2026 FIDE (World Chess Federation) Elections

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). 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. 

Media: until Oct 1 I am available for interviews via WhatsApp only (if at all), see comments at start of article here.

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 (10 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.

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, 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 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) - 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 Clarence 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

Murray, Graham - pro-cable-car advocate, not a big fan of ebikes though

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, 

Wan, David - recent Liberal state candidate, President Tasmanian Young Liberals, information on him was hard to find during state election 

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

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.

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 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).

Others to be added.

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.  Such is the environment of this council that this 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, 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 Australia 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.

(More to be added)

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.

I will have more developed thoughts about this contest later.

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).  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 the end of September.

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.

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

NOTE 22 SEP: HOBART COUNCIL GUIDE WILL BE RELEASED APPROX 1 HR AFTER RELEASE OF NOMINATIONS

NOTE TO READERS AND MEDIA (16 Sep): I am about to travel to an overseas event.  There is significantly more chaos going on regarding this event than usual, quite aside from my normal ability to generate chaos of a frequently medical variety simply by travelling anywhere.  There are matters I intend working on in the near future, including a Hobart Council guide, an article on Clarence voting patterns and various general articles.  And of course the FIDE Presidential Election!  However because of the chaos, at this stage I am not sure there will be any activity on this site before the start of October, including aggregate updates.  Please be patient.

For the rest of September I am not available for in-person interviews.  Phone interviews will require advance organisation - ideally the journalist needs to contact me by both email AND WhatsApp to my normal phone number AND provide full return contact details and hours (including a reliably attended phone) AND give at least 24 hours notice to try to arrange a time.  Even this may not work and I will be unavailable completely on the 18th, 29th and 30th.  (I normally classify email interviews as work and expect to be paid at professional rates for them but may make some exceptions for the next two weeks if possible and questions are easy for me to answer succintly - please give at least 48 hours notice if possible.)

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

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.

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

Mercifully to all, the noisiest and most contentious term in the recent history of the Hobart City Council will very soon be over.  The election held by post from October 5-27 will be the second since the introduction of compulsory voting but the first since the reduction in councillor numbers from twelve to nine passed parliament with less resistance than might have been expected.  There has still been nothing done about the ludicrously low bars for running for local government, so the councillor numbers cull won't do much to stop there again being far too many candidates.  But that said the toxicity of this term might, with a conspicuous shortage of new female contenders at this stage. Darcy Murphy's tracker already lists 28 declared candidates, though that is down five on the same point in the previous cycle.

Council politics isn't party politics, and even when candidates are elected together under a party banner they are not expected to necessarily vote with each other all the time, and don't.  But it can be factional, and this tendency has waxed and waned in HCC voting over the years.  Amid what I here find to be a fully justified belief that this term of council has been very tribal, some candidates have been distancing themselves with labels such as "crossbencher", "moderate centrist" (is there some other kind?) and the good old "independent" (comes in "true" and vanilla flavours).  But the numbers tell a rather different story.  

As I noted in the 2018-22 edition, it's often hard to judge new candidates, who have no voting records to classify them alongside the incumbents.  For this reason we should be very wary of new candidates  boasting that they'll be above all this; it is untestable and it's probably not true.  But for the incumbents there is a vast store of data.  I've been classifying HCC voting patterns since the 2005-7 term (see also on this site 2011-2014 and 2014-2018.  While councillors always display some degree of independence from each other there has long been a tendency for most councillors in any given term to fall into one of two camps.  

These I've called the "blues" (the right flank of council, a generally "pro-business" cluster which often includes Liberal and ex-Liberal party members) and the "greens" (the left flank, a generally "pro-environment" cluster which often includes past and present Greens.)  Some councillors who align strongly with one of these clusters don't actually have any party history, and some councillors in any given term may not align strongly with either.  Councillors with Labor connections might be found in either cluster, and over the course of a career some councillors move in and out of clusters or in very rare cases change sides.  (OK, that's happened precisely once, and he's now done it with the river too.)

I used to write that the blue/green divide most often arises on development issues but in this term it's become clearer that it arises in different directions on different kinds of developments.  That is that there are development proposals that the "blues" like and the "greens" don't, and vice versa, depending on whose politics they are attractive to.  This is not to say that most of the items the council votes on have anything directly to do with developments.  

