum-insurance-payment/">have commented about this case</a>. She lost at the <a href="https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AATA/2023/3815.html?context=1;query=sladden;mask_path=">Administrative Appeals Tribunal</a> but an appeal is now underway in the <a href="https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/QUD560/2023/actions">Federal Court</a>. </div><p style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Prospects for Bass</span></b></p><p>Federally, Bass is the "ejector seat" of Australian politics with a long history of almost always throwing out its incumbent, though it took a break from the bloodshed (just) in 2022. Outer Launceston suburbs sensitive to cost of living issues and towns with a strong timber history (eg Scottsdale) often drive this trend.</p><p>In the 2021 state election the Liberals polled a massive 60% in Bass to 26% for Labor and 9.2% for the Greens. Under the 35 seat system this would have split either 5 Liberal 2 Labor or 4 Liberal 2 Labor 1 Green. However this was driven by Peter Gutwein's immense personal vote and was unlikely to be repeated unless Papi G rode back on his flying panther to save the day. Results for previous elections would have been 5-2 or 4-2-1 in 2018, 4-2-1 in 2014, 3-3-1 (not too far off 3-2-2) in 2010 and 2-4-1 in 2006 when Labor won its last majority. So it seems like 4-2-1 is the vanilla scenario here given recent <i>statewide</i> polling, but several other things are possible.</p><p>The departures of Gutwein and Courtney and the defection of Alexander mean the Liberals have only two incumbents, Ferguson who polled very poorly for a major incumbent in 2021 and Wood who was elected on a recount and has a low profile. Ferguson will bounce back but a large swing against the Government should be expected here and the question is is it large enough (at least, say, 12%) to knock them below four. Recent electorate polling suggests a very large swing and that the Liberals will be struggling to get more than three here. Fairs is a very high profile candidate who should help fill the gap and has great chances if he campaigns energetically. The preselection of Sladden is causing the Liberals controversy but I am unsure it will harm them in this electorate specifically. Beyond probably Ferguson and Fairs, the field for a remaining Liberal is very open. </p><p>The party's problems in Bass are not limited to a weak incumbent lineup. The <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/tasmanian-liberal-party-rocked-by-branch-mass-revolt/news-story/8e1e2dc8e739ac835b9fb68fc30ad228?amp">north-eastern branch imploded</a> amid a stoush between the party and Dorset Mayor Greg Howard and his supporters; Dorset Council is now suspended. Areas like Scottsdale and Bridport are major vote-baskets for the Liberals and very large swings could occur there - or voters might not see a real alternative. </p><p>The Labor ticket has strong incumbents in Finlay and O'Byrne and I expect both to retain with the size of Finlay's vote of interest after a good first term. Labor should gain something from the government's problems in this seat. However, Labor needs a solid swing of at least 5%, probably more, to put it in the mix for a third seat. </p><p>The Greens have been fancied for a seat here post the expansion but are likely to be short of quota on primaries on recent form. If the majors manage six seats between them then the Greens could be left fighting JLN or others for the final seat with perhaps unfriendly preference flows (their best case here is Labor doing well but not too well). Cecily Rosol is not a household name and was not even elected to Launceston Council in 2022 after running as a federal Reps candidate (!), so a Green win here while an obvious chance, shouldn't be taken for granted. The fight with Davenport may do them some harm too, though I do not expect him to get much. But it could be they still get across the line if there is no-one else on enough to stop them. </p><p>As for JLN the party's 2022 Senate vote translates to 0.66 quotas, but they would have to add a big protest vote to that given the lowish profile of their candidates and it being a lower profile JLN campaign than federally. Armstrong has some profile through foster care advocacy; I am wondering whether Pentland has actually been the more prominent candidate. Polls vary as to whether JLN are in a winning position here.</p><p>There are too many mostly late-announced indepedents in Bass and I am not sure any of these are going to greatly disturb the scorers. Alexander is the most prominent indie as a sitting MP who had high publicity in the election leadup, but she comes from a low personal support base. On one recent visit to Launceston I did detect some level of support for her in terms of corflute presence, but not a huge level. She is also not easy for the kinds of voters normally attracted to indies to vote for, because of her conservative past issue positions. Despite the publicity she will have received from the election leadup I think it will be hard for her to win. </p><p><b>Outlook for Bass: 3 Liberal, 2 Labor, nobody clearly wants the last two but somebody's got to get them (Greens, JLN, majors, maybe Alexander)</b></p>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-75905902556741061662024-02-14T15:08:00.181+11:002024-03-19T11:59:54.527+11:002024 Tasmanian State Election Guide Main Page<p>Welcome to the main page for my 2024 Tasmanian state election coverage. This page will carry links to all the other articles about the election that I write prior to the close of polling, and will contain general big-picture stuff and links to all the specialised articles (once these are written). It will be updated very frequently. Each electorate will very soon have its own guide page. Note that these are my own guides and I reserve the right to inject flippant and subjective comments whenever I feel like it; if you do not like this, write your own. This guide and all the others will evolve over coming weeks. </p><p>I will be covering the election counting night for the Mercury from the tally room; all post-count coverage will occur on this website. </p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Donations welcome!</span></b></p><p><b>If you find my coverage useful please consider donating to support the large amount of time I spend working on this site. Donations can be made by the Paypal button in the sidebar or email me via the address in my profile for my account details. Please only donate if you are sure you can afford to do so. </b>If viewing this site on a mobile, you may need to scroll to the bottom of the page and click "View web version" to see the sidebar with the donate button. </p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Article links</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Articles relevant to the election and written during the leadup will have links to them posted here as they are done. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Effective Voting</b></div><div><br /></div><div><b><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/03/how-to-best-use-your-vote-in-2024.html">How To Best Use Your Vote In The 2024 Tasmanian Election</a></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>Electorate and candidate guides</b></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide-bass.html"><b>2024 Tasmanian State Election Guide: Bass</b></a></div><div><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide_15.html"><b>2024 Tasmanian State Election Guide: Braddon</b></a></div><div><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide_16.html"><b>2024 Tasmanian State Election Guide: Clark</b></a></div><div><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/this-is-franklin-electorate-guide-for.html"><b>2024 Tasmanian State Election Guide: Franklin</b></a></div><div><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide_17.html"><b>2024 Tasmanian State Election Guide: Lyons</b></a></div><div><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/announced-candidates-for-next-tasmanian.html"><b>Full list of candidates</b></a></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Other articles</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>Links will be added here as other articles are written.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/03/there-aint-no-stability-clause.html">There Aint No Stability Clause</a></b></div><div><b><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/03/why-i-dont-support-fixed-four-year.html">Why I Don't Support Fixed Four Year Terms For Tasmania</a></b></div><div><b><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/03/ucomms-labor-23-how-much-stock-should.html">uComms: Labor Just 23: How Much Stock Should We Put In This?</a></b></div><div><b><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/03/redbridge-says-its-multi-party-mess-as.html">Redbridge Says It's A Multi-Party Mess As Voters Flee Liberals</a></b></div><div><b><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/03/mystery-poll-why-are-we-still-playing.html">Mystery Poll: Why Are We Still Playing This Game?</a></b></div><div><b><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/emrs-liberals-have-big-lead-but-still.html">EMRS: Liberals Have Big Lead But Still Well Short Of 50</a></b></div><div><b><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/liberal-agrees-tasmanians-are-ostriches.html">Liberal Agrees Tasmanians Are Ostriches</a></b></div><div><b><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2023/05/holding-ball-polling-and-proposed.html">Holding The Ball: Polling And The Proposed Stadium</a></b></div><div><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2021/03/2021-tasmanian-state-election-guide.html"><b>2021 Guide Main Page</b></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Dates and cause of election</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>The election was called after the Premier visited the Governor on Wednesday 14 Feb and will be held on Saturday March 23. Key dates are as follows:</div><div><br /></div><div><b>21 February, 6 pm: writs issued, roll closes</b></div><div><b>29 February, 12 pm: close of nominations </b></div><div><b>1 March, 12 pm: announcement of nominations </b></div><div><b>4 March: prepolling starts</b></div><div><b>23 March: main polling day</b></div><div><b>2 April: last day for postals</b></div><div><b>return of writs by 22 April (probably sooner)</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Tasmania is the only state without fixed terms. The previous election was called ten months early (see <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2021/03/2021-tasmanian-state-election-guide.html">previous guide and linked articles</a>) and this one is thirteen months early. The election has been called after relationships with two former Liberals who had defected to the crossbench in May 2023 continued to deteriorate. Unlike the 2021 election which rode on the back of the government's success with the pandemic, this early election is not at a favourable time for the government, although it does enable it to avoid further immediate scrutiny over the Commission of Inquiry process. (There is a theory that the election was called now <i>for that reason</i>, but if the Premier was going to go to an election without Parliament resuming, there was no other sensible date.)</div><div><br /></div><div>The two ex-Liberals, John Tucker and Lara Alexander, initially agreed to provide confidence and supply and not to support Labor and Greens legislation. However they continued to support and introduce other motions including procedural and symbolic motions, dissents in the Speaker and motions to compel the Parliament. This caused several defeats for the Government on the floor of Parliament. On January 4 Tucker threatened to move a no-confidence motion citing two issues, the commencement of High Performance Centres linked to the proposed AFL stadium, and installing CCTV footage in abbatoirs. On February 3 Premier Jeremy Rockliff threatened an early election unless the defectors agreed to cease supporting Labor, Green and independent motions. It is unclear how this would have stopped them from destabilising the government as they could simply have moved the same motions themselves. Anyway the defectors did not agree and the outcomes of a rather pointless meeting on February 9 were disputed, leading the Premier to call the election.</div><div><br /></div><div>As in 2021 there have been some suggestions from Hung Parliament Club usual suspects that the Governor should have or could have asked Premier Rockliff to return to Parliament to see if his Government had confidence or not. This is spurious (whatever the outcome of such a vote would be) and I <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-governors-role-in-2021-tasmanian.html">debunked much of this line of argument in 2021</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Backdrop</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>The Rockliff Government is currently Australia's last surviving Coalition government, not because Tasmania is a conservative place (indeed Tasmania was the most Labor-leaning state federally on a two-party basis for decades until recently) but because of electoral cycle effects. Will Hodgman led the Liberals to a massive 2014 victory over a 16-year old Labor government reduced in its final term to an unpopular coalition with the Greens. The Liberal government has succeeded since then by being generally very moderate but maintaining mostly excellent internal relations between moderates and conservatives - until this term.</div><div><br /></div><div>Hodgman was re-elected in 2018 but with only a one-seat majority, and struck trouble in the form of former Hobart Lord Mayor Sue Hickey who <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2018/05/mayhem-on-day-1-as-hickey-nicks-chair.html">usurped the Speakership</a> and caused the government pain by crossing the floor on gender birth certificate reforms and mandatory sentencing, among other issues. Hodgman moved on in 2020 and was replaced by Peter Gutwein, who had been in the job just a few weeks when COVID-19 struck the planet. Gutwein's widely praised handling of the pandemic saw him trade approval records with WA Premier Mark McGowan. In 2021 Gutwein advised Hickey that she had been disendorsed, Hickey quit the party and Gutwein called an election. Against a Labor opposition that was wracked by infighting and that had confused voters with flipflopping positions on poker machine reform, the Liberals won the primary vote massively but still secured just a single seat majority again. Such are the perils of Hare-Clark.</div><div><br /></div><div>The 2021 election was fought on the key theme of keeping Gutwein in "the Premier's Chair" so a stable Liberal majority government could go on as it had done while protecting Tasmania from COVID. But now that Premier is gone, the majority is gone, the stability is gone, and the "COVID moat" is ancient history. Has anybody seen the chair? Gutwein, a notoriously heavy worker, resigned less than a year into this term citing nervous exhaustion and was replaced by long-serving Deputy Jeremy Rockliff. Rockliff had long been the party's popular "nice guy" MP but has also attracted criticisms: too left, lacks killer instinct, tin ear and so on. </div><div><br /></div><div>In early 2023 the political issues mix shifted to football, in particular the state's bid for an AFL licence for which the AFL required a new stadium. The Macquarie Point stadium proposal was <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2023/05/holding-ball-polling-and-proposed.html">unpopular</a>, and the governance of the stadium issue was one of many catalysts for a couple of grudge-bearing conservative Liberals to defect and become independents. This was just one of many blows to the government on the personnel front, with a string of resignations and reshuffles including a near-election showdown last October when Attorney-General Elise Archer was forced out over damaging chat messages and bullying accusations (the latter of which she denies). </div><div><br /></div><div>Meanwhile Labor had big problems of its own. After the loss leader Rebecca White initially resigned, and was replaced in a contested ballot of members and delegates by David O'Byrne, who had been strongly supported by the "hard left" faction that had caused much of the damage on the campaign trail. Within a month, however, O'Byrne was brought down by a scandal involving unsolicited kissing and text messaging of a union staffer in 2007, prior to his parliamentary career. This placed O'Byrne in exile from the party room as an "Independent Labor" MP for the rest of the term. Meanwhile, the party was under federal administration. Eventually, O'Byrne was deselected and quit the broader Labor Party. The party under White has so far struggled to take advantage of the government's misfortunes, its primary vote seemingly glued to the 30% line. </div><div><br /></div><div>The crossbench, which started with two Greens and one independent, had doubled in size by the end of the term. With both major parties in difficulty and the restoration of the House to 35 seats, there is a golden chance for it to grow further.</div><div><br /></div><div>The election is not just about whether the Liberals remain in government, but also <i>which</i> Liberals. The moderates have been in charge for a decade and the party is running some very conservative candidates, most notably former Senator Eric Abetz. Michael Ferguson has been publicly patient and loyal and may well want a go in the top job at some stage if the party is returned. </div><div><br /></div><div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The System</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>The Tasmanian lower house is elected by the multi-member Hare-Clark system, a form of proportional representation with similarities to the Australian Senate system. At this election, seven candidates will be elected in each of the five electorates for the first time since 1996. Voters must number at least seven squares and can number as many as they wish. There is no above-the-line voting and how-to-vote cards cannot be handed out near booths on polling day.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><div>The system favours candidates with high profiles and hence high name recognition, because these are most effective in obtaining not only primary votes but also preferences both from their ticket-mates and from other candidates. In cases where all a party's candidates have been elected or excluded, a high proportion of that party's vote will exhaust from the system because some voters just vote 1-7 for their chosen party and stop. As a result, for instance, <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2020/12/do-green-preferences-matter-at.html">Greens preferences have relatively little impact</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>The system allows candidates to compete with and in cases displace others from their own party as well as from other parties. Projecting results from opinion poll data and even from primary vote totals is a complex and difficult task, and often there are few if any useful polls to go on.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>The House was reduced from 35 to 25 seats prior to the 1998 election, partly with the aim of reducing costs but also with an eye to making majority government easier. This change was reversed during the current parliament. See <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2013/03/tasmanian-lower-house-25-or-35-seats.html">Tasmanian Lower House: 25 or 35 Seats? </a> for analysis of the impact of the change. </div><div><br /></div><div>To win majority government, a party needs to win 18 seats. Since the number of seats became odd in 1959, the lowest vote share to have won a majority was 44.79% (ALP in 1998) and the highest vote share to not have done so was 47.68% (ALP in 1969). However, with minor party / independent vote shares increasing, it is possible the former record will be broken soon. There is only one previous case of government switching from a majority of one side at one election to the other side at the next, and in that case (1982) the government had lost its majority during the term.</div><div><br /></div><div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Issues</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>This section covers some issues that may attract attention on the campaign trail. This section does not claim to be a complete or representative coverage of the campaign and includes such issues as I find the time to cover. An issue being an "election issue" does not necessarily mean it will drive votes. The Liberals are marketing their policy platform as a "Strong 2030 Plan" in a way that created a belief that there was an actual document and then bemusement that no such document existed; rather it seems to be an umbrella term for all their policies. A list of campaign promises by the three main parties may be found at the ABC's <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-20/tasmania-2024-state-election-promise-tracker/103464388">promise tracker page</a>.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><u><b>* The Stadium:</b> </u>The proposed Macquarie Point stadium as part of the state's AFL licence deal has been one of the biggest issues in the state in recent years. Although many voters don't consider it a relevant issue at all, associated wedge attempts are inescapable on the campaign trail, especially with the AFL name and jumper reveal landing on March 18. The stadium is supported by those who argue that it will generate jobs, is essential for the AFL team to succeed and will have other cultural benefits such as catching large rock tours. It is opposed on the basis of cost, traffic disruptions, perceptions that it is a distraction from health and housing crises, and also the proposed location being close to the Cenotaph. A more complex and apparently even more expensive "<a href="https://www.stadiaprecinct.com/">Stadia 2.0</a>" proposal is also being canvassed though the government is very wary of it. </div><div><br /></div><div>Independents Tucker and Alexander were able to force the Government to send the stadium through the complex Project of State Significance process in a way such that it will come back to Parliament for a final decision. The issue is a wedge hazard for Labor which accuses the government of having the wrong focus, but could well end up approving the stadium in government anyway if unable to successfully renegotiate the deal with the AFL. The government are attacking Labor as wishy-washy for voting to kickstart the POSS process while claiming to oppose spending money on the stadium (Labor even had a petition against the stadium on their website, recently removed.). </div><div><br /></div><div>The government has promised to cap the taxpayer contribution to the stadium at $375 million and says there is considerable private sector interest. However it has not explained what it would do if there was a large blowout and full private sector investment on a divisive project was not forthcoming. </div><div><br /></div><div>Labor's position is also unconvincing. They promise to "renegotiate the deal" but the deal is already signed and the AFL doesn't seem interested in changing it, so what will they do if negotiations fail? Will they agree to the stadium or kill the deal? On 12 March Labor released a new position in which they expected the team to prove itself via successful use of existing venues before a stadium would be built. This would give the AFL abundant room to kill the deal ending the state club, if the AFL wished to do so. Rebecca White however thinks that the AFL would not do that. </div><div><br /></div><div>The <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/814374439523968/">Yes AFL Team, Yes Stadium Facebook page</a> is a common source of unabashed cheerleading for the government in connection with the issue. The Greens, Johnston and Craig Garland are opposed to the stadium at least in Hobart. David O'Byrne is strongly for it. Sue Hickey is open to the stadium but prefers the 2.0 version. </div><div><br /></div><div>Jacqui Lambie has been opposed in the past (" you can stick it up your bum") but went quiet on the issue lately, with suggestions her position had changed. She has now stated that she has "a problem" with the Macquarie Point site because it will overshadow the Cenotaph. One member of her ticket, Andrew Jenner, expressed some sceptical potential to support it before deleting his comments (see gaffes section below). Another, Troy Pfitzner, is strongly pro-team and has expressed an open position on the stadium and says that JLN have a free vote on it. Pfitzner is a former member of the Yes AFL Team - Yes Stadium page and shared a post with that group's sticker to that group (it was his wife's car). A third, Marshall Callaghan, is pro a stadium<i> somewhere</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div>(See also strategy section below.)</div><div><br /></div><div><u>* <b>Stability:</b></u> There is a history of minority government avoidance auctions in Tasmanian campaigns, in which leaders threaten to do increasingly gruesome things to their career should their party fail to win a majority. This seems to have taken a step back so far but both major parties are still limiting their options if there is not a majority. The problem for the Liberals is that after twice winning a majority yet failing to deliver a fully stable full-term government, the further noises they are making in that area are just like that old song, "<i>won't you take me back and try me one more time?</i>" </div><div><br /></div><div>The Liberals don't want to admit that they have run two unstable governments in a row, but they will still try to frighten voters with the idea of a more serious level of instability, hence their clever scare ad warning of a "traffic lights government" and constant mantras of "coalition of chaos". They have also put out an ad claiming that "Labor say that they won't do a deal with the Greens, but they <u>always</u> do" but that's disinformation. Labor dealt with the Greens in 1989 and 2010 but in 1996 they refused to do so and the Liberals were left governing in minority with limited Green support.</div><div><br /></div><div>The point here is that while the government has been unstable for parts of its last two terms, the instability hasn't much affected the executive, in a way that a hands-on coalition partner or an unstable freely-voting crossbench on major economic issues might. Sue Hickey only caused the government to lose on a few culture war bills, and as soon as Tucker and Alexander threatened to start pushing the government around more broadly, it pulled the pin and called the election. </div><div><br /></div><div>But the government - as with several past majority governments - has also delivered chaos of a different sort with affected parties being stuffed around on issues like local government mergers and the proposed fire levy before proposed changes were withdrawn. It also made a rod for its own back by recalling parliament in mid-December in a withdrawn attempt to suspend Justice Gregory Geason, and that was the day on which Tucker's abbatoir motion was passed. The Liberals have preselected several candidates with unusual ideological positions or integrity question marks that make them obvious flight risks, making it hard to take any claim that they could be a stable majority government if elected seriously.