2026 FIDE (World Chess Federation) Elections

TURLOV/ANAND ELECTED ON SECOND BALLOT 110-85 OVER ROSENSTEIN/TANG

INITIAL RESULTS WERE 96-76 WITH 20 FOR BUETTNER/PEIN

BUETTNER/PEIN ENDORSED TURLOV/ANAND FOLLOWING A POLICY DEAL

Late updates:

Sunday 27th: Rosenstein has gone to the Court of Disputed Returns!  He's filed a complaint alleging that the Pein/Turlov deal violated 9.7 (not as stated 9.8):

"Candidates should not engage in any act, collaboration or collusion by or between candidates with the intent to defraud or manipulate the result of the vote."

The key word here is seen to be "manipulate" but I suggest "candidates" could also be a key word; having been excluded from contesting the second ballot was Pein still a candidate?

The Deal

The deal between Pein and Turlov as reported by Pein:

Suspended teams not to be readmitted to FIDE competitions. TT to speak and vote against this.

CAS decisions to be respected and actioned in all cases.

A maximum of 25% of people from one nationality in management positions within FIDE.

A separate  Ethics Commission or Safeguarding Tribunal to be established in order to fast track allegations of sexual harassment or sexual abuse. This Commission to include members with safeguarding experience.

Beatriz Marinello to be nominated the Chair of the Education Commission

Alex Holowczak to be nominated Chair or Secretary of the Arbiters Commission.

There will be a new appointment for the Head of Legal Affairs in FIDE who will not be from a suspended federation country. All matters pertaining to FIDE’s relations with suspended federations will be handled by a FIDE appointed lawyer who is not from the suspended country.

The Head of PR will not be from a suspended country.

Classical Chess World Championship remains paramount and the pinnacle of FIDE competition.

The Pein-Buettner principle of 30-day mandatory response by FIDE officials to Commission recommendations to be implemented.  

Updates (scrolling to the top) - times are local time GMT+5

9:00 Yassin Souleiman Hassan (Djibouti) 67 votes wins the last spot easily, none of the others has a significant score.

8:05 Malcolm Pein has withdrawn in protest at the election of Kolobkov who he believes should not have been eligible to stand.  

The silliness of single round FPP at this point is that it's necessary in casting of an effective vote to think about who is likely to be most competitive, but we have seen that first round competitiveness in this format does not always translate that well to the second round. 

I am quoting here a core part of the ruling from the Electoral Commission re Kolobkov:

The Electoral Commission observes that the suspension of the Russian Chess Federation does not imply a sanction against all Russian citizens. Mr. Kolobkov does not represent the Russian Federation, and he has never incurred any sanction of ineligibility, ban or exclusion from office, in relation to any violation of the FIDE Ethics and Disciplinary Code. In addition, it has to be reminded that, in accordance with art. 16.9 of the FIDE Charter, “persons elected or nominated as members of FIDE organs shall sit on those organs in their individual capacity and must act exclusively in the best interest of FIDE, without undue influence from third parties, their Member Federation or FIDE Continent”.

7:33 Elected on the first ballot as Vice-Presidents are Yuhua Xu (China) 100 votes of 186, Michael Khordakovsky (USA, 93/186) and Pavel Kolobkov (Russia, 78).  The rest Adeyami (NGR) 33 Aulin-Jansson (NOR) 29, Glek (Bel) 7, Hassan (Djibouti) 72, Icklicki (Liechtenstein) (43), Kasmidzhanov (UZB) 32, Llada (ESP) 32, Mastrokoukos (CAN) 33, Namangale (Malawi) 58, Pein (ENG) 39, Pichay (PHI) 22.  So many of these as do not withdraw now go to a single FPP ballot (yuck!) for the remaining position.  For the first round, average of 3.6 boxes marked per voter.

6:54 Cyprus and Curacao are asleep on the desk behind me, slumped in identical poses.  I'd add a photo but that would be mean.  

6:51 As Jorge Arias Bouzada has just been appointed General Secretary, Francois Strydom is elected unopposed to the Constitutional Committee.  Some of the new President's appointments are being delayed to tomorrow.  

6:35 Votes are being counted (this takes a while for this one).  There is controversy about Pavel Kolobkov (Russia) among the opposing tickets; if he is elected there is likely to be a legal challenge.

5:40 Voting is about to start (the field is down to 14).  The VP elections are the only remaining business today.

4:46 Vice-President election is on.  The system is two rounds FPP with in theory 3 elected on the first round (where each voter can vote for up to four) and 1 on the second.  However the second round is not needed if at least four candidates of two genders break 50% on the first round.  If that doesn't happen and the 3 elected the first time are of the same gender then the second round is closed to the "other" gender.  (FIDE only accepts M and F as genders though there is a move to allow X.)  Pein has been added but three candidates have withdrawn, one of these I believe forced by a rule prohibiting two candidates from the same Federation on the council.  The others are speaking now, for two minutes maximum.  I won't be voting for ones who run way overtime.

By the way, coincidence corner - the 25-vote margin is the same in raw terms as Dvorkovich vs Makropoulos in 2018!

2:44 TURLOV WINS 110-85.  One abstention.  Malcolm Pein running for VP so there will be at least 17 VP candidates unless some withdraw (I believe India will no longer have a candidate on account of Anand being on council).  The Assembly is suspended til 4:30.  

2:43 It wasn't but result impending.

2:14 Revote finished, the count should be quick.

1:55 About halfway through the revote.  

1:18 PEIN AND TURLOV HAVE DONE A DEAL!  The deal includes terms limiting the number of FIDE employees from any one country, preventing the FIDE Legal advisor from being Russian, and some other matters I will report in detail when I have them (there will be a statement).  There is a lot going on here and a lot of hasty conversations between important people including the Electoral Commission figures.  

Players in the Olympiad are being called up to vote first.  

12:49 Oh wow! Turlov has polled exactly 50% and there is a runoff after all with first round standings Turlov/Anand 96 Rosenstein/Tang 76 Buettner/Pein 20 (eliminated).  Four votes were informal. The Buettner/Pein ticket has not endorsed anyone for the second round though many of their voters would come from European federations that could well favour Rosenstein.  However just as preferences never flow 100%, so it will in theory be very difficult for Rosenstein to reach a tie from here.  But what could be a factor is that the voters in the two rounds might not be the same (especially as some of the informal voters from the last round may learn to vote, or some of the missing voters from the first round could turn up).  So it aint over.  Ballot papers are being prepared for the second round.

12:25 We may get at least one more Vice-Presidential candidate as there is a regulation allowing defeated ticket members to run.  

12:11 Voting finished a few minutes ago, quite fast this year with four voting booths.  The outcome is not far away.  

11:31 There is some talk of a blowout here, that Turlov will not only win on the first ballot but could do so by a large margin, with over 100 votes.

11:04 I have voted.  On the way through the process one signs, then is scanned for electronic devices, then signs again, then is given a ballot.  One votes in a booth with an open curtain but such that one's body shields the view of the ballot paper (given the number of officials present it is unlikely anyone would get away with showing their vote to another delegate).  There was a little confusion with some other delegates with the call through procedure but it was resolved.

10:49 VOTING HAS COMMENCED.  (Actually after several minutes of setting up, at 11:57 Afghanistan, Albania and Algeria are making their way to the ballot box)

10:00 Candidate speeches are commencing, limited to 15 minutes per ticket, in the order Rosenstein/Tang, Buettner/Pein, Turlov/Anand.  Comments follow:

*Rosenstein spoke for less than half his 15 minutes in a calm and measured tone, largely in general terms, and received ten seconds of applause.  He appeared on the screen alone without any video or accompaniment.

*Buettner presented a brief video including an endorsement of sorts from Magnus Carlsen, and started by introducing himself as "Holly's husband".  He also spoke a line in Arabic (and a few other languages) and gave a demo including actual chess pieces to illustrate points.  His speech was passionate and animated and also received about ten seconds of applause.  And he didn't withdraw!

* Turlov appeared speaking with a slide show running in the panel on the screen, including his team graphic, images of him with supporters and at tournaments in Kazakhstan.  (By the way his team's graphic design with white and brown text colours referencing himself and Anand is quite clever).  There was nothing surprising in the speech to anyone who has seen Turlov on the campaign trail.  He received 25 seconds of applause before handing over to Anand, the only speaker to briefly use his running mate in his speech. Anand got another 25 seconds.  I'll be surprised if this makes it to a second ballot.  

9:05 Here we are at the General Assembly, a scattering of delegates and a familiar hat may be visible above, the rest are late arriving in the hall; it is FIDE after all.