Historically the council tended to have more "blues" than "greens", although the "blues" struggled to win the leadership positions until the 2011-2014 and 2014-2018 terms.  In the last two elections the "green" side has won Lord Mayor and Deputy and has been increasingly competitive at councillor level, to the point that in this term it dominated the council.

Methods

The great majority of council motions are unanimous.  Often a proposed development doesn't actually bother anyone but council approval is required; these motions aren't politically interesting but it is worth noting there's a lot that councillors of different viewpoints do work together on productively. 

My interest here is in the politically informative contested motions, especially those with more than one vote on both sides.  I went through the Council minutes that have been posted for this term and recorded voting on every non-unanimous motion with a "voting record" showing.  (This can arise through divisions or through a small number of councillors asking that their dissent be recorded.)  Where a vote repeats the same pattern as an earlier vote on the same agenda item I ignore the duplicate unless it has a different winner (this mainly happens where there are ties with the voting lineup flipped - which is relevant to my assessment of which Councillors are most often on the winning and losing sides.)  If an agenda item occurs across multiple meetings (eg a resubmission of a rejected proposal) I treat the two items as distinct as frequently the conditions of the item will have changed.  

In previous articles I have only used the main full Council meetings.  In this term however the structure of council meetings changed.  Routine development applications of the form "16 BEASLEY BOULEVARD: CHANGE OF USE TO NOODLE BAR AND DUST REMOVAL" now appear in the Planning committee meetings at which, in theory but often not in practice, all councillors attend and vote.  My sample of a total of 512 motions includes 87 of these and another 11 from the Hobart Workshop Committee which also has pretty high attendance, sometimes.   Of the 512 votes used, 405 were "multiply contested", meaning at least two voters on each side.  I use these as my main measure of voting alignment - the lone dissents can be idiosyncratic and can be more about whether a particular councillor can be bothered having their dissent recorded, though there are some patterns within them.

Behind planning applications, a rather high number of contested motions this term were about council policies for the city, and internal governance also featured prominently.  CBD issues (such as Collins Street bike paths and scramble crossings), responses to state government on local government related discussions and short stay accommodation were also common items.   The 2022 election was strongly influenced by the University of Tasmania city move but it has been a fairly minor player in voting patterns in this term.  For all the noise heard from time to time about council involvement in overseas issues (eg Gaza) these accounted for under 1% of all contested votes in this term.  

For each pair of councillors I find all multiply contested votes where they both voted and find how often they agreed and disagreed with each other.  This results in an agreement matrix which I then sort into loose groups, calculate agreement ratios involving councillors from each group and then put in order.  This Council term saw two mid-term changes, first with Will Coats replacing Simon Behrakis and secondly with Gemma Kitsos replacing Helen Burnet.  This means Behrakis was never on this Council together with Coats or Kitsos and Burnet was never on it with Kitsos.  I've assigned some estimates of how often they would have voted together based on surrounding percentages for the purposes of the largely useless principal components graph below  (78%, 26% and 80% respectively)

My sample for this council goes to the end of August.  The manual data entry is not guaranteed to be error free but any errors should be immaterial to the overall patterns.  I don't have time to do articles like this for all councils but am again intending a smaller scale article for Clarence subject to time and will consider doing them for other councils if somebody else constructs an appropriate spreadsheet of votes from those councils' minutes (contact me to discuss if interested but I will be offline a lot between Sep 17-30).

Participation in contested votes

The following is my record of how often each councillor voted on contested motions (including lone dissents) that are recorded in my sample (which as discussed above omits most duplicates).  General council meetings are now monthly.  The other committees I include meet more often but will not always generate any contested votes at a meeting.  Councillors are often absent from contested votes because they are on leave, either travelling away from Hobart (often on official council business including "professional development") or with other commitments.  Louise Elliot was also suspended for some meetings in the term.  Councillors must leave the room to avoid voting on motions they have conflicts of interest on.  Conflict of interest is, mostly, quite broadly defined and can even include just having commented strongly on an issue before it came before Council.  However, absence (for all or part of a meeting) is by far the larger cause of not voting for most councillors.

