There Must Be Some Way Out Of Here: YouGov and DemosAU Tasmanian Polls

YouGov Liberal 31 Labor 34 Green 13 IND 18 other 4

DemosAU Liberal 34 Labor 27.3 Green 15.1 IND 19.3

IND vote likely overstated in both polls

This article is part of my 2025 Tasmanian election coverage.  Link to main guide page containing link to other articles including electorate guides.  

At the 2024 Tasmanian election, voters elected a parliament where it wasn't easy to form a government at all, and the one that was formed didn't last for long.  Labor was unwilling to even try to form a government that would have involved the dreaded Greens, and the Liberals were only willing to form a government with what was left if it was basically a Liberal government with relatively minor concessions to others.  When that ceased to be a viable option upon the loss of the key vote of Andrew Jenner, the government was unable or unwilling to adjust to the fact that it was hanging by Craig Garland's fishing line, and here we are.

A new election offers the prospect that someone might break through and we might have some sort of a normal government - if not a majority (which needs a very hefty swing) then at least a stable minority government needing the support of two or three crossbenchers and able to find such numbers that they can work with.  But also, the quagmire might continue.  If neither major party appeals then we could even end up with a parliament where neither major party can govern without the Greens.  What happens if Labor wins the most seats but needs the Greens or needs, say, all of five other crossbenchers three of whom may as well be Greens?  What happens if we end up more or less back where we were?  (Only one state government in Australian history has ever pulled that off after losing a no-confidence vote).  

Tonight we got some public results from two polls, from YouGov and DemosAU.  The YouGov one is the more positive for Labor (the DemosAU one is horrible for them in the circustances) but at this stage neither shows either major party close to getting us out of the mess.  

YouGov

This poll was taken online from 12-24 June with a sample size of 1287 (Bass 253, Braddon 250, Clark 251, Franklin 266, Lyons 267).  Respondents were offered the choice of Liberal, Labor, Greens, Independent, or an Other (specify) option which I hear drew some predictably unavailable responses.  

These are the results from the YouGov website: 

The individual electorate samples of c. 250 shouldn't be taken very seriously.  Aside from them having a notional margin of error of over 6%, the real error margin is likely to be much higher because of weighting, targeting and sample pool effects (as with all single seat polling).  Nobody should believe the Greens with Rosalie Woodruff on top of the ticket are on only 9% in Franklin after polling 10.5% in the federal election with an ineligible candidate who had withdrawn from campaigning.   30% independent in Clark is also a major stretch.

At the 2024 election pollsters generally overestimated the independent vote despite the number and diversity of indies on offer.  It's not easy to put a number on this because some polls lumped independents and others or did other unusual things, and because full details of two media-reported Freshwater polls were frustratingly never obtained.  Polls with independent broken out averaged nearly 14% but independents only actually got 9.6%.  This is a problem with offering independent as a generic option - some voters think that Andrew Wilkie will be running in their state electorate and some also seem to confuse minor parties and independents.  There could well be a swing to independents this election with JLN not running, at least one new independent who could poll heftily (Peter George) and so on but 18% seems unlikely.  

Taking the poll numbers literally and assuming a fair degree of scatter in the independent vote, Bass would be 3 Liberal 2 Labor 1 Green 1 Independent (or 3-3-1-0), Braddon probably 3-3-0-1 though with some potential for a second independent, Clark 2-2-1-2, Franklin 2-3-1-1, Lyons 3-3-1-0.  That would be something like 13-13-4-5 (the scenario where either party needs the whole crossbench to get around the Greens) though there's a fair chance that Labor's 3% statewide primary vote lead would in reality be good for an extra seat somewhere.  Factor in the independent vote being likely to be overestimated and something like 13-14-4-4 looks like a better read.   I don't personally think the Greens are going to lose their second seat to an independent anything like as easily as in this sample (if at all, which is not to say they won't lose it to Labor) but the numbers are the numbers and it's difficult to read this poll as "saying" anything different.

Other stuff in this poll includes a 43-36 lead for Jeremy Rockliff over Dean Winter as Preferred Premier.  Of course, I always prefer to see approval rating polling.  Preferred Premier polling skews to incumbents but this is at least hardly emphatic rejection territory for Rockliff.  The poll includes issue findings where voters are asked to choose between issues of health, debt, privatisation, the stadium and salmon farming.  Health comes out on top among these issues, especially in the north, and while voters tend to be against the stadium and privatisation, in neither case is this overwhelming.  Accounting especially for the cancelling out of for and against views, the stadium is significant, but its salience can be overestimated.  The government is running very hard on health announcements.  

DemosAU

I hope we see a lot more results from this poll, which was widely reported in field by people taking it via the EMRS survey portal.  At the moment what we have is a report in The Advocate regarding a poll taken for an "unnamed peak body" by a mix of robocall and panel methods and a very large sample size (4289) between June 19 and 26.  The poll has results of Liberal 34 Labor 27.3 Green 15.1 and "independents" 19.3, leaving 4.7 for presumably others.  The Advocate has published the Braddon figures which are 44-25.2-9.3-15.6 leaving 5.9 for others.  The Advocate has interpreted these numbers as either 3-2-1-1 or perhaps 3-2-0-2 but a 15.6% independent vote in Braddon would most likely scatter between a number of candidates with only one (presumably Craig Garland) competitive.  Actually given their potential ability to spread votes between Gavin Pearce, Felix Ellis and Roger Jaensch, these numbers are not far short of four Liberals at the expense of the Greens or maybe Garland.  This makes sense given the Liberals almost got four last time with JLN taking a seat.

Neither poll shows anything promising for Tasmanian Nationals, but I am unsure if they were named in the DemosAU poll.

I have seen some of the text of this poll and it tried to avoid the problem with generic independents by naming specific independents, however it did include some that are not running (eg Ben Lohberger was available as an option in Clark).  Even when knowing the candidates, naming the independents can also overestimate their vote in Hare-Clark because it means they are named while the major party candidates are not - this is one of the reasons Hare-Clark is so difficult to poll!

While this poll may be dismissable if there's a suggestion that the "peak body" was somebody adverse to Labor's interests, overall Labor would not want to see polls like this being talked about at all!  Polls that show them going backwards or even not going anywhere play into the government's narrative that Labor caused the election without knowing what they are doing and are still not ready to govern.  The YouGov poll on the other hand is more positive for them.

It's very difficult to interpret the DemosAU numbers in seat tally terms because of the very high independent vote, and for now without full breakdowns, but if Labor are going backwards on primary votes then even after accounting for the Independent overestimate they're probably not gaining many or perhaps any seats.   For the majors it seems something like the status quo.  Let's make it the status quo and say for now 14-10-5-6, with reservations about whether the 6 are independents, something else or maybe some don't even exist.   

I am aware of a third (private) poll which I may say more about that falls somewhere between these two, with a far lower but still quite high independent vote (around 12%) and the Liberals slightly ahead, with both majors in the low 30s.  Nobody anywhere near a majority in any of these, indeed no poll yet with a major party over 35.  

At some stage before the election I will again do the best I can to aggregate all these polls and others still to come.  I think it's a bit too early right now with the potential for more detail to emerge re DemosAU especially, and it would be nice to see something that includes the Nationals explicitly.

How To Best Use Your Vote In The 2025 Tasmanian Election

This piece is part of my Tasmanian 2025 election coverage - link to 2025 guide page including links to electorate guides and other articles.

This piece is written to explain to voters how to vote in the 2025 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.  This is very near to being a carbon copy of my 2024 guide but I have put it out as a 2025 edition with some very minor changes tailored to this year's election.  