</div><div><br /></div><div>Meanwhile Labor is continuing to tell us that it loves being in opposition so much it won't deal with anyone to get out of it. (Deals with the Greens have in the past been electoral poison, but for instance the Lambie Network?) If past elections are any guide expect any number of potential crossbenchers to explain how they will use the balance of power sensibly and responsibly, before issuing mid-campaign threats to bring down governments before they even exist. The repeated early elections have meant that a lot of the business of government is <a href="https://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/analysis-the-liberal-government-will-leave-unfinished-business/news-story/022d7e811f3e714c3842d7ce45a7cc05">never finished</a>. (See also "Minority Games" section under Strategy below.) I will note below any comments on likely basis of support I see from anyone who I think even might poll significantly:</div><div><br /></div><div><u>Comments about possible support </u></div><div><br /></div><div>The Greens have said they will pursue issues including climate, housing, health, cost of living and nature. They have said they would strongly prefer to deal with Labor but are not ruling out supporting the Liberals; Rosalie Woodruff made a comment about having to respect the will of the people but I am not sure what this means in the context of a minority situation (did the proto-Greens do that in 1989?)</div><div><br /></div><div>The Jacqui Lambie Network has said that it wins the balance of power it will work with either major party if that party will "<i>work with anyone who commits to transparent decision making and makes fixing the health system, addressing the cost-of-living pressures and ensuring every Tasmanian has a home, their priorities". </i>Or at least that's what their leader says but she won't actually be in the parliament, and most JLN candidates appear to agree that their party has no binding policies. In a later statement Jacqui Lambie has said it will be up to her candidates to decide who to support. It appears that she sees any elected JLN members as fulfilling a legislative review role similar to a Senator. </div><div><br /></div><div>Louise Elliot has said she would lean towards supporting the Liberals. Peter Freshney has said that at this stage he would support "neither" party. None of the current or recent past independents O'Byrne, Johnston, Tucker, Hickey or Alexander have specified which party they would support - they have stressed consensus and stability (O'Byrne), collaboration and integrity (Johnston), rural GP access (Tucker), honesty (Hickey) and "putting Tasmanians first" (Alexander). (See <a href="https://iview.abc.net.au/video/TASM2020103531562">ABC interview here</a>.) Johnston has been paraphrased - I am unsure whether accurately - as saying she would work with whoever the Governor appointed but it doesn't work like that (in a minority situation the Governor will reappoint the incumbent Premier if the incumbent Premier wishes to meet the Parliament, and then is guided by the will of the Parliament.)</div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>* Cost of Living: </u></b>A staple of election campaigns at the moment. Labor has long campaigned on power prices and is promising to cap prices and undo rises over the last two years. The Liberals have dismissed this as a gimmick with their social media team responding to a picture of Rebecca White signing a giant policy pledge with a <a href="https://twitter.com/TasLiberal/status/1757598924398043211">2004 picture of Mark Latham doing the same thing</a>. They have also attacked Labor's promises to cut power charges for small businesses, alleging that Labor has vastly under-costed these. Labor has promised to scrap Aurora connection and disconnection fees. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>* Long Incumbency: </u></b>The Rockliff government will celebrate its tenth birthday eight days before polling day. The problem for it with the promises it is energetically wheeling out to do new things is that each one it deploys is an admission that it hasn't done that thing in a decade in office. Labor is using this quite effectively, asking if a government can't fix something in ten years why should it be expected to fix it in fourteen. </div><div><br /></div><div><u style="font-weight: bold;">* The Economy, Stupid:</u> If the government can tell a strong enough story about how the economy is going and where it is going to (and paint government by anyone else as a risk to that) then all the other issues and chaos may not matter overmuch. Unemployment is still relatively low by Tasmanian standards at 4.3% and at times there have been shortages of labor in some less glamorous industries (eg bus driving, see below). The economy has been strong, but growth slowed during last year, and one key factor here is that population growth has slowed substantially. There has also been a <a href="https://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/revised-estimates-show-deficit-is-on-track-to-be-521m/news-story/f1c52f38c9c9717e043347a212b3d282">blowout of more than $200 million</a> in the state's estimated budget deficit. </div><div><br /></div><div><div><b><u>* Institutional Abuse:</u></b> An issue last election but that was only the beginning. The Commission of Inquiry process during this term has been witness to harrowing and at times unbelievably brazen revalations of how, in the last couple of decades while we thought we were living in a modernising Tasmania, sexual and physical abuse were rampant and covered up in state institutions. Much as I would like to add context to <a href="https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2024/february/nick-feik/rotten-core">a piece by Nick Feik</a> that has summarised the ordeal for a big island audience, there is precious little more to say (other than that the great Tasmanian sport of senseless departmental reshuffles has been fuelled further in this term by the number of MP resignations). It has not helped that the Commission of Inquiry process lacked sufficient transparency for the public to know which agencies were culpable. The next government will need to clean up this mess, but does anyone even know how? The management of the post-COI process thus far suggests otherwise. </div><div><br /></div><div>On 17 March it came out that Michael Ferguson's office was informed of child abuse accusations against Senior Sergeant Paul Reynolds prior to Reynolds being given a guard of honour funeral. Ferguson states that he did not see the briefing note prior to the funeral, and also that the funeral was a decision for the Police Commissioner. <a href="https://megwebb.com.au/media-release-ferguson-must-answer-for-inaction-on-paul-reynolds-child-abuse-allegations/">Meg Webb is not impressed.</a></div><div><br /></div></div><div><b><u>* Health: </u> </b>A perpetual suspect on these lists and the story is generally the same: that the health sector is under-resourced and overburdened and Tasmania is lagging in outcomes. For all that it's often hard to discern how it's actually had an impact on election outcomes. This time around an added dimension is <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-06/lgh-allegations-of-falsified-medical-certificates-of-death/103430618">alleged medical fraud</a> with some dovetails with the COI process. The Liberals have for some reason chosen to destroy their credibility on health by preselecting an anti-COVID-vaccine and pro-Ivermectin candidate, <a href="https://www.ama.com.au/articles/liberal-partys-anti-vaccine-doctor-selection-misstep">attracting flak from AMA Tasmania</a>. They have also adopted a policy to "ban ramping" which seems to amount to defining it out of existence by moving patients inside after 30 minutes; whether they will receive quality care in a timely fashion once there appears elusive. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>* Education:</u></b> Another familiar suspect especially following recent news that irrespective of progress in other areas, Tasmania's year 12 attainment rate remains at an absymal 53%. Various prominent figures including former Labor Premiers Giddings and Bartlett and current Liberal state MP Bridget Archer have signed an <a href="https://openletter.earth/call-for-an-inquiry-into-the-tasmanian-education-system-45369f23">open letter</a> calling on the incoming Government to conduct an inquiry into the effectiveness of the system. Education is sometimes the subject of spurious stereotypes (such as the zombie false claim that around one in two Tasmanians are illiterate - derived from a measure of "functional literacy"). </div><div><br /></div><div><u style="font-weight: bold;">* Childcare:</u> Labor has announced a policy to build 30 new childcare centres; the Liberals have alleged it will cost several times Labor's estimate. Labor has also announced a policy to make government space available to childcare providers who pay above award wages. </div><div><br /></div><div><u style="font-weight: bold;">* Housing:</u> Housing prices in Hobart have finally started to fall - a little bit - but the housing affordability and availability crisis that was an issue at the last election is very much still there, especially for renters. Homelessness also continues to be a problem with the surge in tent living in near-urban bushland continuing. The main issues here are construction and supply from existing houses. Here the Government has a generally laissez-faire approach to houseowners wanting to transfer their houses to the short-stay accommodation market (often spuriously referring to extra houses owned by investors as "their homes") while Labor supports a freeze on new full home conversions. The Greens support capping rent rises at the rate of inflation. During the campaign the government has introduced a policy of charging a 5% levy to the visitor to short stay accommodation and using this to fund an as-yet unannounced first home buyers scheme. This policy is similar to policies supported by Air BnB and I don't expect it would do anything for renters who are not close to buying their own home, beyond slightly reducing the demand for short-stay rental compared to hotels (Air BnB would apply the levy to all accommodation). </div><div><br /></div><div>The Government has also promised to axe stamp duty for first homes up to $750,000 but this seems likely to inflate house prices. In a compassionate concession to renters the Government announced a move towards pet-keeping as a right but this has run into blowback from parts of the landlord lobby, with Hobart councillor Louise Elliot quitting the Liberals to run as an independent over the issue.</div><div><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div><b><u>* Macquarie Harbour:</u> </b>As some change from the perennial greenies-vs-loggers battles, a major environmental issue at the moment is the plight of the Maugean skate, an ancient cartilaginous fish now known only from Macquarie Harbour, which is also the site of major fish-farming operations. Both major parties are keen to be seen as supporting the salmon industry and to downplay its blame level for recent drops in the skate population. The issue also has a federal dimension. (As for the greenies/loggers battles, there has been a little bit of a flare-up, including Bob Brown getting arrested for by my count the tenth time.) The Lambie Network has been a target of wedging over Senator Lambie's position that the farming is a "problem", which at least one of her candidates has also endorsed. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>* Logging: </u></b>The sleepy above-mentioned greenie-loggers battles ramped up with the Premier announcing the state would start logging 40,000 hectares provisionally reserved under the 2012 "peace deal". This may provide some desperately needed oxygen for the Greens, who have otherwise been forced to run on mainly human rather than environmental issues. John Tucker has criticised the plan saying that the controversial sourcing would in fact put the industry at risk. The Tasmanian Forests Products Association has slammed the policy saying the government could have acted on resource security at any time in the last decade and that the government has different plans. Labor proposes various relatively minor changes which industry figures have supported. In addition to the Greens' position against native forest logging, various independents including Johnston, Hickey, Glade-Wright and Lohberger - and also some Local Network and AJP candidates - have signed a statement to the same effect. ALP member (not of parliament) Ali Alishah, who has a long history of forest protest arrests, has been in jail on a hunger strike during the campaign. </div><div><br /></div><div><u style="font-weight: bold;">* Energy: </u>Labor suffered <a href="https://www.examiner.com.au/story/8538921/labor-reviews-energy-policy-after-union-concerns-raised/?cs=95">an embarrassment</a> when it had to rejig a policy to create a new state-owned renewable energy company, having to reverse its plan to move the Hydro's consulting arm Entura into the proposed government business enterprise. The Marinus Link interconnector project, one of the flashpoints between the government and Tucker, has also been a flashpoint with the government committed to the project but Labor wanting to sell Tasmania's share of the project back to the Commonwealth. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>* Integrity:</u></b> The Government has from time to time come under fire over conflict of interest accusations and has faced claims that between one and three of its candidates may be under investigations from Tasmania's opaque, toothless and yet still strangely problematic Integrity Commission. Labor issued an <a href="https://taslabor.org.au/news/media-releases/fixing-tasmania-s-broken-integrity-system/">integrity policy</a> that was well regarded, although Labor was itself criticised for failing to support amendments to the Government's electoral reform Bills (which ended up never being proclaimed anyway) - Labor's stated reason for not supporting amendments being that it believed the Government would drop the Bills if it did. The Integrity Commission CEO issued a statement criticising politicisation of the Commission, but the statement contained an apparent error in claiming that investigations were necessarily private. There is widespread support from others for strengthening the Integrity Commission, including but not limited to Jacqui Lambie Network, Shooters Fishers and Farmers, Sue Hickey and the Greens. </div><div><br /></div><div><u style="font-weight: bold;">* Racing:</u> The Tasmanian harness racing industry became a farce on this government's watch with <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-31/murrihy-report-tasmania-harness-racing-race-fixing-findings/103374678">explosive accusations</a> of team driving, animal welfare issues and mishandled investigations. A review has found these <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-31/murrihy-report-tasmania-harness-racing-race-fixing-findings/103374678">largely substantiated</a> but there has not been any lasting sanction yet. Both a previous life ban for trainer Ben Yole (for lack of evidence) and track bans on four trainers including Yole (reason unknown yet) were overturned on appeal. The latter came on 23 Feb during the campaign. Liberal MP Madeleine Ogilvie was especially criticised as Minister for Racing (particularly by Labor's Dean Winter who is an avid follower of the sport) and eventually moved to other portfolios. </div><div><br /></div><div><u style="font-weight: bold;">* Women In Politics: </u>In an echo of the Morrison Government's problems with treatment of women, the Liberals started the term with 4 women out of 11 in the lower house but now have one. None of the resignations (Sarah Courtney and Jacquie Petrusma for family reasons, Elise Archer text messages and alleged office culture issues which she denies, and also Lara Alexander from the party) were specifically because of gender issues but it's a very unfortunate coincidence for the party to have lost nearly all its female MPs. It does have 3 out of 4 in the upper house, one of whom was given major ministries ahead of John Tucker after only a year and a half in parliament. The preselection of just 11 women in a team of 35 candidates, including a pathetic 1/7 in Franklin, has not helped the Liberals on this issue.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>* The UTAS Move: </u></b> moved to <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide_16.html">Clark guide</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>* Gambling:</u></b> The government caused much surprise when it announced precommitment cards for poker machines in December 2021, but they have not been implemented before the early election. Labor got burnt in the outer suburbs in 2018 and had a lot of dark money deployed against it after adopting a plan to restrict poker machines to casinos, and in 2021 signed a memorandum with the industry that was subsequently leaked. It seems doubtful Labor in office would go through with the government's plan. The Liberals have kept the pot boiling with a promise of some extra funding for their plan. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>* Real Time Metro Bus Tracking: </u></b> This is my guide and I can impose an election issue if I want to! It is an absolute joke that in 2024 we still do not have real-time tracking of Metro buses in Tasmania, especially as those bus services still running after recent "temporary adjustments" that removed several services can be unpredictably early or late. Real-time tracking has been on the drawing board for years and is supposedly coming in as part of a new ticketing system. Parliament should be doing everything in its power to ensure the process proceeds quickly and is funded to make the system as good as it possibly can be. I want to be able to load up a map on my mobile phone and watch a bus icon disappear into the underground bus mall the Liberals promised in the 2018 election. </div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://tasmaniantimes.com/2024/02/liberals-promise-to-halve-bus-fares-for-a-year/">Buses became an issue on 21 Feb </a>with the government promising to halve fares on Metro and intercity buses and Labor promising to do the same but also to fix up the bus service. The Greens support free buses, Sue Hickey supports a permanent halfprice, and David O'Byrne says the Liberals should deliver on past commitments before making new ones. My own view is that greatly improving the service is far more important than changing the price. As for real time tracking, supposedly coming later this year. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Campaign</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>The expansion to the 35-seat system together with the snap election has affected the parties' ability to find candidates. The Labor ticket is rather lacklustre with few obvious new stars (one of whom quit anyway) but it has had a smoother run than the Liberals, who are under fire over several questionable and one, in my view, insane candidate choices. </div><div><br /></div><div>The Government's campaign early in the election combined what seemed to be a defensive approach with a high level of energy in policy announcements. The Labor campaign for its part was modest and fairly tightly focused around a set of issues that tjhe party sees as relatable. In the second week of the campaign Labor were set back by an energy policy mistake while the Government seemed to have no end of energy for press releases. Indeed the government put out so many policies that seemed designed to polarise while annoying relevant stakeholder groups that its campaign seemed like a circular procession of dead cat throwing. The frantic tempo of the government campaign has meant that a depleted Tasmanian press pack has rarely stayed on any one sorepoint for long. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Strategy</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Notes on campaign strategy matters will be added here.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>The Stadium:</u></b> I find the decision by the Premier to stress that he would limit public funding to the stadium at $375 million to be an unusual move. Presumably there is an informed perception from his strategists (or should that be strategist, singular?) that the stadium is hurting the government badly and needs to be neutralised. The issue with this ploy is that it means the stadium is dead if private sector funding is not forthcoming to cover seemingly inevitable blowouts. So how does one attack Labor for risking "killing the team and killing the dream" (a common government mantra in parliament) if one is potentially committing stadicide oneself? It seems to throw away any ground from which to attack Labor's policy to renegotiate, and I wonder if the number of voters whose concerns are assauged by the Premier saying he will limit public funding can be worth it. </div><div><br /></div><div><u style="font-weight: bold;">Minority Games:</u> At this election so far Premier Rockliff has not ruled out governing in minority and has said the Liberals would govern alone or not at all, and would not do deals with the Greens. He has also said he would not be trading ministerial positions or policies, or agree to anything that constrained his government, but is open to conversations (suggesting he might agree to minor deals on process or matters that were not the subject of a Liberal policy in return for confidence or supply with other parties or independents.) Opposition Leader White <a href="https://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/majority-rules-as-white-rules-out-dealing-with-nonlabor-mps/news-story/ce633f7e293a1742126dc84256b952ad?amp">at one stage said</a> <i>“I’m not entertaining the thought of doing deals with anybody. I can rule that out."</i> but this may be a response to a journalist question so I am unsure if the context excludes dealing with independents. In several cases she has ruled out dealing with any other <i>parties</i>. She has not ruled out governing in minority with no deals, a la Chris Minns in NSW, who was offered confidence and supply by crossbenchers with no strings attached. </div><div><br /></div><div>Premier Rockliff has claimed that if there is a minority situation and his party wins the most seats then that will be a mandate for the Liberals' plans, but a mandate in a hung parliament only exists if a party forms government and even then on such conditions as the crossbench may agree with (and with everything broadly consistent with what parties said at the election). Thus if crossbenchers supply only minimal support and reserve a free vote on legislation, the parliament could have a mandate to block some government policies, as in the 1996-8 term. </div><div><br /></div><div>Opposition Leader White has claimed that only a vote for Labor can remove the Liberals. This is a bogus line that seems embedded in Labor campaigning nationwide. For instance in NSW Labor did not get a majority, but wins by independents in otherwise Coalition seats pushed the Coalition so low in the seat count that it could not sensibly even try to stay in government, while Green wins in otherwise Labor seats did not stop Labor winning. What is most likely to keep Labor in opposition if there is a hung parliament with slightly unfavourable numbers is itself. (See also "The Formation" section below.)</div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Partial Rollouts: </u></b>Both major parties released slates of candidates in advance of the election being called. Labor's was just a little short of the target of 35 and was generally viewed as underwhelming (especially after Michelle Dracoulis withdrew). The Liberals announced only 15 candidates including 11 incumbents and 4 new candidates (one of whom also withdrew), a strange decision which may have been meant to highlight that Eric Abetz was running, but resulted in claims they couldn't find enough candidates. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Local Campaigning: </u></b>It has been reported by the Fontcast that Labor will adopt the ACT Labor method of regional campaigning in which candidates are given areas to target. This is not yet confirmed by the party and accounts of how the system will work vary. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Formation</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>There are a going to be a lot of questions about how government is formed if (and I stress that that's still an if not a when) no-one wins a majority. Firstly, the incumbent Premier is entitled to remain Premier for the time being until they are voted out on the floor, so even if there is an apparent opposition arrangement the Premier is not required to resign immediately (Robin Gray insisted on his right to "meet the parliament" in 1989 but many other Premiers have not). If there is a prolonged negotiation phase the Premier may be reappointed temporarily while negotiations continue. </div><div><br /></div><div>If neither major party wins a majority or is willing to form a stable government a situation could in theory arise in which the Premier requests and is granted a further election. However this is unlikely, as in past cases whatever has been said before the election a way has been found for a government to form.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>A minority government need not necessarily be a coalition government or form by a deal.</b> As in New South Wales, a minority government can form based on commitments of confidence and supply unilaterally given by crossbenchers. There has been a lot of confusion between minority governments and coalitions already. A coalition exists when a minor party or independent/s joins the Executive as ministers. Labor/Green coalitions are common in the ACT, but in the states there have been 12 no-majority election results not counting the Liberal-National established Coalitions since 1980, of which only three resulted even arguably in coalitions (and two of those are scraping the barrell). </div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Debates</span></b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>Notes on any debates will be added here. There is usually at least one debate between the major party leaders. People's jury style "victories" in these debates are worse than useless as a predictor of results.</div><div><br /></div><div>* Property Council, 12 March 2023</div><div><br /></div><div>* Sky News People's Forum Rockliff/White scheduled for 4-5 pm 20 March. Many voters will have already voted.