These figures are not the same as attendance figures (simple ratios of how many meetings a councillor was present at), which tend to be somewhat higher.  Raw attendance figures can be somewhat misleading because some councillors are more likely than others to attend only part of a meeting for whatever reason, and some are more likely to abstain through conflict of interest.  On the other hand, a councillor with a high attendance rate might just happen to miss the meeting at which there were many contested divisions.  I give what I get, unofficially, as the rate of recorded full Council meeting attendance up til the end of August 2026 in the final column.

Despite criticism of some councillors' attendance rates - in particular Coats was at one stage called a "FIFO councillor" because he missed a number of planning meetings while working in Melbourne - the average "Voted On" score in this council is actually identical to the previous term at 90%.  

Under the Local Government Act, if a councillor remains in the room and does not vote with either side of a motion then this "abstention" is classed as a vote against.  Such "abstentions" have been extremely rare on Hobart Council in the past despite a culture of them happening often on Clarence council.  However this term saw a record total of twelve - five by Mike Dutta, two each by Bill Harvey, Elliot and Louise Bloomfield and one by Ben Lohberger.  Those by Dutta were all around the investigation into the long-running home snacks affair involving Zelinda Sherlock (his daughter); these "abstentions" were rightly controversial (and I believe have since ceased) as in some cases they were converted to a vote against taking action.  One of the Harvey "abstentions" was also contentious as it caused a motion to double rates on whole-home short-stay accommodation to fail, which led to friction between Harvey and Ryan Posselt especially and unsuccessful calls for the Greens (who at state level support reining in short-stay) to disendorse Harvey.

Lone Dissents and Losing Votes

Some other things I look at include who casts the most lone dissents and who is most often on the losing side of motions.  The following table is ordered by who is least often on the losing side of multiply contested motions (those which have at least two votes on either side).  It also includes each councillor's rate of lone-dissenting (out of all motions they voted on) and how often each councillor is on the losing side of all motions.  I have changed the ordering to least often for a reason.

In this term Marti Zucco was by far the commonest lone dissenter with 36 lone dissents; Posselt had 14 and Coats ten.  At the other end of the scale Lohberger and Sherlock had one each and I didn't find any for Kitsos.  Kitsos was the least often on the losing side of a motion, and what is unusual about that is that in past councils often the councillor who is least often on the losing side is a key swing vote in the centre of the council.  But in this council, the sorting of least to most often on the losing side very closely matches the left to right sort I give below, and the lone dissent rate also matches to a degree.  (Posselt is a bit of an exception on both fronts, and that is not surprising given that he is an ALP member whereas the rest of the left is mostly Greens or councillors with past Green connections).

Despite the larger sample there were only 27 tied votes in this term, down from 44 in the previous.  The change to nine councillors will get rid of tied votes in cases where everyone is voting, but they can still happen when an odd number of councillors are not voting.

Agreement Matrix

The following matrix shows how often (as a percentage) each councillor voted with each other councillor, subject to them both being present and to there being at least two councillors on each side of the vote.  For instance, the matrix shows 2022 mayoral rivals John Kelly and Anna Reynolds voted together in such contested motions 32% of the time. With apologies to colour-challenged readers, I've used dark green and dark blue to highlight agreement scores above 75% (a commonly used cutoff for finding clusters in this kind of work) and lighter green and blue to highlight scores that are close to that level, in the range 70-74%.

A strong disclaimer again here: "green" for the alignment scores means small-g and not the party; I've even taken out the capitals.  

Party affiliations are shown in brackets and by colour where known, though only the Greens formally endorsed candidates on any scale.  If any councillors are no longer in the party shown, please let me know and I will update or remove that party listing.  Elliot - who was briefly a Liberal - joined the Tasmanian Nationals in September 2025 but with the party recently polling 0.1% in a state poll there is speculation about whether this membership still exists, together with speculation that she could join One Nation and seek state or federal office for said party.  Nothing has been confirmed though there appears at least to be some level of social media co-ordination from time to time.  If any of the above party memberships were incorrect as of 12 Sep 2026 then please let me know and the table will be corrected.

The table shows the usual clusters.  In the top left is a cluster of eight councillors with agreement percentages with each other generally over 70%, in most cases over 75% and in one case (Kitsos-Reynolds) rising to 90%.  In the bottom right is a cluster of four councillors with agreement percentages with each other all between 76% and 85%.  The only councillor not belonging to either cluster for the term as a whole (and not close to belonging to one either, but see below) is Bloomfield.  I find all the rest to very clearly belong strongly to one cluster or the other across the term, though there are still differences in the strength of this (eg Kelly is much closer to the centre than Zucco).  I've classed them all as "strongly" to one side to emphasise the difference with previous councils.