Last night there was alleged skulduggery with the Rosenstein ticket having cars to ferry delegates to its party turned around before the carpark (I am unaware of the exact circumstances but can confirm it occurred).  There has also been a spicy Dvorkovich tweet which makes me think he reckons it is in the bag for his team:

I have now collected the full set having been told by various people that I am voting for all three candidates! 

I forgot to mention another Australian resonance - there was some preferencing disinfo doing the rounds early in the campaign to the effect that a vote for Buettner might supposedly be a vote for Turlov.  But in fact if Buettner either pulled out or lost on the first round (even if he endorsed Turlov in either case) his voters would still be completely free agents in the vote between Turlov and Rosenstein.  (The system is you need an outright majority to win on the first ballot, failing which the last-placed candidate is eliminated (the glitch in which this was not automatic has been fixed) and the top two go to the next round.  If there is a tie for second the whole room votes to break the tie, which would be both strategically amusing and extremely tedious.)

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

I'm here in Samarkand, Uzbekistan for the 2026 FIDE Congress including another FIDE election that proves to have quite a lot of resonance with my usual election coverage.  As I write it is the morning before voting day.  At this stage there are still three tickets running, but this was also true in 2018 and 2022, only for one of the tickets (the one I would have voted for in both cases) to withdraw.  This time the underdog ticket is making defiant noises that they're not going anywhere.

This is the first FIDE election in a very long time without a recontesting incumbent as such, and quickly I come to the matter of term limits.  When Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's long rein unravelled in a very messy fashion, Arkady Dvorkovich came to office with a promise to serve only two terms and a change in the FIDE statutes to accept this.  I was the lone voice of opposition on the floor of the Congress to the term limit proposal.  My opposition to it seemed to annoy the loser of that election more than the winner, and it was never minuted.  As Dvorkovich's second term proceeded it soon became clear that he intended to run for a third term and the term limits rule was quickly shelved.  I sat in my room at some ridiculous small hour Australian time listening to the Online General Assembly with disbelief as crawlers and sycophants boasted of how they had been against term limits all along.  Oh no you weren't, I was there and you did not report.  

The problem with term limits is that the General Assembly cannot bind its future decisions.  And yet we have at least the two "opposition" tickets at this election promising to reintroduce them.  Guys ... 

But as it turned out Dvorkovich was limited to two terms after all - not by his own decisions nor by the GA but rather by the European Union.  And this was an interesting example of how other elections have consequences for chess because while Viktor Orban was in power, Hungary was blocking the sanctioning of Dvorkovich by the EU.  But when Orban's government was dumped, Dvorkovich fell too.  The cause of his demise was remaining at least formally involved with the Russian Chess Federation while it was running unauthorised tournaments in parts of occupied Ukraine, and also some language he had used describing the occupiers in a way that implied they were legitimate residents.  Arguably these were "gotchas" in Australian parlance, but that's what happens in politics.

Dvorkovich, who won easily against a Ukraine-motivated protest ticket in 2022 with former world champion Viswanathan Anand as his deputy, was going to run again with a new deputy, Timur Turlov, the President of the Kazakhstan Federation.  But with Dvorkovich stepping aside after being sanctioned the ticket became Turlov/Anand.  Dvorkovich remains heavily involved at this Congress, supporting the Turlov ticket; at times I have seen him so many times that I am sure there must be three of him in my hotel.

The main challenger according to general expectation is Wadim Rosenstein from Germany whose running mate is Gordon Tang from Singapore.  The write-your-own-ticket outsiders are Jan-Henric Buettner (also of Germany) and Malcolm Pein from England, a familiar face at many FIDE Congress battles.  

It used to be the case that tickets ran six candidates including candidates for Treasurer and General Secretary but this has changed.  Turlov has faced scrutiny over who he might appoint to executive positions while the other tickets have been openly advertising their intended picks (including in Rosenstein's case Australian Anastasia Sorokina as Treasurer).

Battle Of The Entrepreneurs

I have met all three candidates for various lengths of time, as well as their campaign teams and in writing this article I have tried to disregard impressions that came from private off the record meetings with candidates and focus on their public personas.  I have also tried to not inject anything that should give anyone any strong hint who I might vote for, sssshhh it's a secret ballot!  Remarkably compared to past presidential tickets, all the three candidates for President are very successful businessmen in their own right,and two of them are only in their thirties.  Turlov is a banker and financier and a multi-billionaire.  Rosenstein is another billionaire and runs WR Group, a firm with involvements in logistics, certification, engineering and real estate among other things.  Buettner has been around a little longer than the other two and was a venture capitalist and early internet pioneer around the turn of the century, later buying a historic estate and building a luxury resort on it.  

Rosenstein - the only one of the three with a current FIDE rating (albeit in rapid and blitz, where he is around strong club-level standard) has been a major chess promoter and sponsor since late 2022, including creating a major new top tier tournament, the WR Group Masters.  Buettner has been a promoter of "freestyle chess", a variant also known as "Chess 960" and the now largely cancelled "Fisher-Random" in which the starting position of the pieces is determined randomly through the game to prevent players relying on preparing set openings.  I've heard a few people call him names like "the shuffle chess guy" but the same label is used both disparagingly and in admiration by different people using it.  Turlov is the most experienced chess administrator, as well as his Kazakh presidency being the president of the International Schools Chess Federation and the Turkic Chess Association.

In a world where candidates are, well, chessplayers, Rosenstein brings a definite X factor, a sense of turbocharged energy and of a man who doesn't like to sit still (metaphorically).  He's the unpredictable rockstar candidate in this field.  Turlov is more conventional and without the same edge so may come across as square but has no lack of affection from his strongest followers (and the people voting here are chessplayers anyway).  He also has a strong suit game and is impossibly tall.  Buettner is an entertaining speaker who is in the election business for a good time not a long time; he has said if he is not elected then he will not run again.  

With all the candidates being loaded, it's to be expected that this would be a rich campaign.  But unlike Tromso 2014, the Congress is confined to a recently built hotel complex that is removed from downtown Samarkand (indeed in a kind of gated district), so there is no appearance of election posters through the city (not that I ever saw the point of that move anyway).  The often silly trinketing of delegates of years past has also been scaled back and largely replaced by ticket lunches and parties, though the odd showbag is still in evidence.  (I claim a draw by threefold repetition of a certain ticket giving out power banks.  Nice thought but have you any idea what a pain it is to transport those things on planes these days?  Guys ...)  The most obvious presence of the two big tickets has been on their stands at the Exhibition area near the Olympiad playing hall (depicted above) - complete with duelling robotics displays.  The Rosenstein and Turlov tickets also have hospitality areas, and Buettner/Pein have their own little patch (which I found by accident) in a corner of the hotel I am staying in.

What is FIDE's path forward?

As mentioned previously I think that FIDE did pretty well under Dvorkovich's first term.  The second one not so much, and the Verification Committee reports lay bare that FIDE is down 1.7 million euro in two years, with half a million being caused by of all things currency conversion losses, to the point where FIDE's reserves are depleting and development funding is being diverted to salaries.  (That's not the whole story though, a downturn in development being partly because of federations not applying for it.)

Especially with FIDE's penchant for attracting awfully expensive legal cases, this really isn't sustainable and FIDE needs more money from somewhere.  Both Turlov and Rosenstein will in essence bring money to the table themselves (at least we hope they will, delegates with short memories may have forgotten Ilyumzhinov's $20 million "bullshit" promise from 2014) while the Buettner/Pein ticket proposes that their clean reputation will bring sponsors to the table.  Anyone interested can read more about the tickets and their promises at the links to their campaigns that I have posted with their names above, but a warning that if you consume too much electoral material from this election you may come away with a strong impression that you've seen multiple copies of the same AI largely agreeing with each other.  There is actually a fair amount of agreement in what the campaigns are pitching.  Everyone seems to recognise that a fault of FIDE under Dvorkovich was that it was too vertical; decisions that in the bad old days would have been the subject of detailed consultation with Federations were taken and changes to regulations made quickly, and not always for the better.  

Elections have consequences for commission members and FIDE staff.  Many commission members are also delegates and I have heard of cases where the desire to stay on a commission will affect how a delegate votes.  

The Campaign

One of the more curious flashpoints early in the campaign was an online presidential debate hosted by chess.com. This was so important to the campaign apparently that I as one of the 200-ish people who actually vote did not know it was on until about twelve hours after.  At the debate Rosenstein gave a very brief introductory statement then disconnected (obviously intentionally, a very online chess thing to do) leaving Turlov and Buettner to debate each other (and Turlov was then cute enough to thank Rosenstein for giving them more time).  Rosenstein pulling the plug was widely criticised but there is a minority view that Rosenstein was trying to show he was above spending an hour bickering especially given that he was not pitching to the voting audience.  I suspect many readers of this site will enjoy Ilya Merenzon's review of this debate.  A later debate at the Expo Centre in Samarkand had a similar outcome with Rosenstein not appearing at all.  I didn't know this one was on either. Rosenstein also didn't show at a debate at the African assembly but he did appear at the Asian one where he spoke at more length; in this case it was Buettner/Pein who got the most audience questions.