Please feel free to share or forward this guide or use points from it to educate confused voters.  If doing the latter, just make sure you've understood those points first!  I may edit in more sections later.

Please do not ask me what is the most effective way to vote for a specific party, candidate or set of goals as opposed to in general terms.

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 some effort, but it's not worth that.  The chance that your vote will actually change the outcome is low.  

Effective Voting Matters!

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 1606 more votes in the right combination, Ogilvie would have lost instead, and the Liberals would not have won a majority.  But during the count, 2701 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.

That's not to say it would 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 now we have seven seats per electorate, it's probably more of a risk than it was in the old five-seat system.

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.  

There Is No Above The Line / Below The Line

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.  

Your Party Doesn't Direct Preferences

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 candidates.  Your vote can only do the work you tell it to do.  If you just vote for one party but think another party is OK while some other parties are terrible, your vote does not reflect that.  

There Is No Party Ticket 

Unlike the Senate, candidates do not appear in a specific order on the ballot; the parties appear in a specific order for each seat but the candidates within each party's column are rotated.  There is therefore no number 1 Liberal or Labor candidate in each seat.  The Greens put out recommended how to vote orders but these are only a recommendation and the voter can just as easily put the candidates in their own preferred order.  

You Cannot Waste Your Vote! (Sort-Of)

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.

Make Sure Your Vote Counts - No Mistakes In First 7

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. Do not use ticks or crosses.  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 once and once only.  (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.  

Some voters try to number the candidates from each party column separately, so they rank the Labor candidates from 1-7, the Liberal candidates from 1-7, the Green candidates from 1-7 etc.  If you do this your vote does not count.  You are ranking all the candidates together.  Each number you use should appear once only on the whole ballot paper.

Voters for the Nationals in Lyons and the Martin independent group in Braddon should be especially careful here.  If you vote 1-5 for the Nationals in Lyons, or 1-6 for the Martin group in Braddon, and then stop, your vote will not be counted.

Be especially careful with keeping numbers in sequence when moving from one column to another as that is when mistakes often occur.  

The Gold Standard - Number Every Box

The most effective way to vote is to number every box.  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.  

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. 

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!  

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.  

The Silver Standard - Number Everyone You Can Stand

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.  

I Don't Care Who Wins But I Want Someone To Lose!

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 never help a candidate to win by putting them last.

Minor Exceptions

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.)

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.

Who Are These People?

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 penalise them.

What Is Group B, Group E and So On?

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 of the ballot.  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 either by themselves or as a group to stand out more.  If a candidate is a party candidate you will see their party name.  The group letter names for some independents just refer to their position on the ballot paper; the "Group B" independents in various electorates are not connected to each other just because they have the same group letter.  

Are These Candidates In This Group That Isn't A Party Connected?

There are two non-party groups running multiple candidates this year - the group including Adam Martin (Group B) in Braddon and the group including Peter George (Group C) in Franklin.  The Braddon group are a bunch of independents who have chosen to run together, who have some common viewpoints but may have quite different views on many things.  The Franklin group are not a formal party but are said to be much more tightly aligned to each other based on a set of common principles.  

Then there are the ungrouped columns on the right hand side of the paper. In general, the candidates in the ungrouped column are independents who do not have anything to do with each other (an exception is Gatty Burnett and Mellissa Wells in Braddon who are running together).  A few ungrouped independents are actually members of parties that are not registered to run in state elections.  Independents in the ungrouped column may have very different views to each other.

How Does Your Vote Work?  Why Your Number 1 Matters

This is not the place for a full account of how Hare-Clark voting works, there's one here.  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.

That ends the main part of this article, and the rest is something specialised I threw in because ... people do ask. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special Sealed Section: Strategic Voting (Advanced Players Only!)

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! 

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.  

In this case I am not arguing that voters should 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 wrong about everything.)

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 not vote 1 for any candidate who you know or strongly suspect will be elected straightaway.   

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 I will then number all the other boxes).  

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, but that vote won't all be mine.  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 does 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.

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 all those candidates at full value.  But it takes a lot of knowledge of who is likely to poll well (or not) to pull it off.  

One can get carried away with this idea and try to thread the needle in an order one doesn't 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 "quota running" and I really don't recommend it.  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.  

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 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 Ginninderra Effect).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Donations welcome!

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, which also has PayID details 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.  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.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tasmanian Nationals Are Lambie Chaos 2.0

This article is part of my 2025 Tasmanian state election coverage. (Link to main guide page with links to other articles here.)

I was going to write an article called "There Are Too Many Independents" but on seeing the full rollout of candidates for the state election I feel that higher duty calls.  There are too many independents this election (a record 44; some are competitive or at least entertaining but I'll be impressed if even ten get their deposits back) but that can wait.  I want to make some comments about the latest coming of the Tasmanian Nationals.

We've been here before.  In the leadup to the 2014 election there was a Tasmanian Nationals branch that was briefly part of the federal Nationals and was under the stewardship of former Labor MLC Allison Ritchie (never herself a candidate).  Initial enthusiasm for that run included Michael McCormack tweeting (above) that the appointment of Ritchie was "a coup for Christine Ferguson" (then Nationals Federal President).  Less than a month after McCormack's tweet the branch had been disowned by the federal party, who tried but were powerless to cancel the state party name registration.  The rogue branch's curious crew of candidates, including a legal dope advocate and a former Socialist Alliance member, polled a risibly tiny vote tally and the Nats name disappeared. 

There was a brief revival for the 2019 federal election after Steve Martin joined the party after taking the seat Jacqui Lambie briefly lost to Section 44.  The 2019 try did very well in Lyons after the Liberal candidate was disendorsed but Martin himself sank without trace and the party vanished again thereafter.  In the leadup to the 2024 election there was speculation that John Tucker (who has long seemed like a Nat from central casting) might run as a Nationals candidate although the party was not yet registered at state level, In the end he ran as an independent.  

In late 2024 the National Party of Australia - Tasmania made two separate signup attempts with the second one succeeding.  Christine Ferguson, on whose federal watch the 2014 damp squib squibbed or did whatever damp squibs do, is now the party's state secretary.

The Nationals might seem attractive to voters who don't like the proposed Macquarie Point stadium but don't want to vote for the Greens or independents.  They might also seem attractive to conservatives who think Jeremy Rockliff is too left.  But I think that if one is looking for any way out of the mess that the previous parliament has been, the Nationals are not the answer, they are more of the same.  Or maybe worse given they are running a candidate involved in one of the most infamous episodes in recent Tasmanian elections.

Incompatible incumbents

One of the obviously bizarre aspects of the Nationals' campaign is their endorsement of both Miriam Beswick and Andrew Jenner.  Beswick and Jenner were both elected for the Jacqui Lambie Network in March 2024 but their paths since have been very different.  Both of them initially signed a deal with the Rockliff government that was ridiculously restrictive and controlling.  The JLN parliamentary party collapsed partly because of this deal (which the government was also heavily to blame for even asking for).  Beswick and Rebekah Pentland were thrown out of JLN before they could quit, and Andrew Jenner remained.  The major cause of the breakdown was Lambie herself, threatening to rip up a deal she was not a signatory to and trying to control the state party's actions when she had suggested in the campaign that she wouldn't.  There was obvious bad feeling between Jenner and the other two, with Jenner backing in Lambie's declaration that Beswick and Pentland (who he has referred to disparagingly since as "the ladies") had betrayed the values the party failed to announce before the election.  

What happens if the Nationals win two seats and the winners are Beswick and Jenner?  Beswick who voted against the no confidence motion in Rockliff and Jenner who voted for it, and whose loss of confidence in the government through the term basically has caused this election? How is that supposed to work?  What on earth was Bridget McKenzie doing down here effectively endorsing both of them?  Had she been paying any attention to what had happened here?  At all?