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Polling</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Polling in Tasmania is scarce. At the start of the campaign the <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2023/11/emrs-says-tasmanian-labors-getting.html">most recent EMRS poll </a>from November had the Government on 39%, Labor 29%, Greens 12% and unnamed others 19%. The Government had been as low as 33% after the departure of Tucker and Alexander but had largely recovered to its previous support level. </div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/01/lambiemania-what-should-we-make-of.html">A YouGov poll </a>in January had Liberal 31 Labor 27 Greens 15 IND 7 and Lambie Network an improbable 20.</div><div><br /></div><div>During the campaign the February EMRS had a result of Liberal 39 Labor 26 Greens 12 JLN 9 IND 14 others 1 - see <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/emrs-liberals-have-big-lead-but-still.html">main article</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>A <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/03/mystery-poll-why-are-we-still-playing.html">mystery poll</a> believed to be commissioned by the THA had the Liberals with about a 35-27 lead, see main article. </div><div><br /></div><div>Redbridge had Liberals 33 Labor 29 Greens 14 JLN 10 Ind/Other 14 -<a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/03/redbridge-says-its-multi-party-mess-as.html"> see article</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>Commissioned uComms polls by the Australia Institute Tasmania are seen now and then but the pollster was very unreliable at the 2021 election with a 7.4% underestimate of the Liberal Party primary. No explanation for this failure has been presented by uComms. A <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/03/ucomms-labor-23-how-much-stock-should.html">uComms for this election</a> had Liberals 37.1 Labor 23.0 Greens 13.8 Ind 12.4 JLN 8.5 Others 5.</div><div><br /></div><div>Commissioned Community Engagement polls for an unknown source have been seen widely but no claimed results. This is not a publicly proven reliable pollster in Australia. Many other unusual internal polls have been reported. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Poll Denying</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Rebecca White in a Stateline interview on March 15 suggested the polls were unreliable citing examples like Trump/Clinton (where the national polls were in fact accurate, the problem being with polling or lack thereof in critical states) and the 2019 federal election (a 3-point error, far smaller than Labor would need to get a majority). She also said "and we can do it" (in reference to getting 50% of the vote after one poll had Labor on 23%), supposedly on the basis of a large number of undecided voters (EMRS and Redbridge had 8% and 6% respectively three weeks out from election day). White also cherrypicked a 16-point loss in support for the Liberals (found in only one recent poll). </div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Prospects</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>This section will evolve as the campaign develops. </div><div><br /></div><div>The government is ten years old but has the large benefit of being in opposition federally. <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-kills-state-governments-age-or.html">Historically in state elections</a> these two factors go close to cancelling each other out in this case, but on average age would be a slightly bigger factor than the federal effect, and the government will be overperforming the national pattern if it survives in majority. (It also overperformed in 2021 when the Coalition was in government federally and the Tasmanian government would normally have gone backwards but lost no seats.)</div><div><br /></div><div>The Liberal Party has been severely affected by losses of personnel, scandals and general third-term problems and it will be hard for it to avoid a swing against it, which could be large. As its 2021 result would have been lineball in the 35 seat system there appears a high risk of the government losing its majority, but it is too early to be sure that this will happen. A majority would most likely require at least three four-seat electorate results, and while that is vaguely plausible given some of the polls, a further challenge is winning three in Clark. (Another path is four fours and a two, but with the crowded Franklin field that doesn't seem too likely either. A third, difficult, path is 5-4-4-3-2). </div><div><br /></div><div>On the Labor side there is nothing in pre-campaign polling to suggest the party will get more than three anywhere, and it would seem to be doing very well to even get five threes. It's not even clear it will get any. Labor would hope to do well enough to govern without needing the Greens, but that is looking very difficult. </div><div><br /></div><div>In the event of a hung parliament a potential problem for the Liberals - even if they win the most seats - could be finding anyone who will work with them, as the most likely crossbenchers are mostly either left-leaning or ambiguous. For Labor if it can get close to a majority it might be able to function in a NSW Labor style minority without doing the policy deals with other parties that it has ruled out, but it won't form government if deeply in minority by that method. </div><div><br /></div><div>The Greens could if things go well increase from their current two seats to about four, though none of the gains are guaranteed and gains beyond four will be difficult. I think that the Greens, while attracting much less criticism than the major parties in this term, are also struggling for oxygen - to the extent that two of their three campaign issues are human issues (health and housing) and in the case of health I think they will be overshadowed by Labor.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Jacqui Lambie Network can win a few if it can carry its federal vote over, but it is likely to suffer from having low profile candidates; even so in some seats it looks a good chance anyway. Independents should win at least two seats (at least one in Clark and David O'Byrne is also seen as likely) with potential for as many as six. </div><div><br /></div><div>This is a messy election because of the unusually large number of competing units, the expansion of the parliament and the potential for a post-election phase before the real winner is known.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Parties</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>As well as Labor, Liberal and Green, four other parties are registered:</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Jacqui Lambie Network</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>Shooters, Fishers and Farmers</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>Animal Justice Party</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>Local Network</b></div><div><br /></div><div>The Local Network often claims its candidates to be independents, but they are not, as they are endorsed by a registered party and would be dependent on that party's processes and values for re-endorsement in the event that they are elected. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Endorsing Groups</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>As with the federal election this election has seen some non-party groups endorse candidates. One of these has been <b><a href="https://voicesoftasmania.org/">Voices of Tasmania</a></b>, which seeks to endorse community-independent style candidates. This group surprised me with its initial list of 15 endorsements which not only included Local Network party candidates but also included a candidate who is only an independent because his party disendorsed him (O'Byrne), a non-candidate who never publicly canvassed running as other than a party candidate (Ryan Posselt - since removed), and even canvassed whether to endorse Lambie Network party candidates. Despite Voices requiring their volunteers to abide by scientific consensus, they endorsed Craig Garland who has never denied authorship of the garland.thebattler.com page that endorses the COVID Medical Network (antivax, pro-hydroxychloroquine), among other <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2022/04/tasmanian-house-of-representatives.html">controversial comments and shares</a> noted in my 2022 federal guide. (I believe the Mercury's description of Norm Vanderfeen as Garland's campaign director has been disputed but the SMH also reported that the two were <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/tasmania-bass-and-braddon-become-victims-of-their-own-loveliness-20220513-h23qob.html">campaigning together</a>). Candidates endorsed by Voices are: Offord, Garland, Freshney, Courtney, Davenport, Glade-Wright, T Cordover, Delaney (TLN), O'Byrne, Johnston, Hickey, Campbell (TLN), Formby (TLN), Nunn (TLN).</div><div><br /></div><div>The <b><a href="https://www.saveutascampus.com/">Save UTAS</a></b> campaign group has also been involved in endorsement debates, discussed on the <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide_16.html">Clark page</a>. Save UTAS has endorsed, in Clark in order, Lohberger (IND), Bayley (GRN), Johnston (IND) and Vogel (IND), in other seats the lead Green candidates and the Greens broadly and also Tucker in Lyons. </div><div><br /></div><div>The <a href="https://www.tasvotes.org.au/tasvotes"><b>Australian Christian Lobby</b></a> has issued fliers surrounding their claims about the government's anti-conversion-therapy laws impacting on parental control over children's gender decisions. Their fliers in general endorse the Liberals (B+) over other parties but give Alexander and Abetz (A+) the highest grade and A grades to Sladden, Antolli, Ferguson, Ellis, Petrusma, Barnett, Elliot (IND) and "Independent" in Lyons (presumed to be Tucker.) They have also issued candidate questionnaires with Liberals Sladden, Antolli and Searle initially shown as ticking every box including defunding Dark Mofo. However Antolli's box for defunding Dark Mofo was later changed to a cross. (His answer which remained the same was that he did not know what funding existed and didn't like Dark Mofo and wanted to replace it with "a family friendly winter festival with lights and attractions that offends no-one".) Kristie Johnston and the Greens collected near-complete and complete collections of crosses.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Betting</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Betting in Tasmanian elections has a dire predictive track record. In 2006 Labor's odds of retaining majority government were as long as $9 at one point; not only did they do this, but they did so easily and nearly gained a seat. In 2014 odds-on favourite candidates to top the poll failed to do so in three of the five electorates. In 2018 "Liberal Majority" (a result that eventually occurred with about 6% of the vote to spare) was at $15 six weeks from the election, and the Liberals did not become favourites to win until a couple of weeks out. (Even by election day they were only in the range 1.33-1.47.)</div><div><br /></div><div>One major bookie advertises odds as paying out on who is sworn in, but Tasmania has a requirement to swear in a Premier within a week of the return of the writs, so I am not sure how they handle that in the case of a temporary Premier (a la Robin Gray being sworn in so he could meet the House in 1989, whereupon he was voted out). </div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway <b>15 Feb</b> Liberal $1.50 Labor $2.50. Shortly after $1.45/2.60 was seen. </div><div><b>21 Feb</b> 1.60/2.30</div><div><b>28 Feb</b> 1.40/3.00 and some new markets Lib Min 2.10 Lib Maj 4.25 ALP Min 3.10 ALP Maj 34. Plus seats: Lib 10-12 12.00 13-15 6.00 16-18 1.90 19-21 7.00 ALP 7-9 7.50 10-12 2.20 13-15 4.75 16-18 8.00 (these markets are often bad value, not so clearly here)</div><div><b>29 Feb</b> 1.30/4.00 and someone has thrown money at 13-15 Lib moving it in to 3.50 and 16-18 Lib out to 2.50</div><div><b>6 Mar </b>1.15/7.00 (quite the blowout) Lib Min 1.70 Lib Maj 4.25 ALP Min 5.50 ALP Maj 34. Lib 13-15 and 16-18 tied at 2.50 (others long), ALP 10-12 at 2.00 and all others at least 7.00</div><div>Plus seat markets with favourites being: Bass 4-2-0-1-0 (Lib-ALP-Green-JLN-Ind), Braddon 4-2-0-1-0, Clark 2-2.5-1-0-1 (ALP 2 and ALP 3 tied), Franklin 3-2-1-0-1, Lyons 3-2-1-1-0</div><div><b>8 Mar</b> Lib Min 1.60 Lib Maj 4.25 ALP Min 6.50 ALP Maj 34. <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eRno1q-deWYQmmrrM9qKaBoHSDZI_4rj/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=108350135854843227104&rtpof=true&sd=true">Upload of seat odds and total odds.</a></div><div><b>15 Mar</b> Lib Min 1.50 Lib Maj 4.75 ALP Min 7.00 ALP Maj 34. Seat odds and total odds AWOL.</div><div><b>19 Mar </b>1.10/9.00</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Electoral Act </span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Notes relating to the Electoral Act and other electoral legislation will be included here.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Act was extensively amended during the term with a new disclosure and public funding scheme put in place but it was not proclaimed in time for this election. During the amendment process the Legislative Council blocked an amendment that would have allowed for naming of candidates without their consent in campaign material; this has been a past source of argy-bargy between the Electoral Commission and the Greens, though the Electoral Commission has backed off as concerns Facebook posting and so on. The elections for now three Legislative Council seats soon after this election could be very consequential for the future of electoral reform. </div><div><br /></div><div>The Liberals have proposed to ban party-hopping - see <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/03/there-aint-no-stability-clause.html">separate article</a>. The proposal is supported by the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers and opposed by Labor, the Greens, Hickey, Tucker, Alexander and me.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Government did not introduce new savings provisions to accompany the return to a requirement to number from 1-5 boxes. Tasmanians had to number from 1-5 at the 2021 state election and 2022 council elections, 1-6 at the 2022 Senate election and now 1-7. It is possible there will be an increased informal voting rate depending on the quality of awareness campaigns. Most likely the Lambie Network tickets that run only three candidates will be hurt by this, but not severely (it could cost them, say, a few tenths of a percent).</div><div><br /></div><div>The postal vote return window includes two Easter public holiday days. This may affect postal turnout although in Tasmania postal votes tend not to break that strongly compared with other votes. </div><div><br /></div><div>Simon Behrakis issued a release asking about a supposed rumour that Labor had done a deal with Ryan Posselt in which he stood down from Clark in exchange for Legislative Council preselection and that this may breach Section 187 of the Electoral Act. No evidence was presented that Posselt had stood down from anything, he had simply not been preselected. Even if he had stood down from preselection, the bribery provisions of S 187 refer to a decision to nominate as a candidate, not a preselection decision, so for the theory to fly Posselt would need to have threatened to nominate as an independent (which would have got him expelled from the party if he did). And I am still sceptical, as courts tend to view promises or threats around preselection as outside the ambit of improper influence laws, and flippantly because even if they didn't one might well debate whether the value of being preselected for Labor for Hobart these days exceeded three fee units (=$5.34). (This said the unexplained listing of Posselt as an independent candidate by Voices of Tasmania does raise the question of whether he did explore such a run). </div><div><br /></div><div>Curiously the same misunderstanding of what "electoral conduct" is appeared in the Spectator when the "Australian Medical Professionals Association" (an anti-COVID-vaccination/mandates group) accused the AMA Tasmania of breaching Section 189 simply for calling for Julie Sladden to be disendorsed by the Liberal Party. Section 189 deals with violence and intimidation, which simply calling for a candidate to be disendorsed is obviously not (it's an expression of opinion) but also S 189 relies on the definition of "electoral conduct" in S 187, which includes Sladden's decision to nominate as a candidate but does not include someone else's decision to preselect her. </div><div><br /></div><div>There is just enough time for candidates who fail to be elected (or even those doing a "Brooksy", ie winning and resigning immediately) to run for the Legislative Council too. They are ineligible under S 76 1 (b) of the Act to nominate while the writs for the Assembly are out, but the count should finish around April 5 and the writs are returned very quickly after that. Nominations for the Council close on April 11.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Examiner has published letters calling on the Premier to hold an indicative popular vote (which Tasmanian law calls a "referendum") regarding the AFL stadium with the election. This is impossible as a referendum must be authorised by an Act of Parliament and the Assembly has been dissolved. Even if it was possible the minimum time from a referendum being triggered to it being held is 42 days (Referendum Procedures Act 2004).</div><div><br /></div><div>The issue of whether non-humans can run for office from time to time excites commentary. The TEC may have to consider whether <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-02/tas-mayoral-candidate-cant-recall-identifying-as-a-frog/101494122">frogs</a> and <a href="https://www.examiner.com.au/story/7728886/animal-justices-election-strategy/">paper tigers</a> are allowed.</div><div><br /></div><div>Any councillor/mayor/deputy who is elected relinquishes their council seat immediately, triggering:</div><div>- for mayors, a by-election for the mayor and one councillor</div><div>- for deputies, a round-table election of a new deputy and a recount (or a by-election if no remaining candidates) of the council seat</div><div>- for councillors, a recount (or a by-election if no remaining candidates) of the council seat</div><div><br /></div><div>The Lambie Network complained vigorously after the Liberals registered lambienetwork.com as an anti-JLN attack site, but don't have a leg to stand on and were very sloppy for not registering it themselves. Lambie's name and image can be freely used as Lambie is not a candidate. JLN hit back with a page claiming the Liberals had bought the site for 10,000 GBP from a squatter, but this appears to be based on a listed sale price visible on Wayback in late 2021 and early 2022. The Liberals say they bought the site from Godaddy for $34.95 in "April last year"; the whois shows the site's registration as being updated 31 March 2023 (likely to be 1 April our time) and does not match JLN's claim that the site was purchased on 10 March 2024. In my view JLN's claim about how the Liberals got the site is false. </div><div><br /></div><div>There have been frequent claims about parties naming candidates online without consent in supposed breach of the archaic Section 196. The TEC issued a ruling about social media usage and S 196 after the DPP advised it couldn't be enforced against the Greens in the Huon by-election. The suggestion is that social media posts are not covered but some other forms of online material still might be and each case would be considered on its merits. I am not aware of any enforcement attempts. </div><div><br /></div><div>Jacquie Petrusma has used signs describing her as "Jacquie Petrusma MP". This is misleading to the extent that voters may think it means she is a current MP, but it isn't illegal.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Gaffes And Colourful Incidents</span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><span>This is always my favourite section!</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>* On 13 February an account called <b>Localnetwork.au</b> was banned from Wikipedia with reason "Username represents a non-profit" after briefly editing the Local Network page with material favourable to the Local Network. The edit attempt gave the impression of being signed by the party's Registered Officer. (If the user was indeed connected with the Local Network, this is also a violation of Wikipedia conflict of interest principles.)</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>* Defending against the charge that the Liberals have a problem with women,<b> </b>their sole remaining female lower house MP <b>Madeleine Ogilvie</b> gave an interview that used the word "I" nine times in four sentences starting with "I’m a big fan of women and, you know, I am one". If you think that sounds silly <a href="https://twitter.com/DarMurp/status/1757377561536114700">wait til you see the video</a>. </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>* The strongly-rumoured return of <b>Jacquie Petrusma</b> to the Liberal Franklin ticket was accidentally leaked prior to approval via the publication of a preplanned ad in the Eastern Shore Sun.</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span><span>* The biggest new name on Labor's first candidate reveal, Derwent Valley Mayor <b>Michelle Dracoulis</b>, was scratched before the election was even called. Dracoulis had previously quit a Labor ticket interstate. A shame as I was looking forward to discussing how the self-styled "<a href="https://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/derwent-valley-council-area-residents-take-to-facebook-over-wallaby-carcass-display/news-story/5d3ed2af2460ea804060220d17e624ee">redneck mayor</a>" would go! </span>This time the motive <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tucker-time/id1456322032?i=1000643857884">according to the Fontcast</a> was being assigned a campaigning region that did not include enough of her council turf (however accounts of whether this was actually the case varied in a later episode).</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>* <b>Tony Mulder</b> has fought so many elections that recycled Mulder election signs have been seen saying "Tony Mulder ... Fighting For" followed by a yellow taped line over the names of previous electorates.</span></div><div><br /></div><div>* The announcement of the independent run by <b>Jack Davenport </b>saw a chain of strange happenings after The Examiner briefly published an article, according to the candidate in breach of a clear embargo. The Greens issued a brutal statement that he had run last for preselection with 11 votes (itself strange given past opacity on Greens preselections). <b>Simon Behrakis</b> was shown as author of a statement from the Liberals exploiting this, except (whether because of the embargo or the putridly illiberal S 196 of the Electoral Act) the statement was soon blanked, to be replaced by a bland statement by <b>Michael Ferguson</b> the next day.</div><div><br /></div><div>* JLN candidate <b>Andrew Jenner</b> made <a href="https://twitter.com/kevinbonham/status/1759730932242907291/photo/1">Facebook comments suggesting he was being muzzled</a> against his will on the stadium, then made <a href="https://twitter.com/kevinbonham/status/1759730932242907291/photo/2">Facebook comments suggesting he wasn't being muzzled</a>, then deleted the comments. </div><div><br /></div><div>* <b>Simon Behrakis </b>released a statement attacking Labor for blowing its office spending budget and claimed Labor had spent "<i>an eye watering $94,000 on consultants.</i>" but this was sent flying out of the ring by <a href="https://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/liberal-clark-mp-simon-behrakis-takes-aim-at-labor-over-money/news-story/dc2ce9b2e99c66a4efca7ae7d5bf8a3a">the Mercury's David Killick</a> with "<i>The government spent $56.5 million on consultants last financial year, which was $29.2 million over budget</i>." Ouch!</div><div><br /></div><div>* In probably the most serious blunder of the campaign, Labor had to edit its Tasmanian Power Company policy to remove the inclusion of Entura, causing the<a href="https://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/david-killick-tasmania-election-uniting-unlikely-advocates-while-parties-pitch-net-vast-and-wide/news-story/4598b29f42723f929df49c1cebbd7665"> above mentioned Killick </a>to say the plan "had the half-life of a rare isotope of whoopsadasyium because someone forgot to get the union on board".</div><div><br /></div><div>* <b>Guy Barnett</b> said <a href="https://twitter.com/swegen31/status/1764795394410865015">"There will be no ramping under our government"</a> in a moment that was a dead ringer for Julia Gillard's "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead". </div><div><br /></div><div>* <b>The Australia Institute</b><b> </b>issued a press release advertising a press conference by "seven independent candidates" on the subject of native forest logging, but only three of them were actually independents; three were from the Local Network and one from the Animal Justice Party. </div><div><br /></div><div>* Liberal Franklin candidate <b>Aldo Antolli</b> was inundated with abuse after a text message flood to Lyons voters attacking the Jacqui Lambie Network defaulted to his phone number. Antolli called it a "monumental screw-up" and was described as "the Franklin candidate" in director Peter Coulson's explanation of what happened. <br /></div><div><br /></div><div>* Probably the best zinger of the campaign: <b>Dean Winter</b> for "Even spuds are deserting the so-called spud farmer" on news that <b>Peter Dutton</b> would not be joining Jeremy Rockliff's campaign. Harsh!</div><div><br /></div><div>* <b>Rebecca White</b> emailed policy details to three members of the ALP frontbench and apparently somehow included Liberal Speaker <b>Mark Shelton</b> on the distribution list. Of all the policies to leak in such a manner it was ... <a href="https://www.examiner.com.au/story/8557092/whites-cyber-lapse-labors-secret-policies-sent-to-opponents/?cs=95">the cybersecurity policy</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>* <b>The Examiner</b> published an election prediction by veteran commentator <b>Barry Prismall </b>that among other lesser implausibles had eight candidates (3 Lib, 3 ALP, 1 JLN and Tucker) winning in Lyons. </div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Trivia</b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div>* The last two terms combined have run for six years and 20 days. However there have been four shorter two-term sequences since World War II: 1946-48-50 (Legislative Council interference followed by grumpy crossbenchers), 1955-6-9 (deadlocked parliaments, one of which included a cross-party defection), 1976-9-82 (attempt to get bigger majority followed by government collapse) and 1986-9-92 (unnecessary early election followed by government collapse)</div><div><br /></div><div>* (Spotted by Alex Johnston) This is the first time February 29 has happened during an election campaign since 1916.</div><div><br /></div><div>* The Greens drew first column on the ballot paper in three divisions. The chance of a specific party that was running in all five divisions doing this well or better is about 1 in 78.