The campaign has featured a heavy dose of negative campaigning, virtually all of it on the subject of Russia, which is odd given that a lot of delegates really don't care about geopolitics.  Given that the previous President was sanctioned for his Russia ties tickets have been keen to show that this could happen to their rivals.  Turlov, who was born in Russia, was found to have still held Russian citizenship at least as recently as 2018.  He states that he renounced it in 2022; in echoes of Australia's Section 44 dramas there have been some calls for documentary evidence to be posted, but not a lot of interest in demanding it from delegates on the ground.  Turlov has very openly taken legal action for defamation against David Llada, a Spanish chess journalist and candidate for a Vice-President spot, over his claims that Turlov is a Russian citizen.  The case was filed in of all places Michigan.

Turlov is in fact currently sanctioned by Ukraine, which opponents have been keen to argue is a stepping stone for being sanctioned by the EU.  The major chess publishing and software company Chessbase also had its German accounts suspended immediately after Turlov acquired it.  Rosenstein has also come under fire over claims about his businesses profiting from and indirectly funding (through taxes) the Ukraine war.  He has denied the claims and said that he withdrew from Russia leaving only paper companies, but evidence of continuing profits has since also been produced by opponents.  (There is a lot of material about this out there for anyone who wants to look for it). 

Attempts to link Buettner and Pein to Russia would be obviously futile but there have been attempts to link them to Turlov (mostly on the student political level of "you were talking to Arkady in the lobby!".  Almost everyone talks to Arkady in the lobby).  Nonetheless the relationship between the Rosenstein and Buettner camps is hardly one of co-operative opposition; for Australian audiences they are a bit like the online support bases of Labor and the Greens.  Both completely distrust each other and the Rosenstein forces genuinely believe that Buettner will do a deal with Turlov and withdraw.  Buettner/Pein countered this by saying they had offered Turlov/Anand a deal in which Turlov would withdraw.  This amusing claim was accompanied ("buttressed" is not the right word) by the one and only poll-shaped object that I have seen for this election with the Buettner/Pein ticket claiming to have spoken to about 150 delegates with results of 41% for them 26% Turlov 19% Rosenstein and 14% undecided.  (They omitted 0.7% who they've talked to but actually haven't asked.)  These figures are generally considered to be good for a laugh but they hide a truth that several delegates will in fact tell every ticket that they are voting for it.  

The campaign has seen a record level of litigous behaviour as tickets and their accomplices try to get opposing delegates rubbed out, or as internal federation disputes flow up to FIDE level.  Most of the dozens of complaints have been unsuccessful.  A complaint by the Turlov ticket against Rosenstein over his sponsorship deal with the German Chess Federation (essentially alleging that he bought their vote and the delegate position by sponsoring them, in reality it looked like a fishing expedition for details of the sponsorship contract) was dismissed by the chair of the Ethics and Disciplinary Commission, but not before producing hours of tense courtroom drama in an open public session.  Both Turlov and Rosenstein were present in person as their lawyers traded barbs with Rosenstein showing up in a t-shirt and jeans looking like he was in the dock for a framed charge of double murder.  This was a sign of how this election breaks old alliances as the former German federation President Ingrid Lauterbach was called by the Turlov side as a witness only to face a very full-on cross-examination from Rosenstein's lawyer Ian Wilkinson, in the past a frequent supporter of reform tickets.  In the latest from the law courts, Rosenstein has lodged an eleventh-hour bid with the Court of Arbitration for Sport to have the Turlov ticket disqualified.  

Prospects

I do not go around asking delegates who they are voting for - it is very hard to do this representatively.  However of people who I have talked with about what they think will happen, most but by no means all think that Turlov is ahead and perhaps improving.  Nobody so far is saying it isn't close.  Everybody who has discussed it with me says that it will inevitably go to a second ballot assuming Buettner doesn't withdraw.  At the same time there is a widespread perception that the Buettner ticket doesn't have that much support (figures like a dozen votes are common - some suggest even less while others suggest they may be starting to take votes from Rosenstein) and I would suggest given the vagaries of knowing who will vote for who that a second ballot is not inevitable at all.  Rosenstein-backed candidates have lost all three contested continental elections including a 29-12 defeat in the Americas (though in that case the candidate is involved in a legal controversy over alleged cross-border abduction of her own child, of which she was convicted in one country). Rosenstein has very strong support in Oceania (mostly directly, some may vote for Buettner on the first ballot) but Oceania is only 13 votes, and Turlov is understood to be well ahead in Africa.  

I have added in a few things I forgot to mention in the first release of this article as I was rushing to get to breakfast in time; updates will follow when the election is underway tomorrow.  The speaking order for 15-minute speeches and ballot order is Rosenstein, Buettner, Turlov.  There will also be many minor elections including a 17-way race for what is expected to be four Vice-President positions. (It would have been 18 but for the death just before the Congress of one of the incumbents Georgios Makropolous, whose experience will be missed by FIDE especially as the present administration has at many times been procedurally naive).  Voting will again be by secret ballot with mobile phones not allowed in the booth so voters cannot record their vote, after a farcical and soon abandoned experiment with iPad voting at the 2024 Congress.  (Not only did the iPads violate the secret ballot principle as Makropoulos pointed out, but it also turned out it was possible to vote multiple times.)

Disclaimer: This article represents my own positions only and not necessarily those of the Australian Chess Federation.  All feedback in response to this article in any form will be considered on the public record, especially if stated otherwise.

Hobart Council Candidate And Election Guide 2026

All candidates and connections are directed to the note for candidates at the bottom of this page. 

Introductory Waffle

As an election thankfully closes out one of the Hobart Council's less dignified terms, here is my resource page for the 2026 Hobart City Council elections.  This guide (like my 2014, 2018  and 2022 election guides) includes a list of candidates who are running for the Council for the 2026-30 term.   The guide includes brief bio details and links, descriptions of candidates' past electoral form (where any) and some vague speculation about prospects.  It also covers the campaign generally and any polling.  All sections will be updated regularly as time permits and more information comes to hand.  

During the campaign period voters will get official statements by the candidates, with photos supplied by them.  The online version will include web links.  This piece is published first for the interest of those who don't want to wait for the candidate statements, but will stay up to present a less filtered view of candidate backgrounds. 

Donations to cover my time in writing this guide are very welcome - but not from HCC candidates or their direct connections during the campaign period.  There's a PayPal button on the sidebar, or a PayID option, or you can email me for bank account details. Please only donate if you are sure you can afford to.  

Again I am hugely indebted to Darcy Murphy's spreadsheet for saving me hours of link-hunting.   Thanks again also to my mother Pru Bonham for a bit of extra help with candidate-spotting etc.

For some complex background to the voting patterns of incumbent councillors, see Hobart City Council Voting Patterns 2022-6 By way of a quick summary, while most councillors are technically independent, and even the party-endorsed candidates don't vote the same way as each other all the time, I've historically found that most councillors belong to two loose (or not so loose) clusters of generally likeminded councillors.  I refer to these as the "greens" (including The Greens and somewhat likeminded others) and the "blues" (who more often favour the interests of business when environmental conflicts arise).  Note that "blues" are not necessarily Liberals; indeed councillors with past Labor connections have from time to time cropped up in both groupings.  The current term has been the most factionalised I have ever seen, with a strong pattern of seven on the green/left side and four on the blue/right side through the whole Council and strengthening as the term went on.  The only member not so easily classified was Louise Bloomfield, whose votes leaned slightly to the green/left side early in the term but who I would have included in the blue/right cluster had I only used the last 2.5 years of data.

Voting is compulsory.  

Because of overseas travel and work commitments I am unsure yet whether I will have time to do such guides for any other councils before voting starts.  I am intending to do voting patterns articles for the recent term for at least two (!) other councils.

Vote Formally, Vote Well

The 2022 Council election was the first since the State Government reduced the number of boxes you need to number on the Councillor ballot to 5 (meaning that any Councillor vote with at least the numbers 1 to 5 once and once only is valid even if it stops at 5 or contains numbering errors.)  The most important thing is to check you have the numbers 1 to 5 each once and once only on your Councillor vote.  