What about the other ex-JLN candidates running for the Nats Angela Armstrong and Lesley Pyecroft?  Which side of the Jenner/Beswick divide were they on?  If elected would they be Jenner Nats, Beswick Nats, Tucker Nats or something else altogether?  How can anyone expect anyone to be loyal to a party when few of its candidates have been members for even a few months?  

(Tucker, Cooper and Rick Mandelson are the only Nats candidates out of nine who were on the December 2024 signup list of members - as oddly was Claudia Baldock who is running with the Adam Martin independent group!)

Speaking of Jenner, in a Facebook video update posted June 18 he talked about commenting about salmon (on which I suspect his position disagrees with the federal party) and said "I'll do the salmon one in a minute" because "that's an important one".  I'm still waiting for the salmon video.  

Contradictory comments

There is also the question of what the Tasmanian Nationals will actually do if they obtain the balance of power, and my strong impression so far is they really do not have a clue and are just hoping anti-stadium populism carries a few of them over the line.  A juicy initial source on this was a 6 News interview with Carl Cooper, candidate for Bass (and the longest standing of the group, having also run in the 2019 election):

"We need to be reasonable, we are prepared to negotiate in relation to the government that is formed.  We understand that our strength is in listening to people and following through on their discontent.  [..] We have no allegiances currently, we have no arrangements or agreements with any party [..] We'll basically listen to any incumbent who's prepared, or group who's prepared, to run as a government, and we will listen and support them if it's a reasonable arrangement.  So we will negotiate, basically, with whoever comes to parliament with the numbers, that will be done in a transparent and honest manner.":

Now firstly, this is a very confused statement.  A potential government that has the numbers doesn't need to negotiate with anybody else (potentially the Nationals could be in a position, jointly with other non-Green crossbenchers, to provide the numbers to either side, so they might have to make a choice). Also to nitpick a little while I'm at it, the negotiation is the phase before anybody comes to the parliament.  But overall this sounds pretty amicable - they'll try to do something for the people but they will work constructively.  

Then their later statement is rather different - John Tucker saying that they will make sending the stadium back to the drawing board a condition of their support if the Nationals hold the balance of power.  Which most likely means that if the Nationals get the sole balance of power, neither major party will be able to work with them without breaking core promises on one of the biggest issues, and it's quite possible the major parties will simply do a deal with each other to try to pass the stadium (on whatever terms the LegCo might let them) so that somebody can get on with governing.

And there's this ...

At the last moment one Andrew Roberts emerged as a previously undeclared extra Nationals candidate.  Will we see a profile of Roberts on their website? (They don't even have profiles for six of their other candidates up there yet. Voting starts this week!)  Roberts ran as a very obscure independent for Lyons at the previous election polling just 130 votes, and the Nats have now run him for Braddon though he is still based in Lyons.  At the previous election, Roberts was one of the candidates who signed a pledge for a so-called "Women's Forum Australia" committing to excluding trans women from all women's spaces (which would force them to use men's toilets placing them at obvious risk of sexual and other assaults).   His Facebook page is full of similar material, and not very much else.

It's bad enough that the Nationals would run a candidate with those views but the Examiner also reported that Roberts had run a few times before as an independent, and indeed there is an Andrew Roberts from the same town who attracted controversy over impounded anti-gay fliers advertising his candidacy and stated to be co-authored by him (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4 with link to flier).  As one of the links notes:

"The flyer also links homosexuality to drug abuse, calls for the re-criminalisation of homosexuality in Tasmania, and describes a vast homosexual conspiracy involving Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and “Hollywood”."

Not to mention the Bilderberg Group and the Rockefellers!   The fliers were ostensibly co-authored by James Durston whose name also appeared on Roberts' "True Green" website (the email address on that website was an AEC-lodged contact detail for Roberts' Senate run), and it also used the name Three Wise Monkeys. Similar bizarre fliers circulated in the 2013 Nelson LegCo election.  Roberts also ran in the 2014 state election as an independent, then in the 2016 Senate election as a Family First candidate (in the latter case supporting this very nice and moderate chap who Tasmania almost elected to the Senate under Group Ticket Voting in 2013).   Images from Roberts' 2014 state run and the 2024 WFA endorsement confirm it's the same guy.  In a tweet from 26 August 2013 Alex Johnston (then working as a journalist)_tweeted "Just had a call from 'True Green' Senate Candidate Andrew Roberts, he confirms he produced the anti-gay election flyer. #auspol #politas"

This history was hardly obscure, I referred to it in my 2024 Lyons guide.  Did the Nationals do any vetting of this candidate at all? 

So what's the problem here?  Roberts presumably isn't going to win, Beswick has been an okay MP and one could always still vote for or preference Beswick and just leave Roberts off safely, right?  If only!  The problem is that because of the way Hare-Clark recounts work, any vote that helps elect Miriam Beswick could later result in Andrew Roberts becoming an MP.  If Beswick wins and then at any point resigns her seat, it is very likely her sole running mate will win the recount.  Any recount is of the departing member's votes when they were elected, and this almost always elects someone from the same party, even if they have no primary votes to speak of.  If Beswick is elected, Roberts will be a prospective MP in waiting for as long as the Parliament lasts.

The safest way for Braddon voters to reduce the risk of Roberts ever getting into parliament is now, alas for Beswick who may not have known anything about all this, to number all 38 (sigh) boxes and put the Nats totally last.   Or if not making that much effort, to at least not preference either Nat above anyone remotely competitive, and to give as many preferences as one can stand to others.  

The completely unnecessary preselection of a risky candidate with a long track record of not getting votes raises the question whether anyone in the Nationals has any idea what they are doing or whether they were so desperate they just took anyone without checking.  In this light Clark independent John Macgowan says  "The nationals even called me and asked me to run, even though I disagree with all their announced positions and sledge them regularly online. Candidate vetting is not their strong suit."  Did they think they had to have a running mate for Beswick or something?  Do they even think they could win two seats?

Chaos Party Of The Year

Every Tasmanian election these days seems to have at least one party that's as stable as a lump of sodium in a high school chem lab sink.  In 2014 as silly as the "Nationals" were, Palmer United were much sillier.  In 2018 it was the first Lambie Network run (and also whatever "Tasmanians 4 Tasmania" was). In 2021 it was the ALP (yes really), and in 2024 it was the policy-free zone of  JLN.  In 2025 it looks like the Tasmanian Nationals are it.  

It must have seemed like a good idea at the time but there should be some head scratching in the federal Coalition about how we have got to this point.  The junior Coalition partner's state branch is running two candidates who between them sent the country's oldest Liberal government to two premature elections, and who history may record as having caused its demise.  

Being against the stadium is one thing and an obviously popular one.  But if one is against the stadium in the name of budget repair then the cost of the stadium is trivial compared to the indirect costs of repeated premature elections.  And while the Government is very much itself to blame for its run of such elections (because of lousy people management), as a part of the solution we need reliable crossbench forces.  Not parties full of party-hoppers, splitters, populist opportunism and obvious internal tensions.  We need people who we can know what they stand for - who can even know what they stand for themselves - based on a history of loyalty to good ideas.  

2025 Tasmanian State Election Guide: Lyons

This is my Lyons electorate guide for the 2025 Tasmanian State Election.  (Link to main 2025 election preview page, including links to other electorates.)  If you find these guides useful, donations are very welcome (see sidebar), but please only donate 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. 

Lyons (2024 result 3 Liberal 2 Labor 1 Green 1 JLN, at election 3 Liberal 2 Labor 1 Green 1 Nat)

Most of the state

Rural, outer suburban and forested.  