</div><div><br /></div><div>* The total number of non-registered-party candidates is 29 but this is actually <i>not</i> a record; there were 32 in 1982. However in those days a registerd group had to have more than one candidate, requiring prominent independents to have running mates (this changed in 2004). </div><div><br /></div><div>* The Rockliff Government celebrated 10 years since its 2014 election win on March 15. It was the fourth Tasmanian government by a specific clearly-formed party to reach this milestone and surprisingly the second to do it during an election campaign. But things did not go well for the first such birthday boy with the Holgate government losing heavily in 1982. </div><div><br /></div><div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Scratched/Disendorsed Candidates Tally:</span></b></div></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Since Election Called: 3 (IND 1, Local 1, SFF 1 - all withdrawals)</span></b></div><div><i>(I have deleted one very low profile self-declared independent who I now believe was never a serious candidate.)</i></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><i>Before Election Called: 3 (Labor 2 Liberal 1 - all withdrawals)</i></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b></div><div><div style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size: large;">Not-A-Polls</span></div><div style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;"><br /></div><div>Not-A-Polls are up on the sidebar that you can vote in if you have a view about the results. Remember that there are 35 seats in total so if you vote in all five polls, try to pick a total breakdown first and make sure it adds up to 35. In 2014 and 2018 the Not-A-Polls skewed to the left by a seat or two but in 2021 they were spot on.</div><div style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;"><br /></div><div style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size: large;">Other Guides and Resources</span></div></div><div style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;"><br /></div><div style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.tallyroom.com.au/tas2024">Tally Room</a></div><div style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://pollbludger.net/tas2024/">Poll Bludger</a></div><div style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/tas/2024/guide/preview">ABC Guide</a></div><div style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnzuJXmfhgc">Me on 6 News (may need to scroll through)</a></div><div style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.tallyroom.com.au/55178">Tally Room analysis on ballot paper columns</a></div><div style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></div><div style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;"><br /></div>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-437555499681976122024-02-06T07:56:00.111+11:002024-03-03T17:20:23.951+11:00Announced Candidates For The Next Tasmanian State Election<p><b><span style="font-size: large;">NOTE 14/2: <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide.html">Guide main page has been launched</a>. Seat pages are up and linked from the headings below, I will try to keep updating this article too but as a lower priority.</span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Updates on the current "ultimatum" situation were posted <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/election-alert-time-as-rockliff-demands.html">on the previous article</a>. </span></b></p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Donations welcome!</span></b></p><p><b>If you find my coverage useful please consider donating to support the large amount of time I spend working on this site. Donations can be made by the Paypal button in the sidebar or email me via the address in my profile for my account details. Please only donate if you are sure you can afford to do so.</b></p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Introduction</span></b></p><p>This article is a list of endorsed or self-declared candidates who are running for the next Tasmanian state election; some unconfirmed or rumoured candidates are also mentioned in italics. The election isn't "due" til May 2025 but could happen soon as a result of <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/election-alert-time-as-rockliff-demands.html">ongoing tensions</a> between the Rockliff minority Liberal government and two MPs who defected to the crossbench. I have written this article with two main possibilities in mind. The first one is that the election is still at least a few months away or even next year, in which case the article will serve as a useful resource piece in the meantime and will help highlight the major early build-up of candidates for the benefit of history, with 83 known candidates at the time I started the article on 6 Feb 2024, some of whom have been running for many months. The second is that the election is close and writing this piece now will be something of a waste of time, but in that case we will have an election! So it's a win-win. </p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p><br /></p><p><i>(While it might be thought I would want there to be elections as often as possible, usually I resist calls for governments to go to them at any time before they are required or the government wants to. This however is an exception: in terms of the personnel and issues at the 2021 election, I have seldom seen a parliament with a mandate that is so thoroughly expired. Perhaps there will continue to be a Liberal minority government but if so it should be one determined by the people.)</i></p><p>This article will not contain bio details. Incumbents are listed with a *. </p><p>Based on the number of candidates already endorsed and the fact that the big three have many still to come, the record total of 158 set in the 1996 election could be threatened - perhaps less so if the election is called sooner rather than later. [Edit 29/2: the record fell]</p><p><u><b>IMPORTANT:</b> </u>Tickets are not endorsed by parties in order except to the extent specified. Candidate names are rotated within party groupings on different ballot papers. Some incorrect reporting that Eric Abetz had been selected top of the Liberal ticket for Franklin has caused confusion - there is no top of the ticket for major parties. Where a party has endorsed a specific order or declared a lead candidate I follow and state that - otherwise the list is alphabetical. </p><p>For independents, incumbents are listed first, followed by others in alphabetical order. Independents are running separately from each other unless indicated as a ticket. Prominent independents are likely to register their own column.</p><p>The Voices Of Tasmania group has endorsed 10 independents and 4 so-called independents from the Local Network party, noting that some independents did not seek endorsement with them. Those endorsed are: Offord, Garland, Freshney, Courtney, Davenport, Glade-Wright, T Cordover, Delaney (TLN), O'Byrne, Johnston, Hickey, Campbell (TLN), Formby (TLN), Nunn (TLN). </p><p>The Save UTAS Group has endorsed Lohberger.</p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Current Candidate Totals</span></b></p><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Liberal 35</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Labor 35<br />Greens 35<br />Independents 29<br />JLN 12<br />SFF 11<br />Local Network 5</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Animal Justice 5</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Total 167</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><p>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p><b><span style="font-size: x-large;"><u><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide-bass.html">Bass</a></u> (32)</span></b></p><div><b><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-size: medium;">Liberal</span></b></div><div><b><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><br /></span></b>Michael Ferguson *</div><div>Rob Fairs</div><div>Chris Gatenby</div><div>Sarah Quaile</div><div>Julie Sladden</div><div>Richard Trethewie</div><div>Simon Wood *</div><div><br /><span style="color: red; font-size: medium;"><b>Labor</b></span></div><div><br /></div><div><div><span>Melissa Anderson</span></div><div><span>Roshan Dhingra</span></div><div><span>Janie Finlay*</span></div><div><span>Will Gordon</span></div><div><span>Adrian Hinds</span></div><div><span>Geoff Lyons</span></div><div><span>Michelle O’Byrne*</span></div></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></b><b><span style="color: #38761d; font-size: medium;">Greens</span></b></div><div><span><i>Listed in party's endorsed order</i></span></div><div><span>Cecily Rosol </span></div><div><span><div>Tom Hall</div><div>Jack Fittler</div><div>Lauren Ball</div><div>Carol Barnett</div><div>Calum Hendry</div><div>Anne Layton-Bennett</div></span></div><div><b><span style="color: #38761d; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b><b><span style="color: #999999; font-size: medium;">Independents With Own Column</span></b></div><div><b><span><span style="color: #999999;"><br /></span></span></b></div><div><span>Lara Alexander*</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Mark Brown</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Jack Davenport </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Tim Walker</span></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #999999;"><br /></span></span></b><span style="color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b style="background-color: #20124d;">Jacqui Lambie Network</b></span></div><div><span style="color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b style="background-color: #20124d;"><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="background-color: white;">Angela Armstrong</span></div><div><span style="background-color: white;">Ludwig Johnson</span></div><div><span style="background-color: white;">Rebekah Pentland</span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #fcff01;"><br /></span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Shooters Fishers and Farmers</span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b></div><div><span><div>Michael Frydrych (lead)</div></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b><b><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;">Animal Justice Party</span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #990000;"><br /></span></span></b></div><div><span>Ivan Davis</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span><b><span style="color: #999999; font-size: medium;">Ungrouped Independents</span></b></span></div><div><br /></div><div>Greg Quinn</div><div>George Razay<br /><b><br /></b></div><div><b>------------------------------------------------------------</b></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i><b>Scratched:</b> Jenny Hewson (ALP endorsed but withdrew), Andrew Harvey (SFF - announced but did not run)</i></div><div><i><b>Debunked rumours:</b> there were unsupported rumours that Peter Gutwein (Lib) or Sarah Courtney (Lib) might be persuaded to return. </i></div><div><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><u style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide_15.html">Braddon</a></u> <b>(33)</b></span></p><div><b><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-size: medium;">Liberal</span></b></div><div><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div>Felix Ellis*</div><div>Patrick Fabian</div><div>Roger Jaensch*</div><div>Sarina Laidler</div><div>Vonette Mead</div><div>Jeremy Rockliff*</div><div>Giovanna Simpson</div><div><br /></div><div><br /><span style="color: red; font-size: medium;"><b>Labor</b></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></b></div><div><span><div>Shane Broad*</div><div>Anita Dow*</div><div>Amanda Diprose</div><div>Samantha (Sam) Facey</div><div>Danielle Kidd</div><div>Adrian Luke</div><div>Chris Lynch</div></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></b><b><span style="color: #38761d; font-size: medium;">Greens</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div><span><i>Listed in party's endorsed order</i></span></div><div><span>Darren Briggs</span></div><div><span><div>Michael McLoughlin</div><div>Petra Wilden </div><div>Leeya Lovell </div><div>Susanne Ward </div><div>Erin Morrow </div><div>Sarah Kersey </div></span></div><div><b><span style="color: #38761d; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b><b><span style="color: #999999; font-size: medium;">Independents With Own Column</span></b></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Craig Garland </span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b style="background-color: #20124d;">Jacqui Lambie Network</b></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #fcff01;"><br /></span></span></b></div><div><span>Miriam Beswick</span></div><div><span>Craig Cutts</span></div><div><span>James Redgrave</span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Shooters Fishers and Farmers</span></b></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Dale Marshall (lead)</span></div><div><span>Brendon Jones</span></div><div><span>Kim Swanson</span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b><b><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;">Animal Justice Party</span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #990000;"><br /></span></span></b></div><div><span>Julia King</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span><b><span style="color: #999999; font-size: medium;">Ungrouped Independents</span></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span>Gatty Burnett</span></span></div><div><span><span><span>Andrea Courtney</span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span><div><span>Peter Freshney </span></div></span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span>Liz Hamer</span></span></span></div><div><br /><b>------------------------------------------------------------</b></div><div><br /></div></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><i>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</i></div><div><p><b><span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide_16.html"><u>Clark</u> </a>(35)</span></b></p><div><b><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-size: medium;">Liberal</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Mohammad Aldergham</div><div>Emma Atterbury</div><div>Simon Behrakis*</div><div>Jon Gourlay</div><div>Madeleine Ogilvie*</div><div>Catherine Searle</div><div>Marcus Vermey</div><div><br /><span style="color: red; font-size: medium;"><b>Labor</b></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></b></div><div><span><div>Stuart Benson</div><div>Simon Davis</div><div>Ella Haddad*</div><div>John Kamara</div><div>Rebecca Prince</div><div>Susan Wallace</div><div>Josh Willie</div><div style="font-size: large;"><br /></div><div><i>(NB Willie is incumbent Legislative Councillor for Elwick)</i></div></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></b><b><span style="color: #38761d; font-size: medium;">Greens</span></b></div><div><i>Listed in party's endorsed order</i></div><div>Vica Bayley*</div><div>Helen Burnet</div><div><div>Janet Shelley</div><div>Nathan Volf</div><div>Trenton Hoare</div><div>James Zalotockyj</div><div>Peter Jones</div></div><div><br /><b><span style="color: #999999; font-size: medium;">Independents With Own Column </span></b></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span>Kristie Johnsto</span><span>n* </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Louise Elliot</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Ben Lohberger</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Sue Hickey </span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b style="background-color: #20124d;">Jacqui Lambie Network</b></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #fcff01;"><br /></span></span></b></div><div><span><i>(JLN have said they would not contest Clark but I also heard indirectly that this may not be final.)</i></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #fcff01;"><br /></span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Shooters Fishers and Farmers</span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b></div><div>Adrian Pickin (lead)</div><div><span>Lorraine Bennett</span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b><b><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;">Animal Justice Party</span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #990000;"><br /></span></span></b></div><div><span>Casey Davies</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span><br /></span></span><b><span style="color: #ff00fe; font-size: medium;">Local Network</span></b><b><span style="color: #ff00fe; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b><br /></div><div>Sam Campbell </div><div>Frank Formby </div><div>David Nunn </div><div>Ranae Zollner</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="color: #999999; font-size: medium;">Ungrouped Independents</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>John Forster</div><div>Angela Triffitt</div><div>Stefan Vogel</div><div><br /></div><div><b>------------------------------------------------------------</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><i><b>Posselt Preselection: </b>Ryan Posselt publicly sought ALP preselection but was eventually not picked, and then was announced as an independent by Voices of Tasmania on 26 Feb, but that was an error and he was deleted later. </i></div></div><div><i><b>Scratched:</b> Elise Archer (IND) was briefly a candidate then withdrew for medical reasons. Allyson Brophy was a Facebook-announced IND but did not run. </i></div><div><i><b>Earlier Elliot rumour: </b>The Mercury reported an unsourced claim that Louise Elliot could seek Liberal preselection. Elliot announced on 15 Feb that she would not run at all, but then on 21 Feb that she would run as an independent. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</i></div><div><p><b><span style="font-size: x-large;"><u><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/this-is-franklin-electorate-guide-for.html">Franklin</a></u> (31)</span></b></p><div><b><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-size: medium;">Liberal</span></b></div><div><b><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b></div><div><span>Eric Abetz</span></div><div><span>Aldo Antolli</span></div><div><span>Josh Garvin</span></div><div><span>Jock McGregor</span></div><div><span>Jacquie Petrusma</span></div><div><span>Nic Street*</span></div><div><span>Dean Young*</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span><i>(Petrusma was elected at the last election but resigned during this term.)</i></span></div><div><br /><span style="color: red; font-size: medium;"><b>Labor</b></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></b></div><div><span><div>Ebony Altimira</div><div>Simon Bailey</div><div>Meg Brown</div><div>Kaspar Deane</div><div>Philip Pregnell</div><div>Toby Thorpe</div><div>Dean Winter*</div></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></b><b><span style="color: #38761d; font-size: medium;">Greens</span></b></div><div><i>Listed in party's endorsed order</i></div><div><span>Rosalie Woodruff* </span></div><div><span>Gideon Cordover</span></div><div><div>Jade Darko</div><div>Owen Fitzgerald</div><div>Jenny Cambers-Smith</div><div>Lukas Mrosek</div><div>Christine Campbell</div></div><div><b><span style="color: #38761d; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b><b><span style="color: #999999; font-size: medium;">Independents With Own Column</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div><span>David O'Byrne*</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Clare Glade-Wright</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Tony Mulder</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b style="background-color: #20124d;">Jacqui Lambie Network</b></span></div><div><b><span><span style="color: #fcff01;"><br /></span></span></b></div><div><span>Marshall Callaghan</span></div><div><span>Chris Hannan</span></div><div><span>Connor Hallahan</span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b><b><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;">Animal Justice Party</span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #990000;"><br /></span></span></b></div><div><span>Jehni Thomas-Wurth</span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #990000;"><br /></span></span></b><b><span style="color: #ff00fe; font-size: medium;">Local Network</span></b></div><div><b><span style="color: #ff00fe; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b></div><div><span>Martine Delaney</span></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><b><span style="color: #999999; font-size: medium;">Ungrouped Independents</span></b></div><div><b><span style="color: #999999; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b></div><div>Tamar Cordover</div><div>Bob Elliston</div><div><br /><b>------------------------------------------------------------</b></div><div><i><b>Considered:</b> Brendan Blomeley (Liberal) was reported as considering running as an independent as of 22 Feb.but didn't run</i></div></div><div><i><b>Mysterious noises:</b> Fabiano Cangelosi who ran as a Labor candidate in 2021 engaged in a persistent Twitter monologue about being trapped in a curtain. However he then announced he was seeking Labor preselection for the seat of Elwick. </i></div><div><i><b>Scratched: </b>Anna Spinaze (Local Network), candidate page was up but did not run</i></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><i>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</i></div><div><p><b><span style="font-size: x-large;"><u><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/02/2024-tasmanian-state-election-guide_17.html">Lyons</a></u> (36)</span></b></p><div><b><span style="color: #2b00fe; font-size: medium;">Liberal</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Guy Barnett*</div><div>Gregory Brown</div><div>Stephanie Cameron</div><div>Justin Derksen</div><div>Richard Hallett</div><div>Jane Howlett</div><div>Mark Shelton*</div><div><br /></div><div><i>(NB Howlett is incumbent Legislative Councillor for Prosser)</i></div><div><br /><span style="color: red; font-size: medium;"><b>Labor</b></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></b></div><div>Edwin Batt</div><div><span><div>Jen Butler*</div><div>Ben Dudman</div><div>Casey Farrell</div><div>Richard Goss</div><div>Carole McQueeney</div><div>Rebecca White*</div></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></b><b><span style="color: #38761d; font-size: medium;">Greens</span></b></div><div><i>Listed in party's endorsed order</i></div><div><span>Tabatha Badger </span></div><div><span><div>Alistair Allan</div><div>Mitch Houghton</div><div>Hannah Rubenach-Quinn</div><div>Craig Brown</div><div>Glenn Millar</div><div>Gary Whisson</div></span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><b><span style="color: #999999; font-size: medium;">Independents With Own Column</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div><span>John Tucker* </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Angela Offord</span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #999999;"><br /></span></span></b><span style="color: #fcff01; font-size: medium;"><b style="background-color: #20124d;">Jacqui Lambie Network</b></span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #fcff01;"><br /></span></span></b></div><div><span>Andrew Jenner</span></div><div><span>Troy Pfitzner</span></div><div><span>Lesley Pyecroft</span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #fcff01;"><br /></span></span></b><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Shooters Fishers and Farmers</span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b></div><div><div><span>Philip Bigg</span></div><div><span>Shane Broadby</span></div><div><span>Carlo DiFalco</span></div><div><span>Wayne Turale</span></div><div><span>Ray Williams</span></div></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b><b><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;">Animal Justice Party</span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #990000;"><br /></span></span></b></div><div><span>Anna Gralton</span></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #990000;"><br /></span></span></b><b><span style="color: #999999; font-size: medium;">Ungrouped Independents</span></b></div><div><span style="color: #999999; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;">Jenny Branch-Allan</div><div>Fraser Miller</div><div>Andrew Roberts</div><div>Lou Triffitt<br /><br /><b>------------------------------------------------------------</b><br /></div></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i><b>Scratched:</b> Michelle Dracoulis (ALP endorsed but withdrew), Wayne Johnston (LIB endorsed but withdrew) </i></div><div><i><b>Nationals:</b> A rumour that John Tucker could run as a National (party is not registered but could get an ungrouped column) did not come to anything.</i></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><i>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</i></div><div><br /></div>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-64134128629456576822024-02-02T15:01:00.051+11:002024-03-03T17:20:36.992+11:00Election Alert Time As Rockliff Demands Tighter Deal From Defectors<div>Updates scrolling to top</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Tuesday 13/2 Updates</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>All going well here, Alexander has launched a <a href="https://tasmaniantimes.com/2024/02/alexander-liberal-party-is-like-an-abusive-partner/">massive spray at the government</a> accusing it of being like an "abusive partner" and referring to the departures of other female MPs. While the departures of Sarah Courtney, Jacquie Petrusma, Elise Archer and yes Alexander are all <i>capable </i>of being explained without reference to gender it's not helpful for the Liberals that they have ended up with only 1 woman out of 11 in the Lower House - small sample size is a hard concept to make fly in politics.</div><div><br /></div><div>2:00 The Liberal Party meeting is still on but journalists are reporting that March 23 appears to be on.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Sunday 11/2 Updates</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>The Premier is now stating he is "actively considering requesting the Governor for an early election" on the grounds of the independents having not accepted his terms, and also citing "trust issues". Monday is a public holiday (Regatta Day), on which an election call is possible but seems unlikely. On Tuesday there is a Liberal party room meeting, the time of which I don't have yet. If it is early in the day, a call on Tuesday afternoon would not be surprising, assuming the independents have not capitulated in the meantime (which seems unlikely). </div><span><a name='more'></a></span><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><span><!