However, the more boxes you number the more effective your vote will become.  You can never harm your most preferred candidates by continuing to number more boxes.  There's a view out there that it's best to stop once you've numbered all the candidates you like, but it is generally better to keep going and put those you are lukewarm about ahead of those you might mildly oppose or feel like you know nothing about, and those ahead of any who you really cannot stand.   A good example of why preferencing matters is Zelinda Sherlock's win in 2018.  Sherlock was 17th on primary votes but overtook six other candidates to win, including Ron Christie who started with almost twice as many votes as her.  

For Lord Mayor and Deputy preferencing is optional.  I recommend numbering all the boxes (or leaving only your least preferred candidate blank is the same thing.) 

"Alderman" vs "Councillor"

Hobart Council made the unusual decision to allow councillors to choose the term "alderman" or "councillor" as their title.  As at the election only Louise Bloomfield and Marti Zucco were still using "alderman" but I've been helpfully advised that recent legislation abolishes the title. The abolition takes effect from September 1, and the timing has annoyed at least one candidate with perhaps good reason as it comes after the campaign period has started.  (I was woken up at TWO THIRTY AM in Samarkand by a flood of texts from Zucco re this matter.)  Of course Councillors can run under any title they like but I am personally relieved not to have to make any more style decisions about who should be called what.  This guide therefore now uses the term "councillor" as a collective term for all present and past council members, whatever title they used in the past.

Candidates for Lord Mayor

The following are declared candidates for Lord Mayor, all of whom are listed in the councillor guide.   A candidate cannot run for both Mayor and Deputy, and the winner of each position needs to also be elected as a councillor to serve.  Candidate names appear on ballot papers in rotated order.  

Lord Mayor (11 candidates)

Ashdown, Tiffany

Bari, Ritfatul

Bloomfield, Louise (incumbent councillor)

Dutta, Mike (incumbent councillor)

Harvey, Bill (incumbent councillor)

Kelly, John (incumbent councillor)

Lennon, Harvey

McShane, Jack

Posselt, Ryan (incumbent councillor)

Wooley, Charles

Zucco, Marti (incumbent councillor)

Deputy Lord Mayor (10 candidates)

Alderton, Lee

Behrakis, Simon (former councillor)

Campbell, Sam

Connor, Trevor

Dale, Jason

Elliot, Louise (incumbent councillor)

Johnstone, Edwin

Lohberger, Ben (incumbent councillor)

Sherlock, Zelinda (incumbent DLM and councillor)

Wallace, Susan

Candidates for Councillor (32 for 9 positions)

The following are the declared candidates.  

I am trying to keep this section close to neutral without it being totally boring. Some biases may sneak through (or be overcompensated for) but my main interest in this section is in providing a resource.  

Each candidate's name, with exceptions where I cannot find a campaign page, is a link to what seems to be the main page or a campaign page or other web presence for that candidate.  For incumbents and former council members I give years of HCC service in brackets after their name.  

All current councillors have a Councillor page on the HCC website.  

Because of lack of time and difficulty with formatting while overseas, only a primary link is given for each candidate initially, except where links to businesses etc are used in text.  Full social media links will be added in early October.  I do not have access to some social media sites until I return and some information is missing for this reason.  For lack of time I have in many cases copied from the previous guide for recontesting candidates if information is not obviously out of date.  Updates on things missed are welcome - see note for candidates section at the bottom.

Candidate names appear on ballot papers in rotated order.

The info I am mostly interested in in these guides is a candidate's professional, political and community service history and other things of special interest.  No "devoted fambly manne", no "ninth generation Tasmanian" etc.  That stuff bores me to write (and is hard for me to verify), I suspect it would bore my readers, and candidates can say that stuff on their website.  

Alderton, Lee - former Hobart Council arborist and horticulturalist for 34 years

Ashdown, Tiffany - advisor to Huon MLC Clare Glade-Wright, former Chief of Staff to Peter George, President of Hobart Hackerspace, extensive experience in startups, associations and project management, former DPAC Executive Officer for Minister for Finance

Bari, Rifatul - electorate officer for Dean Winter, former UTAS Engagement Ambassador, NTEU organiser and Malaysian Students' Society President, cybersecurity graduate, youngest ever Hobart mayoral candidate

Behrakis, Simon (2018-23) - former Clark state MP 2023-5, former parliamentary researcher and Eric Abetz staffer, former Young Liberal vice-president, economist, former assistant manager of grocer Salamanca Fresh, recently in government relations firm The Advisory.

 

Bloomfield, Louise (2022-present) - Accountant with own practice since 1998.  Founder of Confederation of Greater Hobart Business - now Greater Hobart Business - (retired from board completely 2023 to focus on council duties.)   Rotarian for years, also Soroptomist (female version of Rotary), Rostrum member

Brumby, Cameron - Director and Mortgage Broker at Fortify Loans, business graduate, over a decade in finance, formerly at Jackson Motor Company and MyState.  

Campbell, Sam (Lutrawita Socialist Alliance) Unions Tasmania award winner for work including Mutual Aid Community Kitchen and other community work, artist (martial and otherwise), Finalist for the Volunteering Tasmania 2025 Individual Impact award   

Connor, Trevor studying a Bachelor of Business (Management, Sports). Appears to be a regular online commenter about dog issues (edit: and also "Rail vs Bus, Traffic Infrastructure Cable Car and Ferries expansion." - see comments)

Dale, Jason - Law and economics student, involved with Rotary, Rostrum, Premier's Youth Advisory Council, Multicultural Council of Tasmania, volunteer with Sleep Rough and Hobart Marathon, runs HCC 2026 Discussions Facebook page

Dutta, Mike (2018-present) - former long-time proprietor of Macquarie Street Foodstore cafe/restaurant (since closed but new cafe opened by family member at same premises), former teacher, lawyer and Minister of Religion.

Elliot, Louise (2022-present) - HR consultant, former HR manager for Department of Health and Human Services, law student, runs Tasmanian Residential Rental Property Owners Association, prominent cancer survivor, nationally prominent culture war figure especially on gender issues.

Harvey, Bill (2007-14, 2016-present) (Tasmanian Greens) - former English teacher, frequent Greens state candidate, formerly involved in Malaysian/Chinese business college and boutique wine delivery, Landcare board member and chair 

Hoare, Trenton  (Tasmanian Greens) - Electorate support officer to Cassy O'Connor MLC, volunteer committee member for Equality Tasmania and A Fairer World, former retail assistant, sociology grad

Humphries, AJ  (Tasmanian Greens) landscape architect, Masters footballer and ultramarathon runner

Johnstone, Edwin - hair salon owner, former web administrator/co-ordinator in DIER and State Growth, founder of Hobart Parking Action Group, Chair of Business Greater Hobart, several community involvements including Rostrum, Rotary, Choir of High Hopes etc

Kelly, John (2022-present) - former long-term owner of State Cinema, now restoring Hope&Anchor historic pub, Hobart Citizen of the Year 2016, former President North Hobart Retailers Association and sporting, Army Reserve and charity involvements, founder of Hobart Tram Society

Lennon, Harvey Former CEO Hobart City Mission, Chairman of Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra, former Senior Advisor to Michael Ferguson and Peter Gutwein, former long-term CEO of RACT

Liu, Yang - driver testing professional and driving instructor, former pay clerk in Army Reserve, road safety advocate, former Coles trolley boy and checkout operator

Lohberger, Ben (2022-present) - volunteer and former Hobart City Mission worker, Save UTAS Campus founding member, has worked in media and journalism (eg Huon Council, Aurora), was long-term Tasmanian Times writer, gardener

Lowrie, Richard - former Glenorchy councillor, Chair of Human Resources committee TBCITB Board, formerly HR and safety at Incat, WorkSafe Tasmania Board etc.

McShane, Jack - clearly critical of current council but I'm struggling to find bio especially as there seem to be at least two people of this name in the area.  As at 2 October, no candidate statement or photo.  Appears to support the Liberal Party based on social media followings.

Murray, Graham - Finance manager with "extensive public-sector budgeting and project management experience", and a postgrad business degree. Long-term cable-car supporter (maintains Hobart Cable Car Supporters Facebook page).