Lots of tiny dispersed towns that take many years for an MP to work

Candidates

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/Bluesky request by July 12 at the latest 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.   

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 am not listing full portfolios for each MP, only the most notable positions.  Candidates are listed incumbent-first by cabinet position/seniority and then alphabetically, except if stated otherwise.

Liberal

Guy Barnett, incumbent, Deputy Premier,  Treasurer, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, former Senator

Mark Shelton, incumbent, backbencher, Speaker, former minister Police, Local Govt etc, former Meander Valley mayor

Jane Howlett, first-term Assembly incumbent (previously MLC for Prosser), Minister Primary Industries, Hospitality and Small Business, Racing

Stephanie Cameron, Deputy Mayor Meander Valley, farmer, deputy president of party, 2021 and 2024 candidate

Bree Groves, farmer, former electorate officer for Bridget Archer

Richard Hallett, prominent Hollow Tree farmer, chair Southern Highlands Irrigation Scheme committee, 2024 candidate

Judith "Poppy" Lyne, farmer (sheep, cattle and irrigated cropping), former councillor

Labor

Jen Butler, incumbent, Shadow Minister Police, Corrections, Veterans Affairs, Women etc

Casey Farrell, incumbent elected on recount in March,  previously CEO Enterprize Tasmania (business startups firm), also Neon Jungle (design/technology)

Edwin Batt, Mayor of Southern Midlands, 2021 and 2024 candidate, farmer

Shannon Campbell, first-term Sorell Councillor, Founder/CEO of Campbell Conveyancing & Campbell Attraction Marketing

Richard Goss, "high school teacher with a mechanical and construction trade background", Northern Midlands councillor and former Deputy Mayor, 2024 candidate

Brian Mitchell, federal MHR for Lyons 2016-2025, former journalist/editor/media consultant, more detail here

Saxon O'Donnell, young baritone singer and recent support Senate candidate

Brian Mitchell retired graciously as Lyons incumbent to make way for Rebecca White amid a widespread belief that Labor risked losing if they did not make the switch.  It turned out Labor won Lyons much more easily than expected!  The Liberals have sought to use Mitchell's old social media posts travails from the 2022 federal campaign (noted on the "more detail here" link above) against Labor but have been hamstrung in so doing by the Electoral Act which prohibits them using his name without consent in advertising, whatever that is.  

Greens

Greens candidates are listed in endorsed ticket order.  Link to Lyons Greens profiles

Tabatha Badger, first-term incumbent, past Wilderness Society convenor and Lake Pedder restoration campaigner

Alistair Allan, Antarctic and marine campaigner at Bob Brown Foundation, former Sea Shepherd captain, 2024 candidate, 2025 federal candidate 

Hannah Rubenach-Quinn, former Break O'Day councillor, chaplain, disability support worker, 2014 and 2024 candidate, 2016 federal candidate

Isabell Shapcott, museum and gallery professional at QVMAG, 2021 candidate

Mitch Houghton, social work student, climate campaigner with Bob Brown Foundation, past horticulture business owner/operator, 2021 Bass and 2024 Lyons candidate

Craig Brown, retired GP, 2024 candidate

Joey Cavanagh, "longtime Greens volunteer".  Apparently a speedcuber.  

Nationals 

Andrew Jenner, first-term incumbent elected for Jacqui Lambie Network, former UK Tory mayor and voluntary magistrate, former Liberal Party member

Francis Haddon-Cave, former barrister in Hong Kong

Rick Mandelson, Midlands-based tax agent, secretary/treasurer/director of companies in psychology, fencing, land and rail and quarrying

Lesley Pycecroft, Army veteran, registered nurse (schools and LGH)

John Tucker, Liberal MHA 2019-2023, defected to crossbench over stadium, lost seat in 2024 as independent, farmer, former councillor

Shooters, Fishers and Farmers

Carlo di Falco,  target shooter, hunter and gun collector, serial candidate making his 8th run for party, more detail here

Independents - Own Column

Angela Offord, Launceston vet, has been involved with Voices for Tasmania, ran in 2024 and for federal seat

Independents - Ungrouped

Phillip Bigg, tradesman, hunter, President Tasmania's Shooters Union Australia, former SF+F state secretary and frequent candidate, regular #politas contributor

Ray Broomhall,  esoteric lawyer, formerly of No5G Party and ran for Federation Party Senate 2022 then Trumpet of Patriots 2025 

Paul Dare, retired, farmer, army veteran (worked on electronics and helicopters), former senior Baptist pastor, hospitals board member

Michelle Dracoulis, Mayor of Derwent Valley, was preselected by Labor for seat in 2024 but withdrew, photographer

John Hawkins, prominent antiques dealer and Tasmanian Times writer, LegCo candidate for Western Tiers 2012, petitioned against election of Eric Abetz to Senate in 2010 to force Abetz to provide evidence of renouncing German citizenship

Jiri Lev, prominent architect and heritage and planning advisor who supplies build-it-yourself housing plans

Tennille Murtagh, Brighton Councillor, One Nation candidate for Lyons federal 2019 (polled 8.1%), works at Wilson Security (buses, Royal Hobart Hospital and Indigenous engagement)

The ballot paper order in Lyons is SF+F, Nationals, Greens, Offord, Labor, Liberal, ungrouped

Prospects for Lyons

Lyons often runs alongside the northern seats but a little behind them on the Liberal vote.  At the Liberals' previous three victories they would have won four seats in Lyons under the current system but in 2024 they could only manage three.  They polled 37.6% (3.00 quotas) to Labor's 32.8% (2.62), Greens 10.9% (0.86 Q), Lambie Network 8.3% (0.66), Shooters Fishers and Farmers 4.8% (0.38) and Tucker 3.1% (0.24 Q).  

This looked like a close race between Labor and JLN for the final seat but Labor dropped back on a very high leakage rate off Rebecca White's surplus and never recovered.  In fact, Andrew Jenner (JLN) overtook the Greens on preferences and was elected sixth.  

Labor will suffer from the absence of White who was a huge vote-getter.  However the silver lining is that they will be able to spread their vote better and reduce leakage, especially with Mitchell's presence effectively giving them three incumbents (albeit one of those, Farrell, having not been there for long). If things go badly for Labor Farrell could struggle against Butler and Mitchell after such a short time in parliament - MPs elected on mid-term recounts are often vulnerable and Farrell has had a very short time as an incumbent.  

Without the competition from the JLN banner and even without White it's pretty easy to see how Labor can manage three here if the election goes decently for them overall, the question being can the Liberals drop back to two, and if so who would it be to?  

The Nationals have an incumbent and a recent incumbent on their ticket and the question is how much vote can be picked up there between Tucker's support base from 2024, whatever Jenner carries from those who voted JLN in 2024, and miscellaneous support for the Nationals attempt.  Here I will be interested to see the scale of their campaign as to whether they are a chance.   It must be strange to some in Canberra that the Tasmanian Nationals are running candidates who have caused two elections by destabilising in one case, and bringing down in another, Liberal governments.  The flow from whichever of Jenner or Tucker is excluded to the other may not be particularly strong.  I'm not wildly convinced of the idea that the conservative anti-stadium vote is enough to elect this lot; if it is then why did Tucker bomb out in 2024?

Of the independents Dracoulis at least might poll substantially but being Mayor of a not especially large municipality population-wise is typically not near enough.  The SF+F vote in this seat is sometimes decent but I am expecting them to suffer from a modest effort and competition from the Nats.  Also the Shooters lineup has fractured with Bigg running as an indie; he seems to have more energy than the remaining party put together.    As for the Greens while being short of quota could make them at risk with some combinations of other party totals, I reckon that this time that's probably not going to be an issue, at least if their primary vote holds.