--more--></span><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Saturday 10/2 Updates</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjJmr8Wh7ciHrAtRYIKFG1Vt9MYr4tw8helDRPTGW6wzHLZ0KmhWKhQHfk4f2dpiIKlNyBd3rZ1kNW3ThhHh-c9_uL3BYX24GzyBNiToMb6l98WmS1Ar3UftvbBOqd7WYEzg69u9oJ61MRofucd5G7rH6mbHcf9F-dVtu2vYMaTGrCgfpRHzH5EMUzLZ9UI" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="515" data-original-width="467" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjJmr8Wh7ciHrAtRYIKFG1Vt9MYr4tw8helDRPTGW6wzHLZ0KmhWKhQHfk4f2dpiIKlNyBd3rZ1kNW3ThhHh-c9_uL3BYX24GzyBNiToMb6l98WmS1Ar3UftvbBOqd7WYEzg69u9oJ61MRofucd5G7rH6mbHcf9F-dVtu2vYMaTGrCgfpRHzH5EMUzLZ9UI=w363-h400" width="363" /></a></div><br />All going well here. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Friday 9/2 Updates</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div><b>6:20<a href="https://twitter.com/jeremyrockliff/status/1755847788225781959"> </a></b><a href="https://twitter.com/jeremyrockliff/status/1755847788225781959">The Premier is now denying</a> that he gave any new concessions on the High Performance Centre and suggests Tucker is misrepresenting the meeting and says " I did no more than reiterate my position on these matters as outlined in my letters to Mr Tucker last Friday."</div><div><br /></div><div><b>3:20 pm </b>Today's meeting seems to have lasted about an hour with John Tucker claiming a success regarding the High Performance Centre not starting before the stadium passes the POSS process, and Jeremy Rockliff simply saying he will consider and consult with colleagues and not claiming any progress. Tucker and Alexander say there will be a further meeting next week, most likely Friday. </div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://tasmaniantimes.com/2024/02/tucker-and-alexander-wed-like-to-stick-to-our-original-agreement/">Full transcript of Tucker/Alexander press conference</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>Tucker has actually said that Rockliff has agreed to abide by decisions of parliament on the POSS process and abbatoir CCTV, and that he has given nothing in return, though Tucker is still open to negotiations and may give some ground. But Tucker has also flagged a problem with Rockliff's proposed solution: while the defectors would be unable to vote for motions moved by Labor, there would be nothing to stop Labor from writing the motions and then Tucker and Alexander could move the same motions themselves. So it's not clear how the proposed solution really guarantees stability. </div><div><br /></div><div>Tucker says he has withdrawn his confidence threat following agreements from the Premier mentioned above. </div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>12:40 pm</b> Ahead of a meeting with the independents which is going ahead, the Premier has ruled out calling an election this weekend, which takes March 16 off the table. March 23 remains a live option if the issue of postal votes returning over Easter is not a dealbreaker, and could be called any time in the next week. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Thursday 8/2 Update</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>John Tucker has rejected the Premier's ultimatum in no uncertain terms and has reiterated his position that he will not give the Premier supply and confidence unless the two issues he had raised are addressed, and will not agree to be muzzled. He has said he is willing to negotiate but has not made it clear what he will negotiate about. He intends to still meet with the Premier and says he is happy with the agreement as it is. </div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://twitter.com/swegen31/status/1755380068317364255/photo/1">Link to Tucker's statement</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://pro.twitter.com/swegen31/status/1755381725557858365/photo/1">Lara Alexander concurring statement</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=226065187244714">Link to live feed including questions</a></div><div><br /></div><div>If the meeting with the independents is to be held it is scheduled for tomorrow at 1:30 pm. Alexander has said the meeting is only half an hour long and was originally to be held online but will now be in person. Rockliff has said his position has not changed and has restated that the meeting is on. </div><div><br /></div><div>A possible factor affecting the date choice is that the Tasmanian AFL team name will be announced on March 18. </div><div><br /></div><div><div>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Wednesday 7/2 Update</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Nothing happened in the aftermath of Alexander's apparent rejection of the deal except that the Government continued to wheel out announceables while Rebecca White offered up another tedious statement that Labor would not do any deals with other parties or independents to form government. (Who is she kidding? Deals with the Greens are electoral poison but if Labor were to get close and need only say a few Indies or JLN to get over the line, and they offered confidence and supply in exchange for some policy that was compatible, Labor would be insane to not accept the deal and form government, putting White under intense pressure to resign.) </div><div><br /></div><div>The lack of an instant response has allowed Labor to take free hits at the Premier for going soft on the ultimatum whether this is actually true or not. The Premier's conciliatory-sounding language in a statement where he said the independents would have their positions and he would have his at the expected Friday meeting also played into that perception. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now Tucker has announced that he will hold a press conference tomorrow at 10:30 am in Launceston. This makes abundant sense if he is going to firmly reject the Premier's offer - he would want to seize the initiative and give the Premier a massive spray, rather than going to a pointless meeting at the end of which the Premier would zip off to Government House and hog the narrative. He could even spice things up by stating that he had no confidence in the Government (thus giving the Governor more to think about, although I don't think it would make any difference). However, he might also want to call a press conference if he has a more nuanced response to the Premier's demands. </div></div><div><br /></div><div>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div><br /></div><div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Saturday 3/2 Update</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Not much happened today except that Michael Ferguson made comments backing in the Premier and endorsing talks with the independents. The Premier could have reacted immediately to Alexander's comments yesterday by going straight for an election but hasn't; I suspect he wants to at least see whether Alexander's position is different once they have met. If he was very keen for a pretext for an election now he could have taken it immediately, but perhaps he is trying to avoid it. Whether that is possible or not we will see. </div><div><br /></div><div>Alexander last night repeated her position on Facebook: "I cannot and will not agree to this outrageous demand, which effectively reduces us to nothing more than a rubber stamp for whatever policies he sees fit to impose on the Tasmanian people."</div></div><div><br /></div><div>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Original Article</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Last May the Tasmanian Liberal Government lost its majority when backbenchers John Tucker and Lara Alexander quit the party, citing various disagreements including over the proposed Macquarie Point AFL stadium. The Government formed an agreement with the new crossbenchers in which it would make the stadium a Project of State Significance (relying on parliament for both the commencement of the assessment process and final approval), but the independents would provide confidence and supply and would not support Labor or Greens legislation. </div><div><br /></div><div>The personal background in the leadup to the split included Tucker, a farmer, being passed over for the coveted Primary Industries portfolio in favour of Jo Palmer, and campaign tensions between Alexander's camp and the party over the lack of media opportunities for new candidates. Many other issues have contributed to tensions including Tucker's concerns about Marinus Link and both independents' dissatisfaction with Premier Jeremy Rockliff's support for the failed Voice to Parliament referendum.<div><br /></div><div>Tucker and Alexander have both continued to vote for confidence and supply, and have not voted for any Labor or Greens legislation. However they have frequently voted with the opposition on procedural motions, symbolic motions, motions to compel the Government to provide documents and even dissents in the Speaker. Moreover, Tucker explicitly threatened on January 4 to revoke the existing arrangement over the construction of High Performance Centres as part of the AFL team process (since if the centres are built but the stadium is not approved resources will be wasted and public land alienated).and over CCTV video monitoring in abbatoirs. The parliament passed a motion on the latter in December but Tucker accuses the government of dragging its heels. Despite holding the government to ransom over animal welfare and opposition to a development, Tucker has had the cheek to declare that the government is in thrall to the left. Alexander has also made various noises over time about potentially changing her mind about confidence, some of them too contradictory for me to attempt to analyse here. Because they have raised new potential confidence issues that were not canvassed in the original deal, the independents have been accused of shifting the goalposts.</div><div><br /></div><div>The original deal with the two defectors was full of obvious loopholes, and the indies have been able to abide by the letter of the agreement while still fuelling no end of parliamentary chaos. That said the government has created no shortage of its own, most notably when it recalled Parliament for an attempt to suspend Justice Gregory Geason (who is currently facing criminal charges) only to decide it was a bad idea after all, leading to the most bizarre sitting day for many years.</div><div><br /></div><div>Under the proposed new deal (see <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-02/tas-rockliff-stateline-analysis-early-election-trigger/103413270">interviews and letters here</a>) Tucker and Alexander will not be allowed to support any Labor, Green or other-independent bills, amendments or motions at all though they will be able to move their own. </div><div><br /></div><div>Thi latest news comes against a backdrop of electionoid activity. The Mercury <a href="https://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/premier-confirms-libs-are-preparing-for-an-election-hoses-down-early-poll-talk/news-story/e381a75954b5dd8b52bd9fd3d4c046ea">speculated about an impending election on 18 Jan</a>, citing billboard bookings and <a href="https://twitter.com/swegen31/status/1752170188638949622">doorknocking activities</a> (the <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@sydneypitt_/video/7328731276599479570?_r=1&_t=8jS3hrVPtcg&social_sharing=1">TikTok link</a> is brilliant) as well as the testing of the slogan "Doing What Matters" (unoriginally pinched from <a href="https://www.danandrews.com.au/doingwhatmatters">Daniel Andrews' Labor campaign in Victoria</a>). </div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">How are the defectors responding?</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>As I write, John Tucker has not made any response and it appears he wants to consider the matter carefully, but Lara Alexander has immediately verbally rejected some aspects of the proposed deal, and accused the Premier of "bullying tactics". Alexander has said “I cannot agree to the terms [..] especially there is one term that the premier has put forward which basically makes John and I less than a backbench," Alexander has said she is willing to negotiate, but I doubt that the Premier wants to. I should note that Alexander is unpredictable; she might complain about the deal today then agree to it tomorrow, but tomorrow might be too late. </div><div><br /></div><div>In comparison with other minority government situations the Premier's demands are indeed extraordinary. That said, other minority government deals typically involve crossbenchers who were elected as such. In this case the defectors were elected (in one case via recount) after running as Liberals on a team platform that stressed stable majority government. They have no mandate to behave in the way that they have, and have done so because they can. </div></div><div><br /></div><div>Alexander's comparison with backbenchers is interesting in that Sue Hickey during the previous term not only appropriated the Speakership ahead of the Government's nominee but also then at times voted to amend government legislation, including passing gender birth certificate reforms against the Government's will. Nonetheless the government remained a majority government in name. It might be argued that the reason the defectors are offered less freedom than a backbencher is that they have chosen to surrender backbencher status and the liberties that go with it - which they did not have to. In the process they destroyed the government's majority status, which Hickey did not do until she was deselected. </div><div><br /></div><div>Because either of the independents can generate instability by themselves, Alexander's response alone may be enough for Rockliff to go to the Governor within days. He has a scheduled meeting with the independents on the 9th of February, but we'll see if things even get that far. I don't see him leaving the state in suspense until parliament is about to resume on 5 March before pulling the pin.</div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Could the Governor say no?</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Supposing that Jeremy Rockliff goes to the Governor in the next few days and asks for a dissolution for an election on, say, March 16. (March 9 is the earliest legal date but it is a long weekend). Some comments are being seen on social media regarding whether or not Rockliff actually has the confidence of Parliament and hence whether the Governor should accept his advice.</div><div><br /></div><div>I covered a lot of this ground with the <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2023/09/elise-archer-resignation-and-recounts.html">Elise Archer situation last year</a>. There is a current potential question mark over whether the Premier would still have the confidence of the House if it sat again and in theory the Governor might be reluctant to take his advice if it appeared he was calling an election to try to avoid a no-confidence motion. However, firstly he managed to maintain control of the Parliament's adjournment at its last sitting, and has not lost any confidence votes, so at present he maintains the confidence of the House. Cases where dissolutions have been refused on the basis of doubt about whether a Premier would retain confidence generally involve them having lost the support of their party; this is not the case here. </div><div><br /></div><div>Secondly there is a question about whether there would be any point in trying to appoint anyone else as Premier for the sake of 14 months of Parliament even if it appeared that person would have confidence. Even if Labor were willing to entertain the prospect and the independents were willing to back them into office, such a government would lack legitimacy in terms of both the status of the defectors and the commitments made by Labor at the 2021 election. Tasmanian Governors can do unconventional things sometimes but I would expect that if Rockliff requests an election his request would be granted. There is a very clearcut precedent from 1956 when the Governor accepted a dissolution request when he had the alternative of appointing a new government formed by a defection. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Suitable Election Dates? (Expanded)</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>I've had a look at some possible election dates in March for potential issues with them, in case it comes to that:</div><div><br /></div><div><b><strike>March 9:</strike></b> Long weekend, would be unpopular. (Especially with your host who normally competes in and helps run the Tasmanian Chess Championship on that weekend). [<b>EDIT:</b> No longer possible]</div><div><br /></div><div><b>March 16: </b>It would be challenging to complete the distributions of preferences before Easter, but probably achievable with resourcing for long hours, extra staff and provisional distributions for candidates with quota. [<b>EDIT: </b>Ruled out by the Premier]</div><div><br /></div><div><b>March 23:</b> Easter falls within the postal vote return window. (This is a big fairness problem for postal voting if it results in postal votes being delayed, but by that stage there will not be all that many coming back)</div><div><br /></div><div><b>March 30: </b>Easter, definitely out.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>April 6, 13:</b> Easter falls in the last weeks of the campaign so this may be best avoided</div><div><br /></div><div><b>April 20:</b> Would make for a relatively long campaign if called before Parliament resumes.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>April 27</b> or <b>May 4</b>: Even longer. For April 20-27 there is also the issue that the Legislative Council elections fall just after, creating overlapping campaigns with voters having to vote twice in one or two weeks. </div>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-26210488673122162162024-01-14T14:20:00.044+11:002024-03-03T17:20:53.124+11:002024 Dunkley By-Election<div style="text-align: left;"><b>DUNKLEY (VIC, ALP, 6.27%) By-election March 2<br />Jodie Belyea (ALP) vs Nathan Conroy (Lib) and others<br />Cause of by-election: Death of previous incumbent Peta Murphy<br />Outlook: interesting; seat margin is just above average swing for government vacancies</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Early this year we'll get the first electoral test for the Albanese Government on its own turf when the division of Dunkley goes to the polls in sad circumstances after the death of popular previous MP Peta Murphy. Last year Labor sensationally captured Aston from the Liberals during a period of honeymoon polling, while the Coalition had a pretty good swing result when it retained the uncompetitive seat of Fadden in Peter Dutton's home state. By-elections are more random and a lot less predictive than politics junkies tend to think they are, but an outer-suburban seat, on a loseable margin, with the honeymoon gone, seems much more significant. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The by-election has been announced for March 2. The writ will be issued Jan 29 with close of nominations Feb 8.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><span><a name='more'></a></span><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Dunkley</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Dunkley, towards Melbourne's south-eastern fringe, has generally been a marginal seat, changing hands from Labor to Liberal in 1990 then back again in 1993, 1996 and 2019. Liberal Bruce Billson, at one stage irrepressible Small Business Minister, was its longest-serving incumbent from 1996 to 2016. A redistribution prior to the 2019 election made Dunkley more Labor-friendly and in 2022 it slipped just outside AEC "marginal" status, but no-one should be tricked by that, especially not for a by-election.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">At state level Dunkley includes the Division of Frankston and parts of Carrum, Hastings and Mornington. These are all now Labor seats except for Mornington, which Chris Crewther narrowly won against a teal independent after losing Dunkley federally in 2019. Frankston and Carrum were part of the "sandbelt" battle that determined the 2014 state election in Labor's favour, but have since become much more solidly Labor. In the context of a general state election pattern of swings against Labor in many outer suburban seats but swings to Labor in the south-east, what happened in the Dunkley area was pretty much on the state average with the exception of seats where there were personal vote factors (like star candidate Paul Mercurio picking up Hastings). </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">For <u>federal</u> elections since its creation, the graph below shows about how Labor did on 2PP in Dunkley compared to the national average, as adjusted for later redistributions to make it more comparable to today.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiL1fXtola-ApjHVWJIsgnKEtC-LSN3b3WFj3GuPXGMEmMqZGomJjGjpVpFprja9NcZYtqEQNYEsVf4oymosOT1TetCMi3vTBofODCpM7ln1HodOIkgWxMSAHCfW1V5wjcNVqBwaenH4ENlD07lZu-zYrUdNqOrsOXMXPnh8iAd4CgIpI_X5PxXWLtbYzrc" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="737" data-original-width="1293" height="365" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiL1fXtola-ApjHVWJIsgnKEtC-LSN3b3WFj3GuPXGMEmMqZGomJjGjpVpFprja9NcZYtqEQNYEsVf4oymosOT1TetCMi3vTBofODCpM7ln1HodOIkgWxMSAHCfW1V5wjcNVqBwaenH4ENlD07lZu-zYrUdNqOrsOXMXPnh8iAd4CgIpI_X5PxXWLtbYzrc" width="640" /></a></div><br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">So for instance a lean to Labor of 4 points on the graph means that in a general election where the national 2PP was tied 50-50, Labor would expect to win present-day Dunkley about 54-46. The colours of the dots show the actual winning party (thus the Liberals won Dunkley in 2010 and 2016 but would probably not have won in either year on the current boundaries based on Labor's performance at the time.) </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The seat as it currently stands would have been initially Labor-leaning compared to the national average when Bob Chynoweth was the incumbent, but he lost in 1990 off the back of the Liberals' success in Victoria generally under Andrew Peacock. In 1996 with Chynoweth's personal vote back on board it was again slightly Labor-leaning (indeed probably only Chynoweth's personal vote came anywhere near saving it after an adverse redistribution), but not enough to stop Bruce Billson winning it for the Liberals. The seat then became a Liberal-leaning seat with Billson's personal vote until there was a move back to Labor in 2010 with Julia Gillard as Labor leader. It might have shifted back towards the Liberals but in 2016 Billson retired. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Rather than new incumbent Chris Crewther building a personal vote in 2019 the seat became more Labor-friendly even after accounting for the redistribution. Crewther was a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/nov/02/labor-to-push-for-s44-high-court-referral-for-coalition-mp-chris-crewther">somewhat contentious MP</a> and there appeared to be a strategic decision to leave the notionally ALP seat to its fate. Peta Murphy was hence elected pretty easily at the second attempt. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Overall federal voting patterns in Dunkley seem to have had a lot to do with (i) the national voting pattern (ii) whether either major party leader is Victorian and (iii) candidate factors. Local issues and demographics will have been in the mix but it is interesting how strongly candidate factors have stood out. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">To try to throw Dunkley into the same "outer suburban" box as western Sydney and north-western Melbourne would be completely mistaken; this seat has not behaved like those in recent elections and even swung to Labor in 2019. (Dunkley also voted No in the Voice referendum but had a higher Yes vote, 44.2%, than the national average.)</div></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">By-elections generally</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The first thing to understand when considering by-elections is that government and opposition vacancies are different. In a government seat vacancy the government is (with rare exceptions) losing the personal vote of its incumbent, while in an opposition seat vacancy the opposition is generally doing so. There is also a tendency for governments to cherry-pick which opposition vacancies to contest, while oppositions nearly always contest government vacancies. As a result of this, the average 2PP swing in government vacancies is about five points higher than in opposition vacancies: I make it about <b>6.1%</b> since Federation, and <b>6.3% </b>(Dunkley's current margin) in the last 40 years. However there's a lot of variation (in my <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2015/08/canning-by-election-prospects-and-polls.html">2015 Canning preview</a> I found the standard deviation to be about 4.7%.) A lot is read into by-elections but they are very "noisy" events in terms of the overall federal picture. (Note: differences between my averages and some in Antony Green's article <a href="https://antonygreen.com.au/background-on-federal-by-election-swings/">here</a> arise because I include anything where a 2PP swing can be calculated or estimated, not just those where the major parties were the final pair.)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Labor has quoted a statistic of 7.1% average swing in by-elections since 1983 that has been described in various forms by media. I finally managed to replicate this as correct (actually I think it's 7.2) if one limits it to 13 government by-elections with a vacating (not recontesting) incumbent and where the seat finishes as a 2PP contest. Peter Dutton has been floating the stat that no first-term government has lost a by-election since World War II, however there have only been four of those. Three were in seats on double-digit margins (one of these the opposition did not even contest) and the fourth had a recontesting incumbent and was held while the government was in honeymoon phase. One of these, Canning, had a swing large enough to take down Dunkley if repeated. This is a particularly useless piece of electoral history from Dutton. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Murphy's personal vote</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Much has been said about Murphy being a particularly popular MP. Measuring personal votes is challenging and commentators tend to overestimate them. One measure that is used is Senate vs House of Reps primary differences, but these are affected by the Reps fields in particular seats and also by some seats having a higher rate of voters voting differently in the two houses than others.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">On this front Murphy did rather well. She outperformed the Liberals by 7.46 points more in the Reps than Labor did in Dunkley in the Senate, compared to a state average difference of 0.61 points (an implied 3.4% 2PP swing effect, which is high - Clare O'Neill in Hotham was even higher). This gap, however, was probably boosted by a strong ballot draw for Murphy in the Reps, and also by Murphy taking about 1% in primary votes from the Greens that would then return as preferences. This suggests that something like 2-2.5% 2PP (still well above average) is a more reasonable estimate. On Senate 2PP Murphy's implied personal vote comes out a bit lower but I now think Dunkley is a misleading division for this because the flows to Coalition from the Liberal Democrats and United Australia in the Reps were stronger than average; in the Senate a lot of votes from UAP especially exhausted. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Bereavement vacancies</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Something I covered a lot re Canning (the last time an incumbent MHR died in office) was the lack of historic evidence of much if any of a sympathy vote in by-elections caused by bereavement. That might seem surprising but it seems that voters think more about who will be their best MP going forward and aren't inclined to simply rubber-stamp their former MP's replacement. Also the timing of retirement by-elections can often be massaged to limit the damage for the governing party. It might even be that some replacement candidates suffer by comparison in cases where a particularly loved MP for their party passes away. I did note in the Canning previews that with the rate of government bereavements falling sharply from the 1970s on, there was some weak evidence of muted swing in these sorts of by-elections since the 1960s. That said Canning itself did not add anything to that, and if the swing from Canning is repeated, Dunkley falls. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">This one might be different, or not. This is actually the first time that a federal by-election has been triggered by a female MHR dying in office (four female Senators have done so). Breast cancer is a high profile issue and Murphy's history with the disease recurring just around the time she was sworn in as an MP in 2019 is particularly poignant. The few state-level by-elections where a female MP has died in office don't provide a lot of useful evidence about whether there is any gender difference in whether there is a sympathy vote. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">How To Vote Cards</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The Animal Justice Party initially recommended preferences to the Coalition ahead of Labor. It seems this is mainly a protest against the <i>state</i> Labor government over duck-hunting (though federal live export issues are also cited). Very few voters will follow the AJP card as minor party cards tend to be not well distributed and minor party voters tend to make up their own minds; the AJP will probably not poll much here anyway having got 2.07% at the last Senate election. As of 19 Feb the AJP had changed its card and recommended preferences to Labor ahead of both the Greens and Coalitions. The AJP has said:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i>"Over the last 48 hours Labor and the AJP has reached an agreement on how we will cooperate to pursue sensible and important policies. </i></div><div style="text-align: left;"><i><br /></i></div><div><i>We are now satisfied that directing preferences to Labor after negotiations delivers good policy outcomes and demonstrates that major parties cannot take the AJP and our voters for granted, or ignore us." </i></div><div><br /></div><div>What were those outcomes?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Other factors</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Again as noted in the Canning previews there is a relationship between how a government is polling and how well it does in by-elections, with some of the swing against governments being caused by them tending to be less popular at by-election time than at the previous election. As of early 2024 the Albanese Government was running just about at its 2022 vote in aggregated polling, which would be consistent with a slightly lower than average swing for a given type of by-election. 2PP polling had been shifting fast in the second half of 2023 but has so far stabilised in early 2024. That said it is fairly common for government polling to decline during February-March, so we should keep an eye on the national polling picture. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">This is a first-term by-election. During Canning there was discussion of governments tending to do better in first-term by-elections, but this was just a distraction, because most of the first-term vacancies have been in opposition seats. Indeed after eliminating North Sydney 2015 (Labor did not contest) and Lindsay 1996 (recontesting incumbent in voided seat) there are only two precedents left in the last 90 years, Canning 2015 (with a mid-campaign change of Prime Minister) and Hughes 1984 (while Hawke government was polling through the roof). In the early 20th century first-term government vacancies as often as not saw large swings. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The by-election will be another test for whether the Coalition can perform under Peter Dutton's leadership in Victoria, or while the Victorian Liberals are such a mess. The Coalition failed the first test of whatever this was in Aston (it was not so much the result there but the margin) and another disappointing performance would raise serious questions about problems with the Liberal brand in Victoria, after a lousy third place after preferences in the Mulgrave state by-election. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Cost of living is <i>the</i> issue in Australian politics at the moment and will feature heavily in the campaign. Local infrastructure issues, however, often feature in by-elections and this one is no different with the Liberals keen to use the shelving of the <a href="https://baysidenews.com.au/2023/11/20/frankston-line-extension-derailed/">Frankston-Baxter rail upgrade</a> to their advantage. However the latter has drawn <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/peter-dutton-s-900m-frankston-train-line-pledge-derails-on-day-one-20240202-p5f203.html?btis=">an unflattering headline for Peter Dutton</a> after a cool reception from state politics. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">In late January the government announced that it was revising the promised Stage 3 tax cuts, with changes that comparatively advantage lower and middle incomes and disadvantage the higher income brackets. This debate will feature strongly in Dunkley with the government arguing that it is responding correctly to changed circumstances and the need for cost of living relief, and the Coalition arguing that the government has broken trust with voters and is failing to address bracket creep. In general polls have found the stage 3 tax cut changes to be well received, though many of the polls have had long and sometimes problematic wording. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The Advance organisation is spending up big on extremely unsubtle attack ads against Albanese, which will test whether its methods have any staying power or whether any major credit it was given for the Voice success was undeserved. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Candidates</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Labor has announced the preselection of <b>Jodie Belyea</b>, a <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/jodie-belyea-850a8115/?originalSubdomain=au">well-credentialled women's services and community worker </a>who was recruited into the ALP relatively recently, in part through Murphy herself. We will have to see how Belyea goes during the campaign but on paper at least Labor seem to have found another candidate who can make a genuine claim to come from outside politics, someone who in another world could have been an independent.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The Liberal Party has chosen Frankston Mayor <b>Nathan Conroy</b>, beating a field of other hopefuls including ex Carrum MP Donna Hope (formerly Bauer). Conroy bolted onto Frankston Council North-East ward in 2020, being first elected with 26% of the vote (over 8000 primaries) at the first attempt. He was immediately made Deputy Mayor and a year later elected Mayor around the table (he has now been elected for three years in a row in that position, which is apparently unprecedented; Victorian councils often share the top job around). Prior to Council politics Conroy was at one stage "general manager of a multimillion-dollar business" - which turns out to be a bowlo, with the claim being both criticised as hyperbole by opponents and defended by those who work with him.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The Age reported that there was a possible Section 44 issue surrounding Conroy, which was later revealed as him having been born in Ireland (he speaks with a strong Irish accent). He has renounced Irish citizenship. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I expect Dunkley to be a two-party contest and other candidates to be a sideshow. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">A controversial candidate in 2022, who is running again, is MyPlace founder <b>Darren Bergwerf (IND)</b>, a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-04/anti-vax-group-my-place-plan-to-influence-your-local-council/102166182">sovereign citizen, conspiracy theorist and Holocaust "questioner"</a>. In 2022 Bergwerf very narrowly missed getting his deposit back and qualifying for public funding. I am not convinced Bergwerf is eligible to be elected on account of a likely automatically inherited Dutch citizenship.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The <b>Libertarian Party</b>'s AEC registration has been approved and it the party will have a first run under its new name with candidate <b>Chrysten Abraham, </b>a 2022 state and federal candidate for the former LDP. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Also running: <b>Alex Breskin (Greens)</b>, <b>Reem Yunis (Victorian Socialists), Heath McKenzie (Australian Democrats</b> who are currently in danger of deregistration<b>), Bronwyn Currie (Animal Justice) </b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">The ballot order is pretty much perfect for the Liberals - they have drawn first and Labor last (in full it is Liberal, AJP, Libertarian, VicSoc, Bergwerf, Greens, Democrats, Labor). This could be worth at least 1% as while the donkey vote is at most half a percent, it is also a big disadvantage to be way down a relatively long list. Labor were ahead last time in this seat. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">There has been some nonsense in the Australian about Labor preferencing the Greens with regard to the statements of some Greens on Gaza. The Labor preferences will never be distributed so what Labor does with its preference recommendations is immaterial to the outcome, whatever people think of the symbolism. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Polls</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">As polls or poll-shaped objects appear I will note them here. Note that seat polling is not very reliable in general. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>1. Australia Institute uComms 5-6 Feb: </u></b> A mixed robo/SMS poll with a sample of 626. After distribution of undecided, Labor 40.1% Liberal 39.3% Green 8.2% (Green candidate not named) Libertarian 1.6% IND/other 10.8%. (It's possible the four others who are running could get 10.8% but many voters would have been envisaging a teal-type independent and there isn't one.) 2PP on respondent preferences is <b>52-48</b> to Belyea, but I would expect at least 53-47 off these primaries. Automated polls struggle to get a fair sample so while these numbers look reasonable overall there are issues with the young voter breakdown (looks too conservative) and also some hilarious crosstabs for the Greens who are supposedly getting 1.7% in 51-65 but 27.9% in 65+. The poll includes an issue question about the stage 3 tax cuts that while similar to other results includes skewed wording that leads the respondent to agree with the Government - this question should be ignored completely. It also includes other issue questions that are not very relevant. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>2. YouGov:</u></b> 51-49 to Liberals off primaries of Lib 40, Labor 33, Greens 9, Bergwerf 7 and the rest 2-3% each. Sample size only 394 (effective 256) which is adventurously low given the issues with seat polls. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><u><b>3. Painted Dog</b>:</u> n=278 and 26% undecided with no report of full primaries by The Nightly (whatever that is), moving right along then ...</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>666. Alleged Labor Internal Poll, good luck finding any details:</u></b> a supposedly "leaked" (which means given away) Labor internal has appeared on Sky on 11 Feb. Labor are said to have the same lead as in the TAI poll, but the main purpose is to claim that voters strongly disapproved of Frankston Council's performance. The point of this is to tie in with a Labor campaign attacking Conroy over council rate rises, suggesting that while he was strongly elected his performance might be another thing. No details are available based on which to judge whether voters were assisted to reach this view. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Outlook</b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">This is a by-election that sits pretty much bang on the standard swing line for a government vacancy. That doesn't mean that it will be super-close, but arguments as to why the swing should be more or less than average can be made in either direction. Possibly the fact that the Coalition did so badly in Aston skews things in Labor's favour, but there were candidate factors as well as honeymoon polling factors at play there. Here the Coalition has picked a suitable local candidate, albeit one whose council performance is controversial. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">For Labor I think the equation is pretty simple: a win is a win is a win. Their overriding objective should be to win the seat by any margin at all and get a new MP in who can start building a personal vote (especially as the opponent looks to be no mug at vote-building and might not be easy to get rid of if he wins). To win comfortably would be nice but it really doesn't matter. A loss by any margin is bad but it's not the end of the universe either. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">For the Liberals it's less straightforward. A win would be terrific but I think there's a big difference between a close loss (inside say 53-47) and a heavier one. If the Liberals do not get a decent swing here then this will be further evidence of a general Victorian problem that would be a big headache going into the next election.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I intend to have live coverage of this by-election on the night, depending upon when it is. A sidebar Not-A-Poll has been added for those who want a go at picking the result. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-9850908381632171532024-01-10T16:35:00.023+11:002024-01-20T10:51:56.566+11:00Lambiemania: What Should We Make Of The Tasmanian YouGov Poll?<div style="text-align: left;"><b>YouGov Tasmania (state) Liberal 31 Labor 27 JLN 20 Greens 15 IND 7<br /></b><b>If recorded at an election (unlikely) would result in a hung parliament, probably leading to a Labor minority government<br /></b><b>High JLN figure likely to represent a bubble, with response options contributing - but consistent with JLN being in the mix for seat wins</b></div><p>Populist minor party bubbles often happen in state elections. In the late 2017 SA Newspoll, Nick Xenophon's SA-Best was polling 32%, ahead of both major parties, and Xenophon himself was 5% ahead of both major party leaders combined as Better Premier. Was South Australia heading for Premier Xenophon? Just a few months and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10155604965699633">one of the worst ads in political history</a> later, the juggermaut had ground to a halt, with the party polling 14.2% on election day and winning zero lower house seats. </p><p>And while One Nation did manage 22.7% in Queensland 1998, there have been plenty of other bursting bubbles: One Nation Queensland 2017, Palmer United Tasmania 2014 and Queensland 2015 and yes Jacqui Lambie Network Tasmania 2018 are other cases where minor parties that threatened to win several seats ended up with one seat or nothing. (Another one is Territory Alliance in the NT 2020 but that is a weaker example since the only poll that pointed to success there was an internal poll.) Campaigns often result in fourth parties being exposed as rabbles full of terrible candidates and contradictions. They can be outspent by big parties or simply sidelined from media debate because they won't be governing. </p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p><br /></p><p>The startling finding of the <a href="https://au.yougov.com/politics/articles/48296-the-tasmanian-state-liberal-vote-is-down-17-since-the-last-election">first ever YouGov Tasmanian state poll</a> released today should be viewed with that cautious framing, among many others. Some others include:</p><p>* The poll was taken between December 21 and January 4 when many voters would be on holidays. This is less of a problem for online polls like YouGov, since people don't need to be home to take a poll - but it could still lead to less representative responses. (Note that only the last day in field includes John Tucker's recent threat to confidence and supply.)</p><p>* The sample size of 850 (effective 769) is on the small side, but that said it is not that much smaller than EMRS and it is not small enough to by itself invalidate the broad pattern of the poll. </p><p>* JLN have already announced some candidates for the election but they have been a relatively minor presence in the election lead-up so far with very little advertising. Lambie herself will not be on the ballot and voters will need to vote for individual Lambie Network candidates (they can't just place a 1 in the Jacqui Lambie Network box like they did in the Senate). </p><p>* YouGov is a panel-based pollster and the range of Tasmanian voters it would have access to would be smaller than for EMRS. We saw some panel pollsters (including Resolve and Morgan) be way off with their Tasmanian samples for Voice, though Pyxis Newspoll's sample was successful. </p><p>* The leaders of the major parties have been specified to make it clear to voters that they should be thinking about state and not federal politics. But given that the leaderships of both Rockliff and White are often criticised, this might have the effect of making disgruntled party followers more likely to pick some other option. </p><p>* The only options offered to voters were Liberal, Labor, Green, JLN and a single named independent in each seat. (No Shooters, Fishers and Farmers for example). This is likely to have inflated the JLN vote substantially. Voters were allowed to be undecided after a double pass and still stay in the survey but those who were undecided at that point were excluded from the voting results - the same method of dealing with undecided voters used by Newspoll, but Newspoll will generally offer more voting options.</p><p>I don't believe JLN would actually get 20% in an election "held now" and I'll be amazed if they get that when this bumpy term is finally submitted to the judgement of a baffled electorate. But while there could be responses that this poll is simply rubbish, the idea that something like that percentage might pick JLN when offered a limited range of options is not one I think should be dismissed out of hand. </p><p>The 2022 Senate race gives a sort of idea of this. JLN's primary vote was 8.6%. But on a four-party preferred basis that rises to 13.4% (compared to 35.3% for the Liberals, 30.1% for Labor, 19% for the Greens and negligible exhaust). When voters are given a limited choice list it's pretty easy to get JLN well into the teens.</p><p>Even assuming this is, as it seems to be, a bubble further boosted by a restricted list of voting options, it's still way higher than what JLN need to win seats. In 2018 they ran in three seats, got 3.2% of the statewide vote, and would have been lineball for a seat in the 35-seat system. A vote of, say, 8% statewide would give them good chances of winning three seats. </p><p>YouGov has released individual seat breakdowns but given that they are based on samples of only about 170 electors per division they should be treated with extreme caution (as the individual sample size is tiny), and are mainly useful for pointing to broad response patterns. The YouGov projection of 11 Liberal, 10 Labor, 7 JLN, 6 Green and 1 independent seems close enough to correct to me if these numbers were actually polled (and nobody else ran) but many warnings apply. JLN have previously suggested they're not running in Clark (which they might rethink), the Green vote in Braddon tends to lag their state total a lot more than this (six seats off 15% would be very fortunate), and it would be very surprising if Lambie Network got more in Franklin than Braddon. In short almost no weight should be placed on these seat breakdowns (though the 2% for Lara Alexander in Bass is bound to have a high approval rating among pollwatchers.)</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg6Z1ySotqQvQ8fjBPflrT9oFbrvsKrh4iFkYN70a5bW6WVIKUcywvFhLhiffM7fH2JFloSfAeAHp92LnI9dFBBLVuk0jH7e2FL3s3MKDAZp1niG27VB6UJxRwMWvn5ubsnKPU4tcMlpm7-PyP0scSChPfVsSx8tpmMogWsIz50nlN1jssR128ofTT4AwYb" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="530" data-original-width="1676" height="202" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg6Z1ySotqQvQ8fjBPflrT9oFbrvsKrh4iFkYN70a5bW6WVIKUcywvFhLhiffM7fH2JFloSfAeAHp92LnI9dFBBLVuk0jH7e2FL3s3MKDAZp1niG27VB6UJxRwMWvn5ubsnKPU4tcMlpm7-PyP0scSChPfVsSx8tpmMogWsIz50nlN1jssR128ofTT4AwYb=w640-h202" width="640" /></a></div><br />An 11-10-7-6-1 parliament is fantasy-football land at this stage but for those determined to play such a game, I'd expect that that would be the end of the Liberal Government, either immediately or within a year. Even if any deal could be negotiated between the Government and the whole of the JLN grouping, it would be only a matter of time before someone from the latter grouping split and brought down the government, either putting in a Labor-led mess or else leading to another election. While we are talking here about numbers that I don't think we'll be seeing on election day, the poll does point to a potential problem for the Rockliff Government - if it is short of a majority, it may struggle to find anyone to form government with. This has become more acute with the recent threat to confidence and supply from John Tucker.<div><p></p><p>This result from the poll is very damning if correct:</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhh0FphLOTyneZ11ZhvQ1tzIiDl-Jt5l5JGWLAPeKUfI7Eq_K7NFpVKTpb4UgNrOpvWCv-2KRrDgESUct6X3ohotHZ1DqyPxvSGTkXNPBOE7lMzK3PnpV5nWYkSeMcgpn6DpVunb8NM3-GfVqYsyL4V6Ui8Z8t-rs80pTlrZFDX_p7K_887gMU6qo9sr6IN" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="694" data-original-width="1240" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhh0FphLOTyneZ11ZhvQ1tzIiDl-Jt5l5JGWLAPeKUfI7Eq_K7NFpVKTpb4UgNrOpvWCv-2KRrDgESUct6X3ohotHZ1DqyPxvSGTkXNPBOE7lMzK3PnpV5nWYkSeMcgpn6DpVunb8NM3-GfVqYsyL4V6Ui8Z8t-rs80pTlrZFDX_p7K_887gMU6qo9sr6IN=w640-h358" width="640" /></a></div><p></p><p>It needs to be kept in mind that the Liberal vote numbers are <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2023/11/emrs-says-tasmanian-labors-getting.html">radically different from EMRS</a>, which has a good record in Tasmanian elections. EMRS indeed is finding almost no appetite for minor parties other than the Greens (most of its IND/Other vote is supposed independents, but some respondents would be using that term incorrectly), however it has not to this stage included JLN in its list of party options. </p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">What do we know about YouGov?</span></b></p><p>As YouGov has not been seen with a Tasmanian voting intention poll before, some background may be useful. YouGov is a major international firm that in Australia is best known through its former association with Newspoll. This association ended in 2023 with the main Newspoll modellers departing to form Pyxis. YouGov recorded an excellent result at the Voice referendum but in that case it was reproducing the questions that had been used in Newspoll, rather than writing its own. As an entity independent of Newspoll it has yet to be tested at a regular Australian election, but has been doing Queensland polling that is pretty similar to what other polls are getting. </p><p>YouGov is to my knowledge unique among the major Australian pollsters in running an open panel that anyone can sign up for (whether they will be picked for any specific poll among the deluge of brand surveys and so on is another matter entirely). While this is a risk in terms of over-capturing politically engaged voters, YouGov have recently added a useful insurance against that by using self-reported Voice vote as a weighting. YouGov is an Australian Polling Council member that publishes basic methods details. This poll does not include a weighting for education, though I would not expect that to be a problem in the case of the JLN vote because JLN voters are typically not highly educated. </p><p>I expect YouGov will poll again at some stage before the next election.</p></div>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-26433300643467912492023-12-31T15:41:00.006+11:002024-01-10T17:55:56.598+11:002023 Site Review<p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Bring Back Universal Analytics!</span></b></p><p>This post presents site data for 2023, but before I start, there is some disappointing business to relate. During 2023 Google Analytics shut down its previous version, which had been faithfully recording data here since 2013, and switched to a new version called Google Analytics 4. As best I can determine GA-4 is in some respects terrible, or if it isn't terrible in these respects, working out how to quickly make it work like the old version is beyond me. (The full transition to the new version involved instructions that were way beyond my understanding). In particular, from Oct 5 onwards, I lost the obvious ability to track unique pageviews, which were defined as "the number of sessions during which the specified page was viewed at least once". Unique pageviews was a very useful statistic to capture whether users were visiting the same page over several days, without also capturing whether they were hitting refresh repeatedly during live coverage.</p><p>I was very familiar with the way the previous version worked, and another result of the switch to the new version is that I can no apparently longer directly compare the interest levels in specific articles from this year onwards with articles from previous years. </p><p>Do tech corps that make changes like this even bother to think or care that they might be disrupting the continuity of someone's experience, and damaging their enjoyment of the service? </p><p>Anyway, on with the show as best I can. The activity graph below shows the total number of users visiting per week.