Needham, Rachel - public servant in Education Department working in project management

Posselt, Ryan (2022-present) - Paramedic of 16 years with qualifications in "Paramedic Science (CSU), Nursing (UTAS) and Health Research, focusing on system performance (UTAS).", mountain biker and hiker, ALP member and 2024 preselection aspirant

Sherlock, Zelinda (Dr) (2018-present)  (Tasmanian Greens) - experienced educator, Lecturer of Law (UTAS), teacher of English for refugee students, founder and adviser of Culturally Diverse Alliance Tasmania, former Labor state candidate but recently joined Greens

Templeton, Angus  (Tasmanian Greens) -tour guide and carer, worked in tourism in UK, Sydney and Melbourne as well as Tas, Greens State Council and Global Issues Group member

Thurley, Debra Joyce  former Clarence councillor (2014-8), Chair of Board of Directors Tasmania Police and Community Youth Clubs Inc., former Non-Executive Director COTA Tasmania, former Vice President Zonta International Hobart. former Pres Aus Local Govt Womens Association

Wallace, Susan - communications specialist, civil celebrant, mediator and facilitator, former advisor to then Senator Anne Urquhart, recent state Labor candidate, spokesperson for Hobart YIMBY

Wan, David - recent Liberal state candidate, President Tasmanian Young Liberals, "policy adviser in small business, community and multicultural affairs."

Wilson, Richard - senior advisor to Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, several previous Liberal government staffer roles, also worked for Aurora and in distant past reporter and subeditor at The Examiner, experience in marine science and energy

Wooley, Charles  former Deputy Mayor of Sorell, famous former journalist and TV presenter (Sixty Minutes, A Current Affair etc), Mercury columnist, fellow former Togatus editor.  

Zucco, Marti (1992-present) - longest serving councillor in Hobart's history, businessman, veteran restaurateur, frequent candidate for state and federal politics, former human headline of the Hobart City Council but lately seems almost sedate compared to Elliot!

Councillors Retiring 

Lord Mayor Anna Reynolds has announced her retirement from the Council (but since abandoned her original intention to resign in August).  Reynolds was elected to Council in 2014 as an endorsed Green, temporarily unseating fellow Green Bill Harvey.  She ran for the mayoralty as an independent in 2018 and won spectacularly, topping the primary vote and beating Damon Thomas 62-38 on the final 2CP.  2022 was much closer with a 53.4-46.6 win over off-council challenger John Kelly.  My assessments have consistently classified Reynolds as on the green/left side of council, in the most recent term more so than most of the endorsed Greens.

Gemma Kitsos has retired after two and a half years on council.  A minor Greens candidate in 2022, Kitsos was elected on the recount when Helen Burnet was elected to state parliament in March 2024.  Kitsos has been the most predictably green/left-voting councillor on the current council and also the least often on the losing side of motions.  

Will Coats has also retired.  Coats, a former state and federal Liberal candidate, has been elected twice on recounts, in 2020 (vacancy for Tanya Denison which he won from fourth place on recount primaries by 1.77 votes!) and 2023 (vacancy for Simon Behrakis which he won far more comfortably, after being defeated at the 2022 election).  I've consistently classed Coats as one of the stauncher members of the blue/right grouping on council.

Former Lord Mayor Ron Christie was a declared runner but did not nominate.

Teams/Tickets 

There is a long history of candidates sometimes forming tickets and alliances to contest council elections though there is little evidence that non-party tickets generate effective preference flows.  Any tickets that form will be noted here.

* Tasmanian Greens: Harvey, Sherlock, Hoare, Humphries, Templeton.

The degree of apparent co-ordination in signage and messaging between Elliot and Zucco suggests they could be classed as an informal ticket.

Candidates often informally cross-endorse, for instance Zucco has endorsed Wooley as a fellow councillor candidate.  

Third Party Campaigns

* Hobart First: An alleged grassroots group (nobody believes this) of unknown membership numbers (always assume the smallest possible until proven otherwise).  Hobart First is an obviously blue-side rates-cutting campaign authorised among others by former councillor Jeff Briscoe, who ran as Louise Elliot's running mate at the 2022 election but lost his seat and is now running in Clarence.  There are were signs up advertising it that often share fence space with "blue" candidates, eg Zucco, Elliot, Behrakis.  (Any other matchups with this sign that I encounter more than once will be added to this list). The signs came under fire in late September with news that council had ruled them to not clearly qualify for advertising material exemptions and therefore to require planning permission (which they did not have).  Allies of the alleged group have suggested inconsistency with other third-party signs; I have not looked into whether that claim is valid. 

* Save UTAS Campus: Although the University of Tasmania shelved its previous city-move plan which was a major issue at the 2022 election, supporters of the Sandy Bay campus remain active on the issue of effectively revitalising that campus.  A Meet The Candidates forum was held on Sep 22 while I was overseas; recordings exist but are currently available only on the group's private page which has conditions of membership and use, therefore I am not currently in a position to report on this.  

Form Guide

This section includes a summary of past election performances (where any known) and histories of any known party or quasi-party involvements, and also assessments of past voting patterns.  This one is again in reverse alphabetical order.  Many new candidates have no previous known electoral form, but this section isn't about saying that more or less electoral form is good.  It is mainly for the purpose of saying how people have gone in the past for those interested in trying to guess how they'll go in the future.

Note that for the 2014 election the number of seats elected at a time was increased from (usually) six to twelve, resulting in large drops in the primary votes for several incumbent councillors.  It has now decreased to nine and it is probable that several recontesting councillors will get primary vote swings.

Zucco, Marti - First elected to Council in 1992, Zucco's record is of always being re-elected comfortably without ever polling quota, and sometimes struggling to get preferences.  Missed out for Deputy in 2011 when beaten by Christie by six votes at key exclusion point; not competitive in other leadership tilts.  In 2014, elected fifth as Councillor, but also finished only fifth for Deputy Mayor.  In 2018 elected eighth.  In 2022, recorded his strongest result, polling third with 0.91 quotas and was elected after the surpluses of Reynolds and Kelly. Independent candidate for Legislative Council a few times (best 25% in Newdegate 1993).  Unsuccessfully sought preselection for Liberal Party for 2010 state election, attempt squelched by pro-Elise Archer forces, quit party.  Palmer United Party candidate for Franklin 2013 federal election polling very respectable 6.1%.  Involved in dispute with Jacqui Lambie, quit party and ran as independent for Denison polling 788 votes.  My assessments have consistently shown Zucco to be one of the most, at present the most, hardline pro-commerce ("blue/right") councillors on council.

Wooley, Charles -   Elected to Sorell Council 2022 polling a close second on primaries with 22.4% (2.24 quotas), won Deputy Mayor ballot extremely easily with 45.6% primary in field of five. Resigned from Council late 2025 when he moved out of the area. I will familiarise myself with his voting record there soon!

Wilson, Richard - new candidate

Wan, David - Liberal candidate for Clark 2025 (647 votes)

Wallace, Susan - Labor candidate for Clark 2024 (850 votes), 

Thurley, Debra Joyce - Clarence councillor 2014-18, elected 11th out of 12 with 3.0% of the primary vote.  Vote dropped slightly to 2.9% in 2018 and defeated, had also lost narrowly in 2011 attempt.  Palmer United Party candidate for Denison 2013 federal (1576 votes) and Franklin 2014 state (743 votes as one of five on ticket).  Contested Rumney 2017 LegCo as an independent polling last of six with 5.7%.  Ran for HCC in 2022 polling 270 votes (0.88%).

Templeton, Angus - minor Greens candidate for 2025 Clark polling 542 votes.

Sherlock, Zelinda -  Labor candidate for Denison (now Clark) at 2018 election polling 1998 votes.  Ran on a Damon Thomas led ticket and polled 2.2% of the primary vote in 2018 Council election but had very good preference flows and overtook six candidates to be elected 11th.  Re-elected on ticket with Anna Reynolds in 2022, polling 2.14% primary but overtaking incumbent Jax Fox and again being elected 11th.  Elected Deputy Lord Mayor by fellow councillors after Helen Burnet was elected to state parliament in 2024.  Joined Greens in 2025.  Unsurprisingly has voted more strongly on the green/left side in this term of council than the previous.

Posselt, Ryan - elected 10th at first attempt after a very high effort campaign in 2022, polling 1016 votes (3.31%) and also finishing fifth in Deputy Lord Mayor race.  ALP member who has generally voted on the green/left side in this term of council and is considered to be on the left of the party.  Sought preselection for 2024 state election but overlooked after making comments agreeing with the Bob Brown Foundation on logging issues.

Needham, Rachel - new candidate

Murray, Graham - contested Glenorchy one-seat by-election 2024 polling 1613 votes and finishing 7th out of 11.

McShane, Jack - new candidate

Lowrie, Richard - Liberal Party candidate for Denison (state) 2006 and 2010, very narrowly missing probable election in the latter after being outlasted by Elise Archer by 61 votes in the cutup.  Elected to Glenorchy council at first attempt 2007, polling 3.9% and finishing 6th after preferences (for 6 seats).  Re-elected 3rd with over a quota in 2011 polling 14%, vote fell to 2% in 2014 with the larger field, other factors included not having a candidate photo in the statement booklet.