Outlook for Lyons:  If things aren't too bad for the government then they can still manage 3-3-1-0 (Liberal-Labor-Greens-other) but we will see.  Nationals may be some chance.   

2025 Tasmanian State Election Guide: Franklin

This is my Franklin electorate guide for the 2025 Tasmanian State Election.  (Link to main 2025 election preview page, including links to other electorates.)  If you find these guides useful, donations are very welcome (see sidebar), but please only donate 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. 

Franklin (3 Liberal 2 Labor 1 Green 1 IND)

Eastern shore Hobart (Clarence City), much of Kingborough, Huon Valley, D'Entrecasteaux Channel

Urban/outer urban/treechange/rural

Candidates

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/Bluesky request by July 12 at the latest 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.   

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 am not listing full portfolios for each MP, only the most notable positions.  Candidates are listed incumbent-first by cabinet position/seniority and then alphabetically, except if stated otherwise.

Liberal

Jacquie Petrusma, incumbent, earlier MHA 2010-22, minister Health, Aboriginal Affairs, Veterans Affairs

Eric Abetz, first term state incumbent, Liberal Senator for Tasmania 1994-2022, Senate Leader for Abbott Govt, famous uberconservative, Leader of the House, Minister for Business, Transport

Nic Street, incumbent, backbencher, former Minister Housing, Sport and Rec, etc

Josh Garvin, former President Tas and Vice-President Aus Young Liberals, former staffer for Madeleine Ogilvie, 2025 federal candidate for seat (more profile here)

Michele Howlett, owner of hair salon Gloss Hair Management

Natasha Miller, adviser to Petrusma and formerly Young, cancer charity fundraiser and former logistics firm manager

Dean Young, newsagent, advisor to Guy Barnett, MP for part of previous term after being elected on recount

Petrusma will be campaigning from home this election after a significant hamstring injury.

Labor

Dean Winter, incumbent, Leader of the Opposition, Shadow Minister Jobs, Trade, Tourism, former Mayor of Kingborough

Meg Brown, first-term incumbent, formerly Sorell Councillor and staffer for David O'Byrne, Shadow Minister Transport, Heritage, Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence

Kaspar Deane, Kingborough Councillor, public school teacher

Traycee Di Virgilio, board member in building and construction industry and WHS chair St Josephs Affordable Homes

Chris Hannan, National President Aus Association of Social Workers, relationship therapist (own business), recent former Jacqui Lambie Network secretary and 2024 Franklin and 2025 Senate JLN candidate

Amelia Meyers, teaching student, reportedly Australia's youngest 2025 Senate candidate

Jessica Munday, high-profile Secretary of Unions Tasmania, President Worker Assist legal service, superannuation board member

The Liberals are disputing Munday's eligibility to be elected on the grounds of her being on the WorkCover board.  For now this is covered in The Legislation section here, but the coverage may be expanded.  

Greens

Greens candidates are listed in endorsed ticket order.  Link to Franklin Greens profiles

Rosalie Woodruff, Greens Leader, incumbent, epidemiologist (Ph.D.) (lead candidate)

Owen Fitzgerald, staffer for Nick McKim, organised school climate strikes 2022, federal Franklin candidate 2025 (see below)

Gideon Cordover, Kingborough Councillor, IT marketing officer, former federal Greens adviser, NIDA graduate, past candidate including Huon 2022

Carly Allen, graphic designer, marketing and events manager, 2025 Pembroke candidate, more here

Adi Munshi, Manager, Tasmanian Travel and Information Centre, tourism operator

Mark Donnellon, software engineer, President of Streets People Love Hobart

Brian Chapman, retired Physical Education teacher, former Clarence councillor, recreation consultant, veteran of original United Tasmania Group (proto-Greens party)

Fitzgerald withdrew from campaigning for the 2025 federal election after I spotted that he was ineligible under Section 44, which the party's vetting process had missed despite it being very obvious.  The party nonetheless continued to endorse him on how-to-vote-cards and he still polled 10.5%.  Section 44 does not apply to state elections and he is eligible to be elected.  

Cordover briefly left the Greens last year for purely employment-related reasons but has now returned to the party.

Independents (Own Column)

David O'Byrne, incumbent, former prominent unionist, briefly Labor leader in 2021, elected as independent in 2024

For details re David O'Byrne's forced switch from Labor to Independent, essentially over a sexual harassment incident from before his parliamentary career, see my 2024 Franklin guide.  During this term O'Byrne has provided conditional confidence and supply support for the Rockliff Government but caused the resignation of Michael Ferguson from Cabinet by withdrawing it from Ferguson specifically.

Grouped Independents - Peter George group

Peter George, (ticlet leader) veteran former ABC foreign correspondent, reporter and producer, prominent anti-salmon-farm campaigner who made final two in seat in federal election, see more here

Support candidates in alphabetical order (profile page):

Rayne Allinson, writer, assistant publisher at Forty South, D Phil in History (Oxford), author of a book on the letters of Elizabeth I, lecturer

Kirsten Bacon, vocational teacher  (winner Tas VET Teacher/Trainer of the Year 2023), chef, food writer, cooking YouTube host, carer, Landcarer on Huon Island

Louise Cherrie, WHS consultant (Cherrie Consulting), former Environmental Protection Board member, former long-term Environment Superintendent at Nyrstar, also worked at Aurora, TasPorts

Anthony Houston, recently retired prominent salad farmer supplying Woolworths etc, spokesman Farmers for Climate Action, founder of Land Conservancy family fund, Tarkine protestor in 2021

Andrew T Jenner, former nurse/Bureau meteorologist working in "environmental monitoring, logistics, and field leadership" in Aus/Antarctica, including Lord Howe Island 

Chrissie Materia, health and wellbeing consultant, PhD (Utas) in rural health, sailor and sailing administrator and tours manager/facilitator

Although not a party and claiming not to be a proto-party the Peter George group have unifying "pillars" of "budget repair" (meaning no stadium, Marinus Link or porkbarrelling), "social repair" (health, education and housing), "island repair" (environmental goals re salmon, ending native forest logging and increased mining royalties) and "integrity repair" (stronger Integrity Commission and government transparency).  I am considering determining the difference between these goals and the Greens' as a possible subject for my next scanning electron microscope booking.  

Andrew T Jenner is not to be confused with Andrew Jenner, Lyons MHA.

Independents (Ungrouped)

Sarah Gibbens, domestic cleaner (own small business)

Hans Willink,  IT and project assurance consultant, background in army and police, serial candidate usually as an independent (distant past Liberal Party, Science Party)

Tamar Cordover was a declared independent candidate but withdrew.

The ballot order in Franklin is Labor, O'Byrne, Peter George group, Liberal, Greens, ungrouped.

Prospects for Franklin

Franklin is generally a better seat for the Liberals than Clark, but is stronger for the left than Bass, Braddon and Lyons and has a high Green vote.  The Liberals would have only won three seats here under the 35-seat system in 2018 and 2021 and only fairly narrowly did win three seats here under it in 2024.  At this election, Franklin is the most obviously "bases loaded" seat; nine potential seat winners into seven doesn't go, and that's even before we talk about the second seat the Greens got close to last time.

In 2024 the Liberals polled 34.1% (2.72 quotas), Labor 27.3% (2.18), Greens 19.8% (1.58), David O'Byrne 8.7% (0.70), JLN 4.9 (0.38) and there were various minor preference sources.  This led to a rather interesting cut-up where the Greens benefited from preferences but the Liberals were helped by their votes being split fairly evenly between Street, Abetz and Petrusma. The Greens also suffered from a high rate of within-ticket leakage.  Eventually Street won the final seat by 2.2% (0.17 Q).