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi2BJEGDeF0tWI-wJK3s9RrKwqIuY8phNXCfd8eHZZbZNRahT5ofIWtJqaMg3tC4mNQTpqUIo4D5g7g-gVngT7rJve85lmEadgbLygneESmKLFpArWSPwaankLXqFiktTmsp-OROGtSJa6L7Kv_CthavAos-0jvf2CS3Vx5a_MJFCOqAKAsEIKQN61oMkRA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="353" data-original-width="877" height="258" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi2BJEGDeF0tWI-wJK3s9RrKwqIuY8phNXCfd8eHZZbZNRahT5ofIWtJqaMg3tC4mNQTpqUIo4D5g7g-gVngT7rJve85lmEadgbLygneESmKLFpArWSPwaankLXqFiktTmsp-OROGtSJa6L7Kv_CthavAos-0jvf2CS3Vx5a_MJFCOqAKAsEIKQN61oMkRA=w640-h258" width="640" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;">The biggest spike in late March is for the NSW state election, followed by the Voice referendum in late October. There are also some small spikes including for the Fadden by-election (Aston is mostly lost in the NSW spike). There was a generally fairly high level of interest leading up to the Voice after a quiet start to the year. Overall I estimate traffic was down 52% on 2022 (which was the site's biggest year to date), still making it the sixth biggest year so far, which isn't bad at all given that 2023 contained neither a Tasmanian or a federal election. Indeed 2023 just beat 2021 which had a Tasmanian state election.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span><a name='more'></a></span><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;">In 2023 I released 66 articles (down 28 on 2022 and the second-lowest for a completed year so far). But this was more than I expected at the start of the year, and at some points if I had had nothing else to do I could have easily written an article every day. For what was on paper a quiet second half of the year there turned out to be a lot to talk about, especially because of the richness of polling for the Voice referendum.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;">Major subjects for the year were the Voice referendum (12 articles) and the NSW election (10). There were five Not-A-Poll resets for departing leaders and five articles for the Tasmanian Legislative Council races. January was the first month with no articles in the history of the site, as a result of moving house and a major field trip.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large; text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large; text-align: left;"><b>Forgotten dreams</b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;">I typically list all the stuff I didn't get around to finishing and releasing here (sometimes pieces in this list get written later, and often they get incorporated into later pieces - but some things I decide aren't worth the bother). For 2023 there was quite a bit of it, here are most of the titles:</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><b>"Truth In Electoral Advertising" Is Overrated</b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><b>The Voice Referendum: Some Comments On The Failed Attempt </b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><b>Malapportionment And The Voice</b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><b>There Is No Two-Party Swing In Warrandyte And It Is Not Now A Safe Seat</b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><b>A DD That Would Detonate The Greens? That's Dubious</b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><b>If A Branch Falls In The Forest: North-East Tasmanian Liberals Chaos</b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><b>Labor MP Dan Repacholi Blocks Me On Twitter</b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><b>Oceans Apart: Why Is Resolve Diverging, But Not At Election Time?</b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><b>The "3 out of 10 Voted Labor" Furphy</b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><b>The 2022 Election and Polling History</b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">The leaderboard (I think)</span></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Because neither the Users stat nor the Views stat capture what I want in terms of an article's level of attention, I've come up with a compound stat that approximates Unique Views for most articles, this being Users + (Views/4). On this basis the following were the ten most visitied articles:</div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><p></p><p><b><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2023/09/australian-polling-denial-and.html">1. Australian Polling Denial And Disinformation Register</a></b></p><p>I got fed up with the sheer level of poll denial that the Voice referendum was generating and wrote a resource piece to cover and debunk polling denial tropes often spread on social media. Twice as many users visited this piece as any other this year, but it had a low rate of re-visits per user. This may have had something to do with the link to it being included in at least 214 different tweets, mostly me using it to thwack usual suspects with the facts. </p><p><b><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2023/04/aston-by-election-live.html">2. Aston By-Election Live</a></b></p><p>Live coverage of the historic federal by-election in which a government won an opposition seat for the second time since Federation and the first since 1920. The Liberals did well in the first booth to report, and then badly in all of the rest. </p><p><b><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2023/03/2019-new-south-wales-postcount.html">3. 2023 New South Wales Postcount: Legislative Council</a></b></p><p>Postcount coverage and modelling for the NSW Legislative Council race. This was less complex than in 2019, both because of a simpler system for throwing votes in the initial count and because the eventual contest was basically a two-party race. In the end the Coalition defeated Animal Justice for the final seat.</p><p><b><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2023/03/2023-new-south-wales-postcount-classic.html">4. 2023 New South Wales Postcount: Classic Seats And Kiama</a></b></p><p>This piece followed the Coalition vs Labor type seats in the NSW election postcount. Initially Labor looked very likely to win a majority but it turned out that the swings in pre-day voting were very different from the swings on the day, and also there were a lot of postals. Not one of my better projection efforts this one, or anyone else's.</p><p><b><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2023/03/2023-nsw-election-day-live.html">5. 2023 NSW Election Day Live</a></b></p><p>Coverage of the above mentioned election on the night as Labor returned to government in NSW under Chris Minns after three terms in opposition.</p><p><b><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2023/10/2023-voice-referendum-live.html">6. 2023 Voice Referendum Live</a></b></p><p>On the night coverage of the Voice referendum as the Yes vote lost as heavily as the polls said it would. Also included some debunking of some false media turnout narratives.</p><p><b><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2023/10/voice-referendum-polling-rolling-final.html">7. Voice Referendum Polling: Rolling Final Week Roundup</a></b></p><p>The last of eight Voice referendum polling roundups I released, with an aggregate of 41.3% for Yes. Included graphs with tracking of various forms of undecided vote and the Yes vote based on whether the poll used forced choice, a single pass-option with undecided allowed or a double-pass option with undecided allowed. </p><p><b><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2023/09/voice-referendum-polling-how-low-can.html">8. Voice Referendum Polling: How Low Can Yes Go?</a></b></p><p>The sixth of the eight Voice roundups. Included my ten-point assessment of why No was winning.</p><p><b><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2023/09/voice-referendum-polling-nothing-has.html">9. Voice Referendum Polling: Nothing Has Stopped This Trendline</a></b></p><p>The seventh of the eight Voice roundups. </p><p><b><a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2023/07/fadden-live-who-gets-swing.html">10. Fadden Live: Who Gets The Swing?</a></b></p><p>Live coverage for the Fadden by-election, in which the LNP recorded a slightly above-average swing for an Opposition vacancy but there wasn't really anything too much to see. </p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Graph Of The Year</span></b></p><p>Not sure this will be a regular feature but an annual review for 2023 would not be the same without posting this one more time. This is the graph I spent many hours through the third quarter of the year updating as Voice polling followed an accelerating downhill path to exactly where Yes ended up. The decline of the Voice to a heavy defeat was not about who said what when or took what position: it was about pure electoral gravity. As a mid-term vote at least, it turns out that it never had a chance.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhaRTJlA6Gjh_24B0gySnA2zfNLP16Qb3IC9RyCckqDyyFwbTCkXzkAw9mABWGxtYYOJbxERQ9mZdSgzSSxmIcH3IHgZXF9mLcU5aGWtUYRNcHk6meGnTGKi2RSz6djUL0RT2wK8Cl5Mc12_c1u1Zg6NFnwv-tZYm-7mQS2swieSq52niPsY_WovQ8EzB0_" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="600" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhaRTJlA6Gjh_24B0gySnA2zfNLP16Qb3IC9RyCckqDyyFwbTCkXzkAw9mABWGxtYYOJbxERQ9mZdSgzSSxmIcH3IHgZXF9mLcU5aGWtUYRNcHk6meGnTGKi2RSz6djUL0RT2wK8Cl5Mc12_c1u1Zg6NFnwv-tZYm-7mQS2swieSq52niPsY_WovQ8EzB0_=w375-h400" width="375" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Some other stats</span></b></p><p>The ten biggest days of the year for site visits (in terms of "session starts") were 26 Mar (NSW), 1 April (Aston), 14 Oct (Voice), 27, 25 and 28 Mar (NSW), 15 July (Fadden), 9 Oct (Voice), 2 April (Aston) and 29 Mar (NSW).</p><p>The most popular pieces started or written in any previous year were the incredibly outdated bio page, <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2022/12/poll-shaped-object-fails-to-prove.html">Poll-Shaped Object Fails To Prove Opposition To Proposed Hobart Stadium</a>, <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-federal-governments-majority-is.html">The Federal Government's Majority Is Three Seats Not One</a>, <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2017/01/how-many-federal-electorates-have-you.html">How Many Federal Electorates Have You Visited?</a> and <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2019/06/jim-molans-senate-result-in-historic.html">Jim Molan's Senate Result In Historic Context.</a></p><p>The ten most clicked tags were Tasmania, pseph, voice referendum, Hare-Clark, silly greens, Legislative Council, Victoria 2022, Greens, rant warning and silly lefties.</p><p>The top ten visiting countries were Australia, UK (+1) , USA (-1), NZ (+1), Canada (-1), Indonesia (re-entry), Netherlands (-1), Singapore (+1), Germany (+1) and France (-2). 136 "Google countries" visited in 2023 and 182 have visited in total. This year saw apparent first-time visits from Barbados, Cayman Islands, Central African Republic, Faroe Islands, Guinea, Isle of Man and Kiribati but I suspect some of these had previously dropped off the board in the old Analytics. The most populous countries never to appear remain North Korea, Niger and Chad. </p><p>The top ten cities this year were Melbourne, Sydney, Hobart, Brisbane, Perth (+1), Adelaide (+1), Canberra (-2). Central Coast (+2), Newcastle (re-entry) and Wollongong (new). For some reason Analytics counts "Melton" separately from Melbourne. </p><p>The top hit sources were: Twitter, Google, Poll Bludger (+1), Wikipedia (re-entry), The Conversation (+4), Facebook (-3), Bing (-), Redit (-4), The Guardian (re-entry) and Tally Room (-2). Ignoring search engines the next two were Instagram (meaning Threads) and MSN. </p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Orders of the year</span></b></p><p>Definitely happening in 2024 will be the <b>Northern Territory election</b> in August and the <b>ACT and Queensland elections</b> in October. The NT and Queensland Labor governments are federally dragged and will be eight and nearly ten years old respectively; history suggests both will be doing well to survive. For the ACT Labor-Greens administration no such risk is forseen. There will be the <b>Dunkley by-election</b> and also at least two <b>Tasmanian Legislative Council </b>seats. Very left wing Hobart has a vacancy where the fortunes of former Greens Leader Cassy O'Connor will be of interest, while in Prosser a test for the government as Jane Howlett (Lib) presumably defends the seat she won narrowly over Labor in 2018.</p><p>In the maybe category, the next <b>Tasmanian state election</b> is scheduled for 2025 but could plausibly be in 2024, by accident or by design. (Voters in the sidebar here expect it will.) The next <b>federal election</b> is also scheduled for 2025, with redistribution and state election obstacles to going earlier, but a narrow window in late November perhaps if the government sees a desperately good reason to go sooner. </p><p>Thanks all for the interest during 2023 and Happy New Year to all readers! Thanks especially to those who have donated to help fund this site during the cost of living crisis. </p><span><!--more--></span><span><!--more--></span><span><!--more--></span><span><!--more--></span><span><!--more--></span>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-77640418754959086002023-12-25T18:17:00.005+11:002024-01-10T17:55:02.179+11:00Can Twitter "Polls" Predict Newspoll Changes? (Interim Results)<p>It's an almost annual tradition on this site to release something every Christmas Day. Click the Xmas tag for previous random examples. Why do I do this? Partly it's a present for those who like Christmas, which in a very low-key non-religious fashion includes your host, but it's also a present for those who don't want to deal with this particular Christmas or even generally cannot stand Christmas and just wish it was a normal day when normal things happened. And what could be more normal than niche meta-psephology? Therefore, the campaign against compulsory Christmasing brings you ... whatever this is. </p><p>Over the past few years I've been running opt-in Twitter "polls" for the amusement of my followers there, similar to the Not-A-Polls in this site's sidebar. </p><p>This started with the October 2020 Budget, because Budgets attract speculation about Budget bounces in party polling, but these bounces only rarely actually occur. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjTHqX5vt1PVDpzNcrKWxEKRzpxcXhR5CRLoAfHTNHXCUXIKKsUm6n5PlwlJxk7nvJwsmn4ivoClE-3oFwCLW7Qq1YUL6fmBKi21ICIDIn2mYlR_fIkfQLXO3CZ72EZgjKqLzrV8zRv1HPPU3c9C-0BaL-B8alJl2dlaQPQMcT-PbhiIB3aZyEHel_bHSp0" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="509" data-original-width="1043" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjTHqX5vt1PVDpzNcrKWxEKRzpxcXhR5CRLoAfHTNHXCUXIKKsUm6n5PlwlJxk7nvJwsmn4ivoClE-3oFwCLW7Qq1YUL6fmBKi21ICIDIn2mYlR_fIkfQLXO3CZ72EZgjKqLzrV8zRv1HPPU3c9C-0BaL-B8alJl2dlaQPQMcT-PbhiIB3aZyEHel_bHSp0=w640-h312" width="640" /></a></div><br />The "poll" got this one wrong. The Morrison government's 2PP rose by one point from 51 to 52. <span><a name='more'></a></span><div><br /><p></p><p>Over the next several months I kept posting these intermittently, then from June 2021 I came up with a stable format. In general the "polls" would ask about the 2PP, the Prime Minister's netsat, the Opposition Leader's netsat and the PM's Better Prime Minister lead.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEirGdcUYR17QMpPqgIBkQ_BnqbOO58EF_w4yjjLj94Ne3hTLR--DrY5Qk6P-9NC-52ixv1ATyWDBvlwZWprVIaTq_ftkuHvjDwG782InF1WOIr9w46kSWZSLA2-C0pD9qwqPbru3437ZiF-RXXF4Lhjwc4d-ST3cRdt6FyMKED-NlZicSamgizrk54gANHR" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="986" data-original-width="469" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEirGdcUYR17QMpPqgIBkQ_BnqbOO58EF_w4yjjLj94Ne3hTLR--DrY5Qk6P-9NC-52ixv1ATyWDBvlwZWprVIaTq_ftkuHvjDwG782InF1WOIr9w46kSWZSLA2-C0pD9qwqPbru3437ZiF-RXXF4Lhjwc4d-ST3cRdt6FyMKED-NlZicSamgizrk54gANHR=w304-h640" width="304" /></a></div><br />(Click for larger clearer version). The format I generally use is that for the 2PP if the government is behind the options are up 2 or more, up 1, no change, down. If the government is level or ahead the options are up, no change, down 1, down 2 or more. For the leader ratings the options are up 5 or more, unchanged to up 4, down 1 to down 5, down 6 or more. This is all to deal as best I can with one of the limitations of Twitter "polls" - that they only allow for four options (five would be so much better).<p></p><p>Sometimes I ask extra questions, eg about Budget ratings or the Voice or who will have the better netsat rating. These are not included in this review. </p><p>Of course Twitter "polls" are not polls at all. They're not even limited to my followers but at the mercy of at times being retweeted by high follower left accounts into their follower bases. I've frequently added disclaimers to this effect and promises to eventually write something up. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEimYKfex0aL0UnjipkKFXrthJbgbAkZrG2mQ4Ir39IEdVvZewe798PkxCtH8nHcmqQBy1jvZQYz066gBEP9jONcbIP9q8TT0FFsvAm9FBNzk6KDteWdbSmObNXX9e4zPxUentMHWS9kMwG-jZ-7uO789PtpcyNck-MN3eRLpoHTrn8-k7eOPcuX_y1K6qgV" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="401" data-original-width="885" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEimYKfex0aL0UnjipkKFXrthJbgbAkZrG2mQ4Ir39IEdVvZewe798PkxCtH8nHcmqQBy1jvZQYz066gBEP9jONcbIP9q8TT0FFsvAm9FBNzk6KDteWdbSmObNXX9e4zPxUentMHWS9kMwG-jZ-7uO789PtpcyNck-MN3eRLpoHTrn8-k7eOPcuX_y1K6qgV=w400-h181" width="400" /></a></div><br />And here the interim results are! (I intend to do a further writeup in a few years time.) Do these Twitter "polls" have any value at all in predicting what will happen in Newspoll?<br /><p></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Polls included</span></b></p><p>My sample includes partial results for the Newspolls released on or about 6 Oct 2020, 30 Jan 2021, 21 Feb 2021, 25 April 2021 and 16 May 2021. From 6 June 2021 it includes full results and includes every poll up to the start of the 2022 campaign except 13 Feb 22. For the campaign it includes just 8 May and 20 May, then after the election 30 Oct 22 and the following in 2023: 5 Feb, 5 Mar, 14 May, 25 June, 16 July, 24 Sep, 26 Nov, 17 Dec. Whether I run it or not has depended on (i) time available (ii) whether I succeed in predicting when a Newspoll will be out! </p><p>For each poll I've counted the results as falling in four bins 1-4 where 1 is the best available option for the party and 4 is the worst, and I've also checked which bin the actual result landed in. As a main indicator I've then compared this with the average prediction. So for instance if 10% predict bin 1, 20% bin 2, 50% bin 3 and 20% bin 4, then the average prediction score is .1*1+.2*2+.5*3+.2*4=2.8. For a leadership score that range would mean 70% expected the leader's rating to worsen, and only 30% expected it to either stay the same or improve.</p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">How did the "polls" go?</span></b></p><p>Overall my sample includes 103 predictive attempts from 24 "polls" where all four questions were canvassed and five early "polls" where some questions were canvassed but not others. </p><p>The plurality pick was correct in <b>38/103 </b>cases (36.9%). That's a lot better than guessing, but it also isn't that impressive by itself. After all anyone vaguely familiar with Newspoll history will know that changes of 2% or more in the 2PP are pretty rare these days (yes it's happened three times in a row as I write, but that's the first time since the old bouncy Newspoll days back in 2015). Overall 35 of the 103 outcomes landed in bins 1 or 4 so simply tossing a coin between bins 2 and 3 (one of which always contains the no-change result) would on average have scored 34 correct picks. On the other hand, the random noise element in polls means we shouldn't expect miracles here; if the plurality managed to get, say, 60% right, that would be pretty amazing.</p><p>There wasn't any obvious difference in the optimism or pessimism of the predictions by party, which is surprising. The table below shows the average prediction for each group compared with the average result:</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEidwYUvsGouwVZ6fxfZDuMyCfSA1gPBiEyEZdxdpePO56FFNv4ZsW6KS4HT3njBiZx8_65ZkxZxvs0tUlRdZIRMcz41rMwOMr8VZWn7Gf3Bv0IjKIKuFiOYlsz7I8vAM0F6_fqIitPu7IYl__qixp1DStj0q72yV5JYKn-n4wrLI_REBgZZRirkCnG7LRiF" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="263" data-original-width="562" height="188" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEidwYUvsGouwVZ6fxfZDuMyCfSA1gPBiEyEZdxdpePO56FFNv4ZsW6KS4HT3njBiZx8_65ZkxZxvs0tUlRdZIRMcz41rMwOMr8VZWn7Gf3Bv0IjKIKuFiOYlsz7I8vAM0F6_fqIitPu7IYl__qixp1DStj0q72yV5JYKn-n4wrLI_REBgZZRirkCnG7LRiF=w400-h188" width="400" /></a></div><br />A plus score in the Difference column means that side tended to do worse than expected, a negative score means better. On both the 2PP and Opposition Leader netsat the average predictions and outcomes were very similar. On both Prime Minister netsat and to a lesser degree Better PM lead, the party in power tended to underperform compared to the Twitter predicition - in both the case of the Coalition under Morrison and that of Labor under Albanese. The predictions at this stage therefore don't have any partisan house effect.<p></p><p>The leadership "polls" underestimated the edge results (Bin 1 and Bin 4). Across these as a whole, the average vote for Bins 1 and 4 combined was 18%, but results landed in these bins 24/75=32% of the time. The biggest failure was the 25 June 2023 Newspoll:</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEipiZUlmLOxhC05reDEGmmX3K9OcvYtGltaIwqmeJItHUyUyBLKxN8CUsigOBFjeVU1S6I9uT8z5XvkV4HdY0Eiy1M5kgmqtmGldAibiL74Cq757SW3u4TMrPVhgibJvlwDh8LBA2Gtl7lTLU9ECK0k7XSS7kB1nvAoEAdON7qpRudBvxEzMZVmabpubhJR" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="595" data-original-width="931" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEipiZUlmLOxhC05reDEGmmX3K9OcvYtGltaIwqmeJItHUyUyBLKxN8CUsigOBFjeVU1S6I9uT8z5XvkV4HdY0Eiy1M5kgmqtmGldAibiL74Cq757SW3u4TMrPVhgibJvlwDh8LBA2Gtl7lTLU9ECK0k7XSS7kB1nvAoEAdON7qpRudBvxEzMZVmabpubhJR=w400-h256" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div style="text-align: left;">Here a slim majority correctly predicted that Albanese's net rating would go down. But only <b>2.6%</b> correctly predicted it would fall by more than five points (it fell eight points to +10). This sort of thing may be because the audience are not that aware of how bouncy Newspoll leader ratings are. Historically the proportions of PM netsat results in bins 1-4 respectively is 22.5%, 30.6%, 25% and 21.9%, so if a PMs net rating is going to go down, it is almost as likely to go down by more than 5% as it is to go down by 1-5%. As a result if a punter can identify something that looks very likely to drive the PM's ratings down, then bin 4 may be the best bet.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">On the other hand, the "polls" are relatively good at predicting bin 4 results on two-party preferred. 2PP bin 4 (which is sometimes a one-point drop and sometimes a drop of two points or more) happened eight times in the sample so far. Three were tipped by a majority of voters and a fourth by a very near majority. In all three cases where a narrow plurality wrongly predicted bin 4, the correct answer was bin 3. In three of the four cases where bin 4 wasn't predicted by plurality, the plurality predicted bin 3. (The only bin 4 result that was completely missed was in the early days before I standardised the format, 30 Jan 2021, in which only 6.9% correctly predicted a Coalition drop from 51% 2PP to 50 or less (it was 50).)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Overall, the average prediction landed in the right half of the list 65 times and the wrong half 38%. That 63% rate of landing in the right half might sound pretty good, but not necessarily (eg with 2PP whichever half has the no-change option is historically more likely to be correct than the other half). To look at whether the average prediction has any kind of predictive value it's necessarily to compare it with the correct answer. And that looks like this:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg_4gVP3UbN2gmX4iAiU4LjCpfqiVYvy64oxpaMcXk6xGoLT5aLnpggk_OI6D7HMxA-JIL8Fn-ijjo3op08O9H5fLNfyQQwCv_0mx8KVBQdd_JvPyufwtidRn2HzP_HW_-LJ0SE06YiFN0FkalpbhNVze9b8uBAzBtERI7hD6wK-synGyQOvWmL6vaD1ZIT" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="632" data-original-width="983" height="413" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg_4gVP3UbN2gmX4iAiU4LjCpfqiVYvy64oxpaMcXk6xGoLT5aLnpggk_OI6D7HMxA-JIL8Fn-ijjo3op08O9H5fLNfyQQwCv_0mx8KVBQdd_JvPyufwtidRn2HzP_HW_-LJ0SE06YiFN0FkalpbhNVze9b8uBAzBtERI7hD6wK-synGyQOvWmL6vaD1ZIT=w640-h413" width="640" /></a></div><br /></div><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">It's not a great relationship but it is there - in this first sample, when the Twitter "poll" predicts the government or a leader will do badly, they actually are more likely to do badly. It's statistically significant given the sample size of 103 readings but still only weakly so if I treat the sample as the number of individual Newspolls sampled (which is probably the correct thing to do). So, more numbers needed before we can be too confident that Twitter "polls" have even the slightest idea, but at the moment it looks like they do.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">In terms of the individual indicators, the "polls" so far are best at predicting 2PP change (32% of variation explained) followed by PM netsat, but have so far been useless or worse (weak slope going the wrong way) at predicting changes in Better Prime Minister lead. This is not too surprising; Better PM is a silly compound indicator that gets far too much attention and that is naturally difficult to predict because it is influenced by so many different things. But it will be interesting to see if this changes with more data.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">That's not to say these Twitter "polls" are a very <i>good</i> predictor of Newspoll, or even as good as any others, just that they do appear to be better than nothing. Historically one of the best predictors of 2PP is this: that when the Newspoll 2PP moves, it will probably not move the same way again next time. When a government's 2PP polling has gone up, 52.5% of the time it has gone down in the next poll compared to 26.3% up again and 21.2% no change. When a government has gone down, 52.3% of the time it has gone up next time, compared to 22.7% down again and 24.9% no change. (No change has been followed by a rise 36% of the time, a fall 40.4% of the time and no change 23.6% of the time.)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Since the outsourcing of Newspoll from 2015, it has been less bouncy than before, but this pattern is still there: a change has been followed by a change in the opposite direction 42.9% of the time, in the same direction 18.7% and no change 38.5%. However the commonest sequel to a no change result has been another no change result (40.7%) followed by a fall (33.9%) and a gain (25.4%). However there have been a few significant changes in Newspoll over even this time: the 2015-9 mixed online/robocall Newspoll was notoriously stable, the 2019-23 YouGov online Newspoll a little less so, and the new Pyxis Newspoll so far may be a little less so again. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">One reason for this, which runs contrary to common gallery nonsense about polling "momentum", is that most of the time what is actually going on in voting intention is nothing, so most cases of 2PP movement are random movements that are more likely to be cancelled out the next time. Another is that some factors may influence voting intention but only last (at full strength or at all) for one cycle.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Can Twitter "Polls" Predict Findings About Twitter "Polls" About Newspoll?</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Earlier today I put the above findings to a series of Twitter "polls" themselves! The form in which I did so was a but suboptimal since I forgot to mention at the start that I was referring to Twitter "polls" on my account only (that said nobody else seems to have run all that many and I think most respondents would have been familiar with my Newspoll-night cycle). Also we have no way of knowing how many respondents were sober. How did it go? Not too well!</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEii02jFxbBs2Fg4RoK8N5cW_8jyloPbh02_odqchMwEMOuSMcShPMoAVG4JMXB7pIUNOcpxWbt-4blRhzjejTD8HZDe1oVcPnWdaMI_aU6Wue8AlLZd4xCVSPU6wFs1xwIobpNyJgWSGy-jjdjrb-CFUn6o2BlpTFOuarHygYrXXcGtx_vmndtNhE2FnVY7" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="505" data-original-width="685" height="236" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEii02jFxbBs2Fg4RoK8N5cW_8jyloPbh02_odqchMwEMOuSMcShPMoAVG4JMXB7pIUNOcpxWbt-4blRhzjejTD8HZDe1oVcPnWdaMI_aU6Wue8AlLZd4xCVSPU6wFs1xwIobpNyJgWSGy-jjdjrb-CFUn6o2BlpTFOuarHygYrXXcGtx_vmndtNhE2FnVY7" width="320" /></a></div><br />The plurality selected "useless" but in this sample at least the correct answer was "somewhat".</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhTEhwFCjj0xTWM1rpwOkgRbmP4wnnXcdAddsE3LpT5Dno67Y3b-dvs1Mv6BWpr0VzuPlyAXeVPHMFXGFEuaeNpe84BFYsB8MOKZbalerWIHcLx2_ALzquomJSfzOq6n5fHkKNyer_ranCzzUEL84dHGAI3Jhm_Vsxb2spvuqvpbw3RMkfx9HUt3x3Kxalp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="312" data-original-width="675" height="148" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhTEhwFCjj0xTWM1rpwOkgRbmP4wnnXcdAddsE3LpT5Dno67Y3b-dvs1Mv6BWpr0VzuPlyAXeVPHMFXGFEuaeNpe84BFYsB8MOKZbalerWIHcLx2_ALzquomJSfzOq6n5fHkKNyer_ranCzzUEL84dHGAI3Jhm_Vsxb2spvuqvpbw3RMkfx9HUt3x3Kxalp" width="320" /></a></div><br />I would have guessed Labor in advance of doing the article but in this sample the correct answer was "neither". This may reflect my follower base; polls by a random Twitter occupant probably would skew to Labor.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiayb1AWTx4va4QvNSHQZ24VxdBaTw47ysaJ31rgJKsWtju7rYSHtNchpxPjumgvZkBB4KKo9m7I57MP8ScErIRPwE4pkCY7EhgLA_iSQEi24wmizhRHAKgnj1Q5NhqvkmOies_E6C0xifh3LfpG_odNQYKbk6OtA8-w6_6-DpchHXCaAIWC0NZg14wRHhQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="344" data-original-width="690" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiayb1AWTx4va4QvNSHQZ24VxdBaTw47ysaJ31rgJKsWtju7rYSHtNchpxPjumgvZkBB4KKo9m7I57MP8ScErIRPwE4pkCY7EhgLA_iSQEi24wmizhRHAKgnj1Q5NhqvkmOies_E6C0xifh3LfpG_odNQYKbk6OtA8-w6_6-DpchHXCaAIWC0NZg14wRHhQ" width="320" /></a></div><br />The majority got this one correct: 2PP was the best predicted indicator in this sample.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEibYvjZZKKXxGLhzfrNp8sCnfXeP84bLHyb7Mo5T6js5aDhiOjBy34TBoKZWdx1p1dO2_-Z3xcrN2rpwMbqU9ISVQ-mxZ0eaLZ5csv69wWBLd4mqkXozO-BJn1Fc3aFjdmI4pPI8-qf-2PfkDp9VEkIFjPAOtBooRdMzcZSjWGaUmNysbwelUnJPABppdju" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="315" data-original-width="678" height="149" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEibYvjZZKKXxGLhzfrNp8sCnfXeP84bLHyb7Mo5T6js5aDhiOjBy34TBoKZWdx1p1dO2_-Z3xcrN2rpwMbqU9ISVQ-mxZ0eaLZ5csv69wWBLd4mqkXozO-BJn1Fc3aFjdmI4pPI8-qf-2PfkDp9VEkIFjPAOtBooRdMzcZSjWGaUmNysbwelUnJPABppdju" width="320" /></a></div><br />The 2PP option polarised respondents: those who didn't think it would be the best predicted tended to think it would be the worst predicted. However almost no-one (7 voters) correctly picked Better PM lead as the worst predicted, though I thought that was the obvious choice because of its compound nature.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiKKC4qDS_FAkvy1VssEnpS_OZP7EhwNPyMqRZkGJ3TMAcEP5H9Vyfc_Nyris10KCaKSilPI9fo32G8EwiahJ_rEMLvMo3CAocNdMGVel_Za-DQQvwQir5iRF7YjI7fmVXO1h0CEW9tFt2ixRrR2rW3fvObWEL1s3UcJRPmfgOw0qMGs0W1m0TMCGMGgltg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="322" data-original-width="675" height="153" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiKKC4qDS_FAkvy1VssEnpS_OZP7EhwNPyMqRZkGJ3TMAcEP5H9Vyfc_Nyris10KCaKSilPI9fo32G8EwiahJ_rEMLvMo3CAocNdMGVel_Za-DQQvwQir5iRF7YjI7fmVXO1h0CEW9tFt2ixRrR2rW3fvObWEL1s3UcJRPmfgOw0qMGs0W1m0TMCGMGgltg" width="320" /></a></div><br />For this one at one stage in voting, the correct answer (less often) was catching up, but then "more often" pulled away.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Secular seasons' greetings to all and best wishes to all readers for 2024. </div></div></div>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-75964334557630108942023-12-20T20:34:00.005+11:002024-01-10T17:54:35.979+11:00Not-A-Poll Reset 5 of 2023: Fyles ResignsThe most recent sidebar round of the Next Leader To Go Not-A-Poll did not last very long! It had been up just four days when NT Chief Minister Natasha Fyles followed Annastacia Palaszczuk out the door. Fyles started her Chief Minister career as a popular choice to replace Michael Gunner and seemed for a while to be going well, with her party retaining a couple of loseable by-elections on her watch. But early this year I started to hear anecdotally that stuff was going weird up there. Again.<div><br /></div><div>The government was under the pump for failing to control a sharp rise in crime (particularly property offences and assault including domestic violence). It also appeared to be very unpopular, though a Redbridge poll implying something like a 40-60 drubbing across most of the Territory was likely to be on the harsh side. (Somehow, even that poll didn't by itself move betting odds that had Labor at $1.25 vs $4!) But the killer was that Fyles herself came under criticism for a string of conflict of interest scandals involving mining and gas industry interests. The news of undisclosed mining industry shares in the last week was one "I've declared everything ... oops no I haven't" too many and Fyles had to go.<div><br /></div><div>Fyles is a rare case (in modern times) of a head of government who was neither elected at nor faced a general election; other examples in the last 50 years are Tom Lewis and Nathan Rees (NSW), Mike Ahern (Queensland), Ian Tuxworth (NT) and Trevor Kaine (ACT). Lewis, Rees and Ahern were all rolled and their parties lost the next election (in the last two cases heavily and after the previous Premier was rolled as well). Kaine's government came and went on the floor of parliament and he faced elections as Liberal leader at both ends of the term. The only prior NT example, Tuxworth (CLP), quit to start the NT Nationals who soon sank without trace. In that case the government survived the election, but with a 3.8% swing against it and the loss of three seats to defectors (one of them Tuxworth, barely). </div><div><br /></div><span><a name='more'></a></span><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Premiers and Chief Ministers have been a vanishing species in 2023. Before Fyles resigned I looked at the history of state Premiers (not CMs) quitting and found 2023 was the first year with three ostensibly unforced resignations since 1901 (when four Premiers quit to move to federal politics). It was also the first year with four changes of state Premier since 1992. The most recent other years with four changes had been 1982 and 1968 and the last with five Premier changes was 1952 (a death, two losses of confidence, an election loss and a resignation). The most since Federation was the year of Federation, 1901, with seven (WA was the leader with four). Including the colonial Parliaments which were often laughably unstable, the winner is 1857 with nine.</div><div><br /></div><div>I also had a reader question about three resignations (Andrews, Palaszczuk and Fyles) at state and territory level within three months and that too may not have been seen (excluding resignations forced by explicit loss of confidence at parliament or party level or election loss) since 1901. These are unusual times. </div><div><br /></div><div>Following Palaszczuk's resignation it became the case that Andrew Barr (ACT) has been in office longer than all the other Premiers, Chief Minister and the Prime Minister combined. His lead grew with Fyles' departure, and although they catch him at the rate of seven days per day, it will now take nearly five months for them to pass him again if nobody else quits in that time. </div><div><br /></div><div>After not being mentioned in initial media dispatches, Drysdale MLA Eva Lawler will become the new Chief Minister. This is the first case of a same-party female to female head of government transition in Australia (ACT had one between different parties.) Lawler has been MLA since 2016, her seat being formerly held by now Opposition Leader Lia Finocchiaro (who wisely fled to the new seat of Spillett following a redistribution.)</div><div><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">Not-A-Poll Scores Again!</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Many voters picking Fyles to be next to depart probably just expected her to lose the election, but their bet paid off sooner than they might have thought. It wasn't a majority but Not-A-Poll improved its plurality strike rate to, such as it is, four out of ten.</div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiBN6tF0teKAVnbKDVJmgzbhOizb845EFIInUFK8VMnM42t6n3BtMeb_qr1EaBaaUPjfV6Rfe1DMzN4LXTKPF7mc7MNFAtITEXxOKRkhA1h-_-Hfqi3CiT2pm0P9iliWrRqKccz0hC547VRNEITXqu3oA7I97pyDbyKpWF7yAnfxJ2yRkE1k0vNYWNendyo" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1110" data-original-width="1411" height="504" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiBN6tF0teKAVnbKDVJmgzbhOizb845EFIInUFK8VMnM42t6n3BtMeb_qr1EaBaaUPjfV6Rfe1DMzN4LXTKPF7mc7MNFAtITEXxOKRkhA1h-_-Hfqi3CiT2pm0P9iliWrRqKccz0hC547VRNEITXqu3oA7I97pyDbyKpWF7yAnfxJ2yRkE1k0vNYWNendyo=w640-h504" width="640" /></a></div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br />Doom doom doom doom doom</span></b></div><div><br /></div><div>We have an exciting round ahead of us now since both Lawler and Miles inherit governments that are federally dragged, showing their age, trailing in polls and appear to be likely to lose. But Lawler goes first, can she turn the NT mess around? Or if she can't, could someone else (Rockliff the only contender obvious to me, though some will always be hot for Dutton's departure) be gone before late August? Voting is open in the sidebar, until next time! </div><div><br /></div><div>Oh and by the way Stephen Miles is in the running to be the first Premier to serve a career total of less than a year in office - the last such case was Rob Kerin (SA) in 2002. The break since Kerin is the longest ever, just beating a gap just over 20 years between 1947-8 (Brooker, Tas) and 1968 (Pizzey, Qld). (Terry Mills (NT) served less than a year as Chief Minister before being rolled by Adam Giles in 2013.)</div><div><br /></div></div>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-63703017567878482362023-12-19T22:04:00.004+11:002024-01-10T17:54:08.325+11:002023 Federal Polling Year In Review<div style="text-align: left;"><b>2PP Aggregate Average For 2023: 54.8 To Labor (2023 Preferences)<br /></b><b>Labor won almost every poll this year<br /></b><b>Labor's lead declined in second half</b></div><p>What I think may well be the last federal voting intention polls of the year have come out and at this point it's time for a regular site feature, my annual review of federal polling. The <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2022/12/2022-federal-polling-year-in-review.html">2022 article was here</a> and for earlier articles back to 2014 click on the annual poll review tab. If any more polls come out I will update this piece accordingly, but perhaps not very quickly. </p><p>2023 was another successful year for the Australian polling industry. Final polls were rather good (if mostly a bit light on for Labor) in the <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2023/05/new-south-wales-2023-final-results-poll.html">NSW state election </a>but the biggest test came in the October Voice referendum. In the face of poll denial levels so out of control that I wrote <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2023/09/australian-polling-denial-and.html">an article about it</a>, the industry recorded <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2023/11/voice-referendum-polling-accuracy.html">an outstanding result</a> (especially by referendum standards), although a minority of polls had big misses on the Yes side. </p><p>Even without the very richly polled referendum, there was a lot going on in Australian polling this year. The most dramatic event was the YouGov breakup in which Campbell White and Simon Levy left and started Pyxis Polling and Insights, with the former YouGov continuing with Newspoll for just one poll before it was transferred to Pyxis. Both Pyxis and YouGov were able through the chaos to be among the best pollsters on the Voice, and polling has been bolstered for now by the addition of a YouGov series that is a Newspoll clone in wording but uses an increasingly different weighting and targeting structure (now even including Voice vote). </p><p>There was also a change at Essential, which belatedly added education to its weighting frame after big misses in the Voice and New Zealand. This appeared to have quite an impact in the first poll after it happened, but less so since.</p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p><br /></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">The current batch</span></b></p><p>It is worth a quick comment about the current batch of polls before I move on to the yearly statistics. Things had been closing up in late November, especially with a 50-50 Newspoll, but in the last few weeks it seems that things have at least settled and perhaps even that Labor has a little tinsely uptick of the sort that's not uncommon at this time of year. (It often doesn't last.) Starting this week at an estimated 51.4 to Labor in my <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2023/12/2pp-federal-polling-aggregate-relaunched.html">recently restarted aggregate</a>, we had a pollster-released 52-48 to Labor in Newspoll, 50-50s in Freshwater and Morgan and 52.8-47.2 to Labor in Redbridge. Freshwater and Redbridge respectively tend to produce good results for the Coalition and Labor compared to most other pollsters specifically, and Morgan's numbers are lately better for Labor when last-election preferences are applied (I get 51.3 in this case). My aggregate also weights Newspoll most heavily so the net impact of all these changes was a slight rise to 51.7. Things were heading downhill fast for Labor four weeks ago but the rot has for now stopped.</p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">How many polls?</span></b></p><p>This year Morgan has been much more proactive in terms of releasing or at least back-releasing full primary vote data. As a result there have been 50 Morgan readings, 21 Essentials, 15 Newspolls, 11 Resolves, 4 post-split YouGovs, 4 Redbridges and 3 Freshwaters for a total of <b>109</b>. Largely thanks to Morgan's weekly readings this is the most federal polls in a year since 2015 which had 115 polls.</p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">2PP Voting Intention</span></b></p><p>There were 98 pollster-released or back-released 2PPs this year, of which Labor won 92, tied four and lost two. Resolve does not release 2PPs outside election times but on any sensible reading Labor would have easily won all those. The four ties were two Morgans, one Newspoll and one Freshwater. The two "losses" were both 49.5-50.5s from Morgan, one caused by a rogue respondent preference flow; it is worth noting that even if that was the election result Labor would be very likely to win in minority. The highest (back-)published pollster 2PP was 59.7 to Labor from Morgan in the second week of January. </p><p>I conduct last-election preference conversions off the primaries of all the published polls. On my estimates Labor won the last-election 2PP for all 109 polls this year, though that includes one each from Newspoll, Morgan, YouGov and Freshwater that round to 50-50 to one decimal place. The highest last-election conversion was 61.5 from Resolve in April. Excluding Resolve which has been far better for Labor than other polls, the highest was 59.4 from Morgan in mid-January.</p><p>The average of my aggregate for the year was <b>54.8</b> to Labor, just down on their 54.9 in my article last year. But this average is pulled upwards by some very high readings early in the year. My aggregate shows a levelling out at about 56-44 from late February through to June, and a clear downhill trend from the middle of the year. I have linked this to a sharp rise in voter pessimism reflected in a big upswing in voters saying the country was on the "wrong track" or heading in the "wrong direction" as opposed to the right track/direction from June onwards. Cost of living issues are likely to be the primary factor in this narrowing, which brought an end to the run of lopsided honeymoon polling in early September. One can speculate that running the Voice referendum did not help but it's hard to isolate a point for that as the damage was spread out across several months. Here are my annual tracking graphs:</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgjWVrD84ZINQtStLW1CyoPZAAfSffSXo5jjRNVdwh19bddX5DDvcfdftSQIN6zxmj_DeNvYO8jc7TQaerFd0mw4Ksq-5dGaPcZItxklZJ47QW89DghNfKbn2OmyEiJ1e_clAirxC_NB1FYcGhRnI1FgI1TgpjZCAMUoIqGd1EijWYjx2iOcQdp3uCulejF" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="452" data-original-width="827" height="350" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgjWVrD84ZINQtStLW1CyoPZAAfSffSXo5jjRNVdwh19bddX5DDvcfdftSQIN6zxmj_DeNvYO8jc7TQaerFd0mw4Ksq-5dGaPcZItxklZJ47QW89DghNfKbn2OmyEiJ1e_clAirxC_NB1FYcGhRnI1FgI1TgpjZCAMUoIqGd1EijWYjx2iOcQdp3uCulejF" width="640" /></a></div><br /><br /></div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi1xhpMFnkSDimeoXmmwTYfGS02uYe_1h1BkMdyPr5U0NssS41MlpoZEkWcT0vxaX6UbFdEwTNr56phxbaTyYuCFOHwscXrT0XFALXmC4EWKo1iVqYykDpS-GTqFUeZN5P4yOEP7e8f3qckPK1QWjhmF46wL5TOBbPTJCRP1o74gWuKeUjKviVCOf968iuA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="452" data-original-width="752" height="384" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi1xhpMFnkSDimeoXmmwTYfGS02uYe_1h1BkMdyPr5U0NssS41MlpoZEkWcT0vxaX6UbFdEwTNr56phxbaTyYuCFOHwscXrT0XFALXmC4EWKo1iVqYykDpS-GTqFUeZN5P4yOEP7e8f3qckPK1QWjhmF46wL5TOBbPTJCRP1o74gWuKeUjKviVCOf968iuA=w640-h384" width="640" /></a></div><br /></div><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">It should be noted that this tracking assumes preferences will flow as they did at the last election. Morgan (which allocates preferences by respondent preferencing) and Essential (which allocates preferences by respondent preferencing unless the respondent is unsure, in which case last-election preferences based on their primary vote choice is used) both find a pessimistic and worsening picture for the government on that front. In the first half of the year Essential's 2PPs averaged 0.6% worse for Labor than my last-election estimates implied, but Morgan's averaged 1.0% better. Between July and the mid-October Voice referendum defeat Essential had 0.85% worse for Labor, Morgan had 0.1% worse. Since the Voice defeat Essential has had 1.3% worse for Labor, Morgan 1.0% worse.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Last-election preferences have outperformed respondent preferences over many years but they are less reliable now than in their <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2015/09/wonk-central-track-record-of-last.html">golden age</a> from 1993 to 2010. As the non-major-party share of the pie gets bigger, slight swings in preferences have more impact on the 2PP overall, with three of the last four elections seeing shifts worth about 1% (to Labor in 2013 and 2022 and to the Coalition in 2019). Therefore at present it is possible that last-election preferences are overstating Labor's position and their 51.7 might in reality be more like 50.7.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Another point to note here is that Labor tends to perform more weakly compared to its during-term polling than the Coalition does; what I refer to as the "Labor fail factor". One possible interpretation is that voters simply tend to be more likely to prefer Labor during a term than when they have to actually decide to vote, but another is that it's a systematic issue with mid=term polling. For this reason while Freshwater is a persistent leaner to the Coalition side, its readings shouldn't be dismissed. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">With the Albanese government losing support through the year, are the minor parties picking up? A little bit, but not that much. In the second half of the year the non-major party vote (as an unweighted average of all polls) averaged 31.1% compared to 30.1% in the first half, a gain of only 1 point despite Labor's primary being 3 points lower. Even in the post-Voice phase with Labor down 4.4% on primary on the first half of the year, the Coalition has taken about two-thirds of it. The combined non-majors polled 31.7% in 2022 and at this stage aren't doing any better than that. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Leaderships</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Anthony Albanese's average net Newspoll rating for the year was <b>+7.1 </b>but his ratings mirrored the government's downhill trend, with a high of +24 in early February and a low of -13 in late November. Peter Dutton averaged net <b>-13.5</b> with a high of -9 in the last poll of the year (mid-December) and a low of -20 in late September. On the Better Prime Minister front (this indicator skews to incumbents by about 15 points) Albanese had an average lead of <b>24.1 </b>points<b> </b>with a high of 32 points in late March-early April and a low of 10 points in early November. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Albanese had a higher netsat than Dutton in 14 of the 15 Newspolls but there was one tie in late November. Looking at other polls, Albanese recorded exclusively positive net ratings through to late August, a mix of positive, negative and zero scores from then til the Voice defeat, and exclusively negative net ratings since the Voice defeat in mid-October. Dutton had a higher personal rating than Albanese in five polls towards the end of the year: two Resolves, one Essential, one YouGov and one Freshwater. (Indeed at year's end Newspoll is the only poll he has the better current net satisfaction in, by a single point.) However Dutton is yet to poll a positive net rating or a Better Prime Minister lead from any pollster. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">There are strong parallels between what has happened with Albanese's ratings in 2023 and what happened with <a href="https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2021/12/2021-federal-polling-year-in-review.html">Scott Morrison's in 2021</a>. However in 2021 Morrison's government recorded a polling average about six points lower than Albanese's, with a similar pattern of decline through the year. Whereas Morrison in 2021 outperformed his party's voting intention polling (largely I think off pandemic polling effects), Albanese in 2023 has clearly underperformed his. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">There was plenty of commentariat speculation that winning the Voice would damage or destroy Dutton's leadership. At this stage there's no evidence for that at all - on the contrary his Better Prime Minister deficit halved in the poll after the result. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Betting</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I mention betting odds in these annual roundups for interest, although betting odds are, as a<a href="https://twitter.com/benraue/status/1516032294737231879"> canonical tweet by Ben Raue</a> put it, "a unique combination of the conventional wisdom (fed by polling and media narrative) and a bunch of rich idiots' crazy bets." They are not reliably predictive and are probably not even "well calibrated" (a noted issue there is longshot bias, but there may be others.) Checking several bookmaker sites I found the government's average implied chance of re-election to be about <b>55.5% </b>with very little variation. Even this, which seems remarkably low for a first-term government that is so far yet to trail in polling and that a hefty swing is probably needed to dislodge, has followed the Newspoll upwards after dipping to about 52 a few weeks back; I believe some sites even had the Coalition favourite! </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">2024 a weightier year?</span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The latter half of 2023 should have given the Albanese Government a fair hint of polling mortality. The Rudd government was unstoppable in polls throughout its first two years and a sudden plunge in 2010 with an election only months away contributed to the panic that was a part of Rudd being rolled. It may be an advantage for the current Government to have been given its wake-up call with still half its term to go and to still have got off to the Christmas break in a reasonably good polling position. When it returns in 2024 we will see whether this year's slide continues and the government gets into trouble, or whether it can maintain a lead and put some heat on Peter Dutton's leadership. It would be surprising if there was not some attempt at a strategic reset and probably a reshuffle to move on some poor performers. The Prime Minister's own position may appear a little fragile but John Howard polled far worse ratings in his first term and still went on to triumph. The current Government does not have Howard's advantages in terms of first-term new member personal votes, but it does face an Opposition with strategic headaches after losing its former heartland seats to teals, and with only a few really juicy target seats (pending the redistribution). </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">2024 is a plausible election year. First term governments generally go early, but usually have stronger reasons to do so. The Queensland election due on 26 October and redistributions expected to complete by 17 October present some practical complications there; perhaps an election could be squeezed in despite those (say, 30 November), but 2025 is generally seen as more likely. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Polling at this stage has almost no predictive value. Towards the end of 2024, if an election hasn't been called by then, we should have a much clearer view of the backdrop to the next election contest. </div></div><p></p>Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.com0