Lohberger, Ben - elected at first attempt 2022, polling 936 votes (3.05%) and finishing 12th after preferences.  Although associated strongly with the Save UTAS campaign in that election, the issue has been a relatively minor one in Council voting during the term and Lohberger has generally displayed a green/left voting pattern.  Contested Clark 2024 state as an independent polling 1702 votes (2.7%); vote highly concentrated in area surrounding the university.

Liu, Yang - polled 225 votes (0.73%) in 2022

Lennon, Harvey - state election candidate for Liberals for Clark 2021 polling 1488 votes.

Kelly, John - bolted onto Council at first attempt in 2022 polling 4067 votes (13.2%, 1.72 quotas) to be narrowly second behind Lord Mayor Reynolds, competitive for mayoralty but beaten by Reynolds 53.4-46.6.  Contested Legislative Council seat of Hobart but easily beaten 59.7-40.3 by the Greens' Cassy O'Connor.  Has generally displayed a blue/right voting pattern in his first term but more moderately so than Zucco, Coats, Elliot and Behrakis, becoming firmer later in the term.

Johnstone, Edwin - ran in 2022 polling 268 votes and finishing 28th after preferences.  Clark Liberal candidate in 2025 election polling 1007 votes.

Humphries, AJ - new candidate

Hoare, Trenton - minor Greens candidate for Clark 2024 (545 votes) and Tasmania Senate 2025 (271 votes)

Harvey, Bill - Elected to Council at the third attempt in 2007, polling over 600 primaries and performing strongly on preferences.  In 2011 (as lead candidate in that year's slate) got more than half the Green ticket vote and was easily re-elected.  Shock defeat by fellow Green Reynolds in 2014, attributed in some circles to his moderate voting record, but returned on a recount in 2016.  Topped the Deputy Lord Mayor primary count in both 2011 and 2014 as the sole Green but beaten 46:54 and 45.1:54.9 by Christie after preferences each time.  Ran as a heavily promoted second candidate for the Greens in Denison at the 2013 state election, and seemed an outside chance to get elected based on some polling, but ultimately Green vote was not that high and he polled 1614 votes. In 2018 ran as Greens candidate for Lord Mayor, boosting his Councillor primary vote to 7.1% and was elected third. In 2022 fell to ninth on primaries with 3.9%, but re-elected.  I have often assessed Harvey as a lighter shade of green than other Greens and in this term he had the least strongly green/left pattern of those in that cluster.  

Elliot, Louise - Another one elected to Council for the first time in 2022 after a very big campaign, polling 1824 primaries (5.9%) and elected fifth.  Joined Liberal Party in leadup to 2024 election but quit party and ran as an independent in Clark polling 1160 votes (1.8%) - most likely the Tasmanian Liberals unlike branches in other states saw her refusal to tone down the gender campaigning as a dealbreaker.  Later joined the Tasmanian Nationals but unclear if that remains current and widely rumoured as a possible future One Nation candidate.  Elliot is one of the more consistently blue/right councillors in my voting patterns assessment.

Dutta, Mike -  Dutta contested the 1996 election as a minor candidate on the Valentine/Bonham-led Hobart Community Team, polling 270 votes (1.5%). Much more competitive in 2014 when he polled 467 votes (ninth on primaries) but as with many non-incumbents did poorly on preferences and finished 17th. In 2018 improved his vote to 860 (4.1%) and was elected ninth.  Re-elected in 2022 polling 1230 votes (4%) and elected seventh.  Contested Clark 2021 (state) as an ungrouped independent polling 615 votes (0.9%).  I have consistently found Dutta to land on the green/left side of council more often than not.

Dale, Jason - new candidate

Connor, Trevor - new candidate

Campbell, Sam - polled 213 votes (0.69%) in 2022.  Also ran in Tas state election for Clark 2024 polling 112 votes, and Legislative Council Hobart 2024 polling 522 votes (2.7%, sixth in a field of seven in an election with Greens, Labor but no Liberal candidate)

Brumby, Cameron - new candidate

Bloomfield, Louise - Polled 1.2% in 2018 where she ran on a ticket with Zucco and also with low-key Liberal Party endorsement.  Then beaten by Coats by 1.77 votes in the above-mentioned recount.  A much bigger campaign in 2022 and polled 6th on primaries (1473 votes, 4.8%) and was elected ninth after preferences.  I overall assessed Bloomfield for this council term as not a member of any cluster but leaning to the blue/right side.  However her voting patterns changed through the term from slightly green/left leaning early in the term to clearly but not especially strongly on the blue/right side towards the end of it.

Behrakis, Simon - - Liberal Candidate for Denison (state) in 2018, polling 2317 votes.  Then stood for Legislative Council seat of Hobart, finishing third with 19%.  Elected sixth in first Hobart Council bid in 2018 with 4.7% of the vote, and with low-key Liberal Party endorsement.  Re-elected in seventh place in 2022 with 4.7% again.  Narrowly failed initially in bid to enter state parliament in 2021 Clark contest where he polled 3722 votes and came just 346 short of dislodging ex-Labor Liberal Madeleine Ogilvie.  However, elected on a recount in 2023 when Elise Archer resigned, retaining his seat in 2024 but narrowly losing it in 2025 after he and Ogilvie were outpolled by Marcus Vermey and then Ogilvie was able to beat him from substantially behind on preferences.  Although less conspicuously hardline in his part term on Council in 2022-3 than in the 2018-22 term was still solidly in the blue/right grouping.

Bari, Rifatul - new candidate

Ashdown, Tiffany - new candidate

Alderton, Lee - new candidate

Issues 

This list is not necessarily in order and will be expanded.  Many issues from the previous term continue to lurk in the background.

1. Make It Stop! - For sure plenty of good stuff has been quietly done and councillors have worked across the aisles when they've wanted to.  But in this term the Council has been in the news for the wrong reasons far too much of the time.  Some Councillors have been way more to blame for this than others.  State government statistics show the city has been up there with Northern Midlands in terms of the most code of conduct complaints both lodged and upheld in the term, although working out the details of all the complaints is impossible given the protracted, overly secretive and sometimes silly process (a complaint can be evidence of bad behaviour, or it can be bad behaviour itself.)  Many of the complaints have been either about or by Louise Elliot, who has been found guilty five times in the term (some I expect are still subject to appeal or court action) with sanctions including two suspensions and requirements to apologise or undertake training.  These have mostly been over inflammatory social media comments about other councillors or on culture war issues, most notably a political attack on the Lord Mayor's parents.  (Lord Mayor Reynolds was herself cautioned over an incident involving Elliot from the previous term).  Also sanctioned with cautions or reprimands in this term were Marti Zucco (disruptive behaviour during a meeting), John Kelly (an outburst at Zelinda Sherlock during a meeting) and Ryan Posselt (twice, comments about Elliot during a meeting and voting when he had a conflict of interest).  

Late in the term the Council has had more adverse publicity over the long-running home snacks affair in which Sherlock and at least one other person connected to her were found to have taken from the premises snacks and drinks that were available to councillors for use on council premises, claiming this to be for use while working from home.  There was a lack of sufficient clarity in rules to make it clear that this wasn't allowed, and Tasmania Police have advised they won't be taking action.  Such is the environment of this council that this one initially appeared to be a trivial beatup by the "blue" side, but many people's views changed after evidence of a substantial scale of disappearing supplies and the involvement of alcohol surfaced following successful FOI requests by Elliot.  Sherlock has apologised but pressure to investigate further continues - and exposed further governance issues when Mike Dutta (Sherlock's father) "abstained" on several votes while remaining in the room, some of these "abstentions" being counted as votes in Sherlock's favour.  (I believe this has now stopped).

One can debate whether the council's problems are caused by factionalism, have caused factionalism or are just a toxic mix of individual personalities (obviously not all of the Councillors have copped flak here).  But for those looking for moderate off-council candidates as a solution to the problem - beware!  Candidates who boast about how they won't fall on a side and will be above it all are probably having you on.  Terms like "sensible centrist"  are almost always really code for a right-winger, while someone making a big deal of how they will be "evidence based" is probably an ideological teal or green.  Real centrists don't need the labels and there is a high risk at this election that what has gone on in the current term will be exploited by candidates who won't fix it.

Many members of the public have unfortunately behaved even worse in this term than the councillors themselves, with sexist and racist online abuse so common that Pulse Media apologised over moderation failures relating to comments against Reynolds.  Posselt also had his twitter mentions flooded by a spectacular number of anti-trans posters who were mostly not even Australian at one stage.