George in Franklin at the federal election polled a primary vote of 21.7%.  This doesn't mean he'll get anything like that in the state election, but even a third of that might be enough.  He had three advantages in the federal race: Climate 200 funding, the Liberal candidate being low-profile and incapable of winning, and the Green candidate withdrawing from the campaign over Section 44 issues.  I am not sure the Section 44 issue had all that much impact on the Greens' vote as I think George would have taken a big chunk out of it in any case.  What I expect to see here is that George takes the place of the second Green in the cutup and surges on Greens preferences if he needs them.  I am not sure George will win but he is at least a serious prospect.

The launch of a full George ticket surprised me (yes it makes it easy for people to in effect just vote for him but he could get a bit lost in the forest on preferences from other parties).  However his candidates while mostly low profile seem solid in terms of community standing and may get some votes that flow as preferences to George by association.  I'll be surprised if there is enough vote there for two seats and in the perhaps unlikely events of George either polling over a quota himself or getting excluded, votes exhausting at 7 from his ticket would be good news for the Liberals. 

A two-party swing just above 3% would see Labor tie the Liberals on quotas but Labor will probably be disadvantaged a little by their vote being more concentrated with Winter.   On the Liberal side Abetz has had a successful term with the great entertainment value of his parliamentary performances winning over some critics who never expected they would like him on any level.  It is possible therefore that Street will be defending the third seat.

Even if George wins, Labor could still take a seat at the Liberals' expense on the condition that O'Byrne loses.  A big part of the case for this is that unions that supported O'Byrne in 2024 now look to be getting behind Labor, with Munday's candidacy likely to help here.  Munday is herself a somewhat controversial pick because of past alleged links to O'Byrne, but it seems in general that the standard in Labor is that it's OK to have supported O'Byrne, it's just not convenient anymore to be him.    O'Byrne may also suffer in traditional Labor communities from supporting the Rockliff government - on the other hands he does stand out as an overtly pro-stadium non-major-party candidate, and his electorate work is generally considered strong.  Munday is clearly Labor's biggest push for a third seat here in an electorate where Labor absolutely has to win at least three.

Outlook for Franklin: As a first attempt prior to any polling, 2-3-1-1 (Liberal-Labor-Green-IND) with George replacing O'Byrne may be the favourite.  Many other things are possible.  

2025 Tasmanian State Election Guide: Clark

This is my Clark electorate guide for the 2025 Tasmanian State Election.  (Link to main 2025 election preview page, including links to other electorates.)  If you find these guides useful, donations are very welcome (see sidebar), but please only donate 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. 

Clark (2 Liberal 2 Labor 2 Green 1 IND)

Western shore Hobart, primarily Hobart City and Glenorchy City

Inner and outer urban

Candidates

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/Bluesky request by July 12 at the latest 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.   

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 am not listing full portfolios for each MP, only the most notable positions.  Candidates are listed incumbent-first by cabinet position/seniority and then alphabetically, except if stated otherwise.

Liberal

Madeleine Ogilvie, incumbent, previously Labor then Independent MP, Minister Corrections, Environment, Arts, Innovation etc

Simon Behrakis, incumbent, parliamentary secretary to Premier/housing and planning, former Hobart Alderman and Abetz staffer, economist

Jessica Barnett, media advisor Dept Premier and Cabinet, former Candidates Administrator for UK Tories, former electorate officer for Senator David Bushby

Marilena Di Florio,  fashion designer and label owner, previously RAAF medic and administrator/planning officer in the Tasmanian Health Department. Candidate for Clark federal, more detail here

Edwin Johnstone, owner of Some Hallucination hair salon, Chairman of Confederation of Greater Hobart Business, 2022 Hobart Council candidate

Marcus Vermey, owner of well-known butcher Vermey's Quality Meats, rowing coach, 2024 Clark and 2025 Nelson candidate

David Wan, "a true Tasmanian success story" according to Liberal profile which completely fails to say what he has been successful in!

Ogilvie's campaign has attracted attention after she uploaded an AI-generated profile image of herself on social media, leading to speculation about whether her corflutes are also AI images.  

Labor

Josh Willie, first-term Assembly incumbent, previously MLC for Elwick, Shadow Treasurer, Shadow Minister Aboriginal Affairs

Ella Haddad,  incumbent, Shadow Attorney-General, Health, Justice, Multicultural Affairs, Disability etc

John Kamara, co-founder, Culturally Diverse Alliance Tas and African Communities Council Tas, 2023 Tas Australian of the Year, 2024 Clark and Hobart candidate, previous profile

Luke Martin, recent former CEO Salmon Tasmania, advisor to Dean Winter, former CEO Tourism Industry Council, former Glenorchy councillor

Liam McLaren, 2024 President of Tasmania University Student Association, event co-ordinator and social media designer

Tessa McLaughlin, electrical tradie who has worked for Hydro, 2024 Elwick candidate, previous profile

Craig Shirley, admin officer at Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union

Greens

Greens candidates are listed in announced ticket order.  Bayley and Burnet are joint lead candidates. Link to Clark Greens profiles

Vica Bayley, incumbent, Greens Deputy Leader, former state campaign manager for Wilderness Society

Helen Burnet, first-term incumbent, former long-term Hobart Councillor and three-time Deputy Mayor, podiatrist

Janet Shelley, Director of Sustainability at the DCCEEW, previously at Bureau of Meteorology. Frequent Greens candidate inc federal 2022-5, Elwick 2024, more detail

Nathan Volf, social worker including in trauma-informed care and child care, 2022 Young Achiever leadership award, frequent Greens candidate including 2025 Nelson, more detail

Pat Caruana, media adviser to Nick McKim, 2020 Huon candidate, social media personality, former journalist

Angus Templeton, tour guide and past Greens convenor

Peter Jones, former history teacher, prominent Quaker, Islamic Studies (PhD) peace and human rights activist, multicultural community volunteer, 2024 candidate

Independents - Own Column

Kristie Johnston, incumbent, former Glenorchy Mayor, criminologist/lawyer and hotelier

Independents - Own Column

Elise Archer, former Liberal Attorney-General and earlier Speaker, MHA 2010-2023, director at equipment financing firm Finlease

Independents - Ungrouped

Jags (Jared) Goldsmith, stage and short film actor

John Macgowan, nationally (in)famous leading dirt uniteer, Bruce Lehrmann associate, political consultant and raconteur,  former NSW Liberal advisor, black metal fan

Stephen Phipps, (formerly UTAS, CSIRO and UNSW and now director of Ikigai Research), Red Cross volunteer, convenor of Voices of Tasmania, 2022 Hobart Council candidate

Archer's sacking as Attorney-General and departure from the Liberal Party in October 2023 sparked a crisis in which Premier Rockliff threatened to call an election unless Archer quit parliament or guaranteed confidence and supply; she eventually quit parliament.  Primarily, Archer was brought down over a text message in which she said "Turn off comment please. Sick of victim-survivors" after receiving social media abuse from some victim-survivors over handling of Commission of Inquiry issues. However, some other victim-survivors have praised her performance as Attorney-General. Many other Archer texts including some criticising Liberal Premiers were reported.  See my in-depth coverage from the time.  During the current campaign a report by former judge Raymond Finkelstein substantively upholding a bullying/harassment complaint by a staffer against Archer has apparently been given to media; Archer denies the claim and says her rebutting submissions were ignored.

Macgowan's campaign under the slogan "Back in Black" references both the need for budget repair and his recent return to the state just prior to the election. Regarding the latter coincidence, Satan has been contacted for comment.  In a Mercury candidate announcement Macgowan alludes to having "a lot of ... very conservative" opinions but also to supporting making Tasmania the "cannabis cultivation capital of Australia".  An unexpected source of entertainment for Clark voters but there have been some serious messages along the way.

The ballot paper order in Clark is Labor, Greens, Johnston, Archer, Liberal, ungrouped

Prospects for Clark

The People's Republic of Clark (as I like to call it) is very left, very Green and also very post-major-party.  Not only is Andrew Wilkie its long-unbeatable federal incumbent (the longest serving independent as such in federal history) but Clark in 2021 was the only seat to elect two crossbenchers in the days of the 25-seat system.  The state held its breath to see if it would be three, which would have ended Peter Gutwein's Premiership in an election that he otherwise won easily.  In 2024 with the return to 35 seats, Clark alone elected three crossbenchers.

In 2024 the Liberals polled 27.1% (2.16 quotas), Labor 30.5% (2.43), Greens 20.9% (1.66), Kristie Johnston 7.7% (0.61) and Sue Hickey 4.9% (0.39).  Among various others, Hobart Councillor Ben Lohberger's 2.7% (0.21 Q) was notable, particularly for rising to several percent in booths around University of Tasmania.  Overall independents polled less in Clark than polling and modelling suggested and this opened the door for the Greens to finally win a second seat.  The effective margin between the Greens' Helen Burnet and Labor's third candidate was 4% (0.32 Q)  The margin between Johnston and Burnet at the point Johnston was elected was 2.7% (0.21 Q) but that was only after Johnston gained on preferences from fellow independent Sue Hickey.  Prior to that Johnston was only 433 votes ahead of Burnet.

The most obvious way the Clark picture changes is if Labor's vote increases further eliminating either the second Green or Johnston.  Here the leading theory is that Luke Martin polls strongly, which is more of a risk to Johnston.  Martin will compete with Willie for northern suburbs votes, the ideal scenario for Labor being a reasonably close split across three candidates, but many of the votes Martin would take from Johnston could have been taken by Willie already.  One of the keys to whether Johnston gets re-elected or not will be how voters react to her role in the current Parliament.  Unlike the Greens who clearly never supported the government, Johnston was perceived as supporting the government early in the term, though this perception is based largely on a misunderstanding.  

The interesting thing with the Greens ticket will be seeing how votes split between Bayley and Burnet - the more even the better for them though I think Bayley has been more prominent than Burnet in this short term.  

In 2024 Vermey helped the Liberals keep three candidates in the count for a long time by polling a relatively high primary vote, and he has since had a run in Nelson for further exposure, though the Liberals were heavily defeated by Meg Webb in that seat.  His presence should boost the Liberals' chances of holding two even if their vote should fall below two quotas, but it would not have to fall that far below before the Liberals' poor performance on preferences in this seat could be a problem.  That said, two seats out of seven, how hard can it be?  

I'll be surprised if Archer is competitive (her high votes in the past being I think primarily loyal Liberal voters) though she could poll significantly as an anti-stadium option for conservatives and on account of connections from a long parliamentary career.  The Liberals certainly don't need to have her active in the seat.  

Outlook for Clark: as a first offer prior to polling and seeing the full field, 2-3-1-1 (Liberal-ALP-Grn-IND), 2-2-2-1 and 2-3-2-0 seem to be the lead contenders

2025 Tasmanian State Election Guide: Braddon

This is my Braddon electorate guide for the 2025 Tasmanian State Election.  (Link to main 2025 election preview page, including links to other electorates.)  If you find these guides useful, donations are very welcome (see sidebar), but please only donate 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. 

Braddon (2024 Result 3 Liberal 2 Labor 1 JLN 1 IND, at election 3 Liberal 2 Labor 1 IND 1 Nat). 

North-west and western Tasmania including Devonport, Burnie and Ulverstone

Regional/rural/remote

Candidates

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/Bluesky request by July 12 at the latest 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.   

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 am not listing full portfolios for each MP, only the most notable positions.  Candidates are listed incumbent-first by cabinet position/seniority and then alphabetically, except if stated otherwise.

Liberal

Jeremy Rockliff, incumbent, Premier since 2022, Minister Tourism, Trade, Major Development

Roger Jaensch, incumbent, Minister for Children, Community Services, Finance, Mental Health etc

Felix Ellis, incumbent, Minister for Police, Fire, Skills, Housing, Planning etc, ex-plumber

Stephen Parry,  former Senator and President of the Senate 2014-7, former funeral director and police officer, Section 44 distillery co-founder, more detailed profile

Gavin Pearce, federal member for Braddon 2019-2025 (retired at election), farmer, Army veteran, more detailed profile 

Giovanna Simpson, Deputy Mayor Burnie, radio administrator, former youth worker and owner of modelling academy, Pres Burnie Harness Racing Club

Kate Wylie, Central Coast councillor, works in school for disengaged youth, has worked in "real estate, hospitality, education, and sales and marketing"

Labor

Anita Dow, incumbent, Deputy Leader, Shadow Minister Infrastructure, Skills, Industry, Local Government, Small Business, former Burnie mayor

Shane Broad, incumbent, Shadow Minister Housing, Planning, Building + Construction, Resources, agricultural scientist (PhD)

Amanda Diprose, Central Coast councillor, 2021 and 2024 candidate

Cheryl Fuller, Mayor of Central Coast Council, manager until very recently of training organisation People Improvers, past Legislative Council candidate

Kelly "Hooch" Hunt, business development manager at Tasmanian Exigo Agencies sales firm, rally driver, fishing identity

Adrian Luke, director of DMS Energy (electrical/renewable energy), 2024 candidate

Tara Woodhouse, Amanda Diprose's daughter according to The Advocate, that's all I've got so far!

Fuller ran as an independent for Montgomery in 2013 and 2019, finishing second in 2013 and third behind Labor in 2019.  She was briefly a Palmer United member (but never candidate) in 2013 and also briefly a Jacqui Lambie staffer in 2014.

Greens

Greens candidates are listed in endorsed ticket order.  Link to Braddon Greens profiles

Vanessa Bleyer, lawyer and law firm director, Australia Institute spokesperson for Tasmania's native forests, Greens #2 Senate candidate 2022 and 2025

Scott Jordan, high profile Tarkine/takayna campaigner at Bob Brown Foundation, lead candidate 2018, federal candidate 2016 and 2018, support Senate candidate 2025

Erin Morrow,  psychologist with background in mental health care and organisational psychology, 2025 federal candidate, 2024 candidate

Petra Wilden, environmental scientist/teacher, 2022 Devonport Council candidate, 2024 candidate

Susanne Ward, caravan park manager, formerly in logistics, removals etc, 2024 candidate

Haru Fergus, student, has been involved in public transport research and Tas Uni Quadball Club

Thomas Kingston, "retired community member", 2018 candidate

Nationals

Miriam Beswick, first-term incumbent elected as JLN MP in 2024, carer, former director of laser tag business Big Big House

Andrew Roberts, property maintenance contractor, PhD in chemistry

Andrew Roberts ran in the 2013 Senate race as a "True Green" independent candidate. 38,000 anti-gay fliers advertising his candidacy were intercepted by Australia Post and not delivered.  Also ran in 2016 for the original Family First and has signed a 2024 trans-exclusion pledge for "Women's Forum Australia".  I am not at all impressed with the Nationals running him - see here.

Independent - Own Column (Group D)

Craig Garland, first-term incumbent, charismatic fisherman and campaigner against Robbins Island windfarm, for longer pre-parliamentary coverage see 2022 federal guide.