2. The Inner City: Hobart's inner city has been one of the bigger flashpoints in this Council term, with an ongoing culture war over the balance between cars and pedestrians/cyclists, and a backdrop of long-running concern about the commercial viability of the city heart.  The biggest issue here has been the Collins St bike lanes (criticised by opponents as little used and as obstructive to businesses).  Another has been scramble crossings, which I find make getting through town on foot a lot easier but which continue to confuse a lot of locals.  Opponents of the Collins St lanes, desperate to prove the right of politics can throw away public money too, tried to cause an elector poll on the issue in 2025 but failed, with their intended motion being voted down at the public meeting caused by their attempt, followed by not getting enough signatures in time.  I covered polling related to the issue here.

3. The Housing Problem: Issues of housing affordability and availability and homelessness continue to be acute in Hobart.  It is disgusting that in 2026 there are people living in often poor condition tents in several of the city's parks (most notably along the Hobart Rivulet where I suspect this is causing environmental damage) and while there are complicated causes of this nobody seems to have any real solution. Short-stay accommodation has been a flashpoint through the term, even leading to a rare display of friendly fire on the green/left side after Harvey encountered a hostile reception for "abstaining" on a motion to double rates on whole-home short-stay (which caused the motion to fail).  Housing issues frequently invert the usual voting patterns on council - a development that green/left councillors would tend to reject citing impact on residents and blue/right councillors would tend to support can easily flip the script if the endpoint is affordable or social housing.

4. The Cable Car  Like a demented comet the proposed kunanyi/Mt Wellington cable car appears in our skies in varying intensity and hangs over another election every four years.  A long-running version of it was found critically non-compliant with legislation in the 2018-22 term but the state government's review of management of Mt Wellington is seen as breathing new potential life into the proposal.  Here is how I see the candidates as lining up based on what I can find that they have said or how they have been evaluated by endorsing groups:

Broadly supporting cable car: Zucco, Elliot, Behrakis, Murray, Alderton, Dale, Liu, Wan, Wilson, Thurley

Broadly opposed/sceptical/cautious: all Greens (Harvey, Sherlock, Humphries, Hoare, Templeton), Kelly, Dutta, Lohberger, Posselt, Ashdown, Bari, Campbell, Connor, Needham, Wallace, Lennon

Other positions: Bloomfield (has strongly criticised previous proposal), Brumby (conditionally supportive including on discounts for Tasmanians), Johnstone (appears open to it as an option while more stressing other solutions), Lowrie (has in past supported cable car from Tolosa, current position not known), Wooley (open to supporting if not over Organ Pipes)

Information on position sought: McShane

One factor driving the intensity of the debate is that developers generally want to build the cable car over the Organ Pipes because the vertical shift reduces the number of pylons required and the length of the journey.  However this route is the most opposed for aesthetic and sense of place reasons.  

Campaigning Issues

This section will deal with issues of campaigning that are not based on specific issues. Under construction, check back in October.

Polling

Some early polling of Mayoral voting intention was conducted by EMRS but I have not seen the results.  Any other polls will be added here.

Prospects: Lord Mayor

This is an interesting Mayoral race.  There are a few candidates who are clearly just running to try to boost their profile for Councillor (although there is no longer evidence this works) but many of the candidates could be competitive.  Based on the 2022 results John Kelly starts as the one to beat because he polled extremely strongly for a first attempt and would have beaten anyone but Reynolds.  One question with Kelly is whether he would have lost any previous voters as awareness of how he votes on council has developed.  Another is how much he is competing with Wooley for the same vote and whether Wooley might get over him.  

I think the race will probably finish as a leftish candidate vs a rightish candidate.  On the left side Harvey will poll more strongly in the absence of Reynolds, however some of Reynolds' voters could go first to Ashdown rather than him.  It would be adventurous to predict any of the other left candidates to get over Harvey, but it's not impossible.  

On the right side, I suspect at least one of Kelly or Wooley can beat Zucco and then do very well off his preferences.  However if none of these does particularly well then there is a question of what Bloomfield can poll on primaries - having a more moderate image she may do well on preference flows.  

You can vote in the sidebar if you have a view on who will win!

Prospects: Deputy Lord Mayor

Prior to the dreaded snackgate I would have said Zelinda Sherlock wins in this field easily (even as a Green) but I suspect it has done damage.  There is just not a lot of strength on the left in this field - Lohberger was something of a surprise councillor winner last time and the issue he benefited from is lower profile now.  On the right side, Behrakis and Elliot had pretty similar support last election but Behrakis has since been a state MP - which I would expect to give him the edge except that Behrakis doesn't always do too well on preference flows (as seen with him being overrun by Ogilvie, though there were some gender voting patterns involved in that).  It's probably between these four.  

Prospects: Councillors

With three retirements we have nine incumbents and nine vacancies.  If the nine incumbents win then the council will be 5-3-1 left-right-centre or 5-4-0 depending on how one considers Bloomfield's voting pattern.  However I think the chance of all nine being re-elected is low.  Behrakis and Wooley are obvious threats on the right (this could be bad news for one or more of Zucco, Bloomfield, Elliot or Kelly).  Wooley's campaign (with Brad Stansfield who has worked on a few elections in his time on board) is serious and it's very hard to see him not at least getting a councillor seat, whether or not he wins the top job.  On the left, we have all of Dutta, Posselt, Lohberger and the two Greens Harvey and Sherlock trying to get re-elected, but I am not sure the left wins five seats here.  The first three are coming off fairly low base votes from last time though they have had a term to build support, and with the reduction in seat numbers I am not certain there is enough Greens support for two seats.  Among the new leftish candidates Ashdown stands out as making an early effort and also having the tealish/community independent lane pretty much to herself, so it's possible she will pick up votes in Reynolds' absence.  There are a large number of new candidates who are relative unknowns but could be competitive - this is a very strong field for new entrants without existing profile to try to break into.

It's actually not that easy to be certain any specific incumbent is safe at this election.  I can make a case that pretty much anyone can lose their seat here.  Probably that case is hardest to make with Kelly in view of his outstanding vote last time and also Harvey (surely the Greens will get one and could it really be Sherlock over him in the circumstances), but even so ...

Note For Candidates

Most candidates are sensible but there are always a few who seem to think that because I am voluntarily covering the election they are running in that makes me their slave.  Almost as annoying are those who think that if they fail to put information somewhere where I'd find it, or leave out of date information on social media, that's my fault.  

Updates to this page will be infrequent before 3 October.

Any candidate may contact me once only to have their main link changed (this is the link that the candidate's name goes to, if I can find one) and/or links added (extra links will not be added until October 1 or after), or to supply CONCISE extra bio information (which I will use, paraphrase or ignore at my discretion, and I will not go beyond 3 lines per candidate).   Requests that blame me for not unearthing information, or are in any way disrespectful or threatening will result in that candidate getting no links at all!  Feel free to whinge about alleged bias (etc) in comments though.

Also please note that the bios generally cover career, community and political experience.  

Connections of candidates are asked not to contact me for this purpose.  Local government candidates who need managers to communicate are probably unfit for office anyway but the candidate themselves should do it so I know whether the candidate has used up their allowed one contact.

Where candidates fail to read the instructions and send me emails showing they do not understand that their name is a clickable link, such candidates may be criticised publicly by name for wasting my time, and all their requests will be ignored.

Anyone may of course advise me of any clear factual errors or clearly misleading content, including more than once if necessary, and I will fix these, but please do not stretch the concept of factual error to include differences of opinion, interpretation or emphasis.  Also I will not remove material from bios where I consider it to be something that voters should know.  Again, the comments section is open to anyone wishing to comment.  

I find linkedin is very useful for getting information about what some candidates do or have done professionally.  For this reason any candidate who I find to have deleted their linkedin in the leadup to the election should expect a frustrated response.

Any comments about this guide that I become aware of by any means including indirect hearsay are on the public record, especially if stated otherwise.  In the past there have not only been threats but also blatant attempts to "get at" my coverage by commenting about it to people likely to pass comments on to me, and none of this will be tolerated.

Hobart Council Voting Patterns 2022-6

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

Advance Summary

1. Traditionally, on contested votes the Hobart City Council is loosely divided between "pro-business" councillors and councillors who stress environmental issues and/or the interests of impacted residents. 

2. This term of Council has been highly factional and these patterns have been stronger overall than in previous terms, especially since early 2024.

3. While councillors vote independently on particular motions, all councillors across this term bar one can be classified based on how they most often vote as members of either the dominant "green/left" cluster of councillors or the minority "blue/right" grouping.

4. The only councillor who does not belong to a cluster across the whole term, Louise Bloomfield, initially tended somewhat to vote with the "green/left" side but later in the term has voted far more with the "blue/right" side, and would be a clear member of the blue/right cluster if just the later 2.5 years of data were used.