Shooters, Fishers and Farmers

Adrian Pickin, ranger and a former Senior Regulations and Pricing Analyst at TasWater, practitioner of hunting using ferrets, previous 3-time SF+F candidate, more detail here

Independent - Own Column (Group C)

Joel Badcock, AI and automation officer, firewood splitter and seller

Badcock's signs "Turning Politics Upside Down" with an inverted headshot of himself are a novel point of interest.

Coordinated Independents (Group B)

A group of independents running together with Adam Martin as the most prominent candidate. They are not united by a specific viewpoint but are all anti-stadium and opposed to the major parties. 

Claudia Baldock, first term Latrobe Councillor, co-runs a company that builds housing for people with disabilities

Andrea Courtney, Waratah-Wynyard Councillor, mental health and hospital worker, ran in 2024

Cristale Harrison, carer and disability advocate, prominent campaigner for banning engineered stone that causes silicosis

Adam Martin, poultry farmer, carpenter and builder, involved in federal lobbying for not-for-profits, ran for Braddon federal polling 8.5%, more detail here

James Redgrave, military veteran, firefighter, private investigator, Tasmanian Times author, 2024 Jacqui Lambie Network candidate

Malcolm Ryan, chocolatier, former Burnie alderman 2005-14

Redgrave's interactions with Latrobe Council provided some background colour in the 2024 campaign - see 2024 Braddon guide for more details. Baldock, an actual Latrobe councillor, was in the news over the appointment process for Latrobe Council's General Manager.  Baldock and Redgrave were also cited in a matter concerning accommodation for seasonal workers where they were the subject of criticism by Senator Richard Colbeck (Estimates 3 June 2024 and also by a previous General Manager of Latrobe Council - see statements from both sides of dispute here.  The dispute has resurfaced during the campaign).  Baldock was also a signup member of the Tasmanian Nationals in December.  

During the campaign Martin - and not his first conspiracy theory rodeo though he did later clarify that Martin Bryant was "of course" guilty  - approvingly linked a very emotional video rant by Rod Culleton in which Culleton among other things blamed banks for the death of a policeman during the campaign, suggested gun laws were a pro-bank conspiracy and even claimed to still be a Senator! (Culleton was disqualified in 2017.)  In more evidence that Martin is not your normal "community independent" despite often running a leftish critique, he in September 2024 shared material by and praised leading anti-vaccine/anti-lockdown figure Michael Gray Griffith (for spotting this one I am indebted to ... Gatty Burnett!)

The Martin team running precisely six candidates is a big formality risk since if anyone votes 1-6 for them and stops, that vote won't count.  Perhaps the intention is that their voters vote 7 Garland.

Independents - Ungrouped

Dami Barnes, instructor at Devonport Pole Fitness and former Council staffer 

Gatty Burnett social media figure covering many issues including child protection and corruption but often with a strong conspiracy theory tone, former youth and outreach worker, serial candidate  more here

Jennifer Hamilton, President of online community newspaper The Coastal Voice, CEO/co-founder of Lean AI (workforce skilling), background in assisting startups

Ernst Millet, paramedic, former RAAF Supervisor/Instructor and sports therapist, sporting shooter, has lobbied government for relaxed gun laws

Matthew Morgan, professional fisherman, also ran as ungrouped indie in 2021.  Admin together with Ryan and others of "Voices of Braddon" Facebook group

Melissa Wells, I haven't found any non-political bio details yet but frequent colleague of Burnett with somewhat similar style, especially focuses on anti-pedophile and wildlife protection issues

Burnett and Wells are running together as Tasnanians Now, an unregistered proto-party that intends to register in the future.  I am not sure if anyone else is involved but Burnett and Wells.  

A candidate called Dami Barnes was a Greens candidate in the 2018 SA election and contested Senate preselection, I am not sure if it is the same person or not.

The ballot paper column order in Braddon is Greens, Coordinated Independents (Martin Group - will appear on ballot as Group B), Badcock, Garland, Labor, Liberals, Nationals, SF+F, ungrouped

Prospects for Braddon

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.  Federally it seemed to be realigning from swing seat status to a safer Liberal seat, but on Gavin Pearce's retirement Labor Senator Anne Urquhart won Braddon with a stupendous 15.2% swing.  This was the first time a government has ever gained a non-marginal Opposition seat at a federal election.

Braddon was the Liberals' best seat in 10 of the last 12 state elections, being narrowly bettered by Bass in 2018 and 2021, and is likely to again be so with it being the Premier's seat and a very strong candidate lineup.  In 2024 the Liberals polled 45.6% (3.65 quotas), Labor 24.7% (1.97), Lambie Network 11.4% (0.91), Greens 6.6% (0.52), Craig Garland 5.1% (0.40) and among the rest was 2.9% (0.23) for the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers.  The Liberals were the leaders on raw quotas in the race for the final seat but Garland overtook the Greens on leakage and Shooters preferences and used their preferences to win the final seat - his was the lowest winning primary vote for an independent candidate or group ever.  (More detail here)

With Labor on just under two quotas, Miriam Beswick's win for JLN clearly cost the Liberals a seat, so if she doesn't get much without Lambie and loses then in theory the Liberals could get four.  But that assumes there won't be a big swing against them.  If there is an underlying two-party swing more than a few percent and the Lambie vote goes more back to Labor than Liberals then it becomes more likely that Labor take a third seat.  It will be interesting to see who Labor wheel out here.  Labor candidates will also have an eye to recounts as there was recurrent speculation in the term about Broad potentially retiring.  (This said, getting into government has been known to change such things!)  For the Liberals to not get three there would need to be a swing over a quota against them - yes this happened in the federal election but there has already been a big swing against at state level last time.  

Craig Garland has generally had a good first year except for being charged with drug driving, a matter which unhelpfully recurred in the campaign.  In particular his reasoning over his vote on the no-confidence motion was well explained: he is there to achieve things on particular issues (including the Robbins Island wind farm and Marinus Link) and the government under Rockliff had showed no interest in his voterbase's concerns.  With a lot of soft votes floating around and the Greens having switched to a possibly less "Braddony" (though locally resident) candidate than before there seem to be a lot of soft votes around for Garland to pick up if the dope charge hasn't hurt his support too much.  I think that he could well be re-elected.  

Bleyer's share of the below the line Greens Senate vote was actually lower in Braddon than in Bass and Lyons.  The Greens did recently have a good Legislative Council result in Montgomery in the absence of Labor, but that was with previous state candidate Darren Briggs who isn't running this time.

It is hard to say how Beswick will go.  I am doubtful her profile is high enough to win as an independent and I am not sure whether Braddon voters will get behind the Nationals as much as Lyons voters might.  The anti-stadium-but-not-Greens vote has to go somewhere but in Braddon it can go to Garland, leaving a smaller niche for others.  There is also potential for a new independent but it would need to be someone very high profile.  Adam Martin could poll substantially but will probably find that 8.5% federal does not translate to anything like that in Hare-Clark and I suspect he will be fishing in the same ponds as Garland a lot of the time.  

Within the Liberal ticket Rockliff will poll his usual massive vote, but Roger Jaensch who has been dependent on Rockliff's surplus votes is at risk this time around to Pearce who was a popular federal MP.  Pearce will also compete for some of Felix Ellis's voterbase.  

Pearce's return to the fray so soon after retiring from federal politics citing family reasons is interesting, but I would assume that being Tasmania-based is less demanding in that regard.  

Fuller is a good pickup in Labor's push for three seats in Braddon as she is quite high-profile and has a degree of cross-spectrum political appeal.  

There are waaaaaaaaaaaay too many independents in this seat.  A lot of lost deposits coming up.  

Outlook for Braddon: An initial offer prior to polling, probably 3 Liberal, 2 Labor, Garland and the last seat depends on how the election is going overall.