6. A possible ordering of councillors from "greenest" to "bluest" for the whole term is: Kitsos, Reynolds, Burnet (not currently on council), Sherlock, Dutta, Lohberger, Posselt, Harvey, Bloomfield, Kelly, Behrakis (not currently on council but a candidate), Coats, Elliot, Zucco

7. Each of the "green" and "blue" clusters includes members who are more or less diehard but in this term there was no relationship between this and whether that councillor is a known member of a party or not.

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

uComms: Tas Labor Getting Run Out Of The Stadium

 uComms Tas (state) Lib 26.8 ALP 21.8 ON 18.4 Grn 15.9 IND 15.0 SFF 1.6 Nat 0.1 others 0.5
Seat estimate Lib 10 ALP 9 ON 8 Grn 4-5 IND 3-4

Today came the unexpected surprise of a new uComms poll of Tasmanian state voting intention commissioned by the anti-stadium group Our Place, trading for polling purposes as Macquarie Point Vision Limited.  The poll had a sample size of 1164 and was taken 26-27 August by robopoll and SMS.  Before we get too carried away with this poll I should point out that these are both methods I treat with a high degree of caution and that uComms' record in recent Tas state final polling has been erratic.  It underestimated the Liberals by 7 points in 2021 and underestimated Labor by 6 in 2024.  Nonetheless I'll unpack the voting intentions in this poll for those interested and then comment on the stadium questions.

uComms presents results in a somewhat challenging format with a headline question with undecided included as an option alongside several parties, and then a follow-up question that asks the voters who are initially undecided which option they are leaning to.  To convert the results into a format equivalent to other polls it is necessary to multiply the results of the follow-up question by the undecided rate and add them to the headline numbers.  In this case, the Nationals and Others options were not offered in the follow-up, which will have deflated them slightly and robbed the Nationals of their chance to reach the giddy heights of 0.2%.  

The Flat Field: Another "Polls Are Wrong" Vid Gets It Wrong!

Five years ago I debunked a drippy poll denial video by the supposedly left wing West Media. Now here from Topher Field (not that he deserves that link) is the nearest right-wing equivalent to West's cavalcade of cluelessness.  In a video entitled "Preference Discipline is EVERYTHING" but advertised with images that say "THE POLLS ARE WRONG [AND WHY YOU ALREADY KNEW THAT]" Field, a glibertarian, sets out to show that polls that estimate One Nation vs Labor "2PPs" are underestimating One Nation.  The funny thing is that there are quite strong arguments that that is true.  He doesn't make them.  Within the first ninety seconds, Field has already showed he is totally out of his depth.

Field Doesn't Know How Polls Work

While talking in front of tweeted results of recent Redbridge and Morgan polls, Field says that these pollsters - and not just these pollsters but all the national and state polls - are using out of date data or guesses to calculate preference flows.  But in the case of One Nation vs Labor, neither of these pollsters does this.  Both calculate their preference flows simply by asking respondents which party they would preference higher.  This is hardly obscure information either - Morgan prominently states it uses this method in all its weekly polling reports, and reports on Accent Research's website make it very clear for Redbridge/Accent (see p. 3 on this one, where both methods have results shown for Coalition vs Labor but only respondent for One Nation vs Labor).   The funny thing is that very briefly some pollsters were attempting to use 2025 House of Reps preference flows but were dissuaded from doing so after I and others pointed out that this would make the flows to One Nation too high.

Secret Harbour By-Election: Prospects And Live

Secret Harbour (ALP 11.54%)
George Tree (ALP) vs Luke Herdegen (ON), Ryan Robertson (Lib) and way too many others
Cause of by-election: resignation of Paul Papalia (ALP)

CALLED (9:34) One Nation gain from Labor

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

Commentary (Comments scrolling up with latest first - refresh for latest comments)

Sunday 10:50 am I am not sure we'll ever see a Labor vs Liberal 2PP for this seat but I estimate that the Liberals would have won it, around 52-48 (by normal preference flows it would be around 53 but I have reduced that on account of it being a normally weak seat).  This suggests Labor would have lost this seat even without the One Nation surge.  Given that the average swing in government by-elections is around 5% an implied swing of 13.5% is high, but also Labor are coming off a still high baseline from the last election, which would account for some of it.  

With results like this there is always a lot of talk about high swings, but the 2CP swing is not meaningful as it is not the same combatants.  The swing against the Labor 2CP is what I call a pseudo-swing; both the pseudo-swing and my estimate of the 2PP swing are lower than in Rockingham 2023.

Sunday 6:00 am What has happened in the prepolls is that Herdegen has actually got a preference flow more like I was expecting for the by-election as a whole, 52.8% (which is not surprising given how strong the prepolls were on primaries for One Nation), and so the result has gone back to the high 50s, 57-43 at present, that was expected before the bad preference flows came in.  Overall now One Nation has 49% of preferences.  From the primaries I would have expected them to get about 52.7% without considering the ballot order, which would close at least a little of the gap.  

EMRS: Thirty Or Turkey By Christmas?

EMRS Lib 26 (+1) ALP 23 (-1) ON 21 (+2) Grn 16 (+2) IND 14 (-2) others 1 (-1)

Seat estimate (new boundaries) Lib 10 ALP 9 ON 8 Green 5 IND 3

The latest EMRS poll is out as released on the Poll Position pod and the changes on state voting intentions are all within the in-theory margin of error from the previous edition.  There would be mild relief for the government that the dramatic slide in its numbers in the past few polls has stopped.  But political tragics could only have eyes for the ALP figure after leader Josh Willie was reported to have set a target of polling a 30% primary by Christmas.  (Something I somehow, in a feat tantamount to winning the Last Man contest for not knowing the Superbowl winner, managed to not find out about for a month!)  

This figure has led to predictable jibes from opponents that not only will Labor not attain this heroic goal (oh for the days when they were forever stuck around 30) but that Willie will instead be gone as leader by Christmas. Although Labor's primary has actually held up better to the One Nation surge than might have been expected, there seems to be an unusual level of Labor leadership chatter about.  It's hard to tell if it is serious or if a lot of people are just and quite rightly bored.  Some of it is connected to the issue that continues to dog (pun intended) the Opposition, with a Thick Of It style nadir when Willie was photographed defending Labor's unfashionable support for greyhound racing in front of a Dogs Prohibited sign. 

Four Year Terms? Fixed Terms? Fixed Four Year Terms? Part One - Polling

This week there was an article regarding a report released by a lobby group called 4 Year Terms Australia, which supports "fixed" four year terms for federal parliament.  The SMH report contained this very brief comment regarding polling:

"Polling commissioned from JWS Research found just one in five Australians supported the current system of three-year terms and the prime minister choosing the election date."

Well, from that it may sound like Australians would strongly support "fixed" four year terms, right?  In fact the polling cited tells a rather different story.

I've decided to write one article on this subject dealing mainly with the polling, to be probably (subject to time) followed by another in the near future dealing with the (de)merits of the issue.  That said there will be few surprises on the latter front to anyone who's seen my article re fixed terms in Tasmania or my 2025 JSCEM submission.   To summarise my views, I'm totally against "fixed" federal terms, whether by legislation or referendum.  I think that fixed term laws either fail to genuinely secure fixed dates or else prevent Prime Ministers from calling elections in circumstances where they should be able to.  I'm also against four year federal terms if it means eight year Senators.  

Group Ticket Voting In Victoria Is Finally Gone!

Today is Victoria's first day since the mid-2000s without Group Ticket Voting in state elections.  Legislation to abolish the system received Royal Assent yesterday.  It could still in theory be challenged in court but I doubt that would go too well for the challenger after the failed Bob Day federal challenge.

There's a saying that success has many fathers while failure is an orphan.  Meaning that when something good happens a lot of people suddenly want to claim the credit.  

Since group ticket voting was abolished in Victoria we've seen, for instance, GetUp! claiming partial credit for their petition which highlighted the recent attempt by Avi Yemini and others to register fake parties.  Yemini's defenders (including Topher Field in a ridiculous video where he abusively misunderstands comments to the Guardian by yours truly) have been out saying GetUp! and others who reacted were just "useful idiots" and their tactic with the fake parties was to generate exactly such outrage against group ticket voting to increase the chance of it being scrapped.  Well, to be useful idiots you firstly have to be useful so this suggests that GetUp! actually did do something after all.  I will say here that at least GetUp! only claimed partial credit while Yemini and co have had no compunction about claiming the lot.  But I'm not sure GetUp!'s petition with 22000+ "signatures" was ever even presented to anybody! I am nonetheless glad that they raised awareness of the issue.