On the right hand side the "score" column gives a ratio between how often the councillor agrees with the two clusters.  (For the purposes of calculating this, agreement percentages with Burnet and Behrakis - except with each other - have been downweighted by 70% given they were off council for most of the term.)  If the councillor agrees more with the green/left cluster it is coloured green while if they agree more with the blue/right cluster it is coloured blue ... noting here that "right" and "left" are relative to this council.  

What is notable here is how large these ratios are, much higher than I am used to finding. It is not that the values at the ends of the chart are extreme; indeed they're not.  Rather there are no cases of moderate members of either cluster who might agree with some members of the other cluster well over 40% of the time and hence get a ratio of something like 1.5; indeed there is no cross-cluster agreement score between any pair higher than 36%.  This is a sign that this Hobart council is the most factionalised I have seen, beating the tail end of the previous council in that regard.  

Is this just because the moderate or unusual councillors from both sides in the previous term lost their seats and the previous councillors are still voting the same way with respect to each other but have just been joined by new less moderate councillors? No.  Looking at the agreement percentages involving six councillors still on council who served in the previous term (Harvey, Dutta, Reynolds, Sherlock, Coats and Zucco) the average agreement between the four on the green side is up from 74.3 to 79.8.  Their average agreement with Coats and Zucco is down from 29 to 22.9.  (That said Coats/Zucco is down from 85 to 81).  

Looking at Bloomfield's voting patterns one notices the unusually high agreement percentage with Burnet and the low agreement percentage with Behrakis, when based on the rest of Bloomfield's voting one would expect the opposite.  And there is a reason for this, which is that Bloomfield's voting behaviour from early 2024 on has been strikingly different from 2022-3.  If I just take the period when Burnet and Behrakis were both still on Council, Bloomfield voted with the average "green/left" councillor 65.6% of the time and the average "blue/right" councillor 42.5% of the time, for a ratio of 1.54 to the green side, so I would classify her as green/left leaning for this period.  However if I take the period after both Burnet and Behrakis had been replaced, Bloomfield voted with the average green/left councillor just 36% of the time and the average blue/right councillor 73% of the time, which would make her a clear member of the blue/right cluster in this time with a ratio of 2.21 the other way.  (Just shy of Kelly across the term, but in this part of the term Kelly himself was more polarised and would score a ratio over 3).  

On that basis looking at the Council as it finishes the term, there's an argument that everyone is now on a side most of the time and there aren't any serious crossbenchers, though some vote across the aisle much more than others.  Defections on the left side on individual votes often prompt a lot of criticism especially if they cause that side to lose the vote - I mentioned Harvey on short-stay accommodation above, another was Lohberger in May 2024 on the soon-after modified and approved St Vincent de Paul Argyle St proposal.  But these are the exceptions rather than the rules.  

In two dimensions, for what it's worth

Something I've always done with these voting pattern charts for Council is a two-dimensional principal components analysis graph to see if it picks up anything different on trying to squash the voting patterns into two variables instead of one.  Last time this was interesting, but what I generally find is that the first variable that the graph picks up is the left/right split and often the second variable doesn't explain anything much and is just driven by the voting pattern of a councillor who isn't part of a cluster.  And that has happened again this year with the second axis being basically how Bloomfieldy a councillor was or wasn't given what else we know about them, and that in turn is determined mostly by when they were on council.  The left-right axis picks up 92% of variation in voting patterns so the 2D plot is probably only useful for amusement but anyway here it is.  

(The 6 councillor cluster on the left is, from top to bottom, Lohberger, Dutta, Kitsos, Sherlock, Reynolds, Posselt)

The road ahead

The Council is being culled from twelve to nine but with Reynolds and Kitsos retiring and Coats not visibly recontesting at this stage it looks like nine incumbents will seriously recontest for nine seats (six of them running for Lord Mayor alongside at least four off-council candidates and three running for Deputy alongside ex-councillors Behrakis and Ron Christie and at least three other off-council candidates).  

If everyone who appears to be running again retains then the new numbers would be a 5-4 or 5-3-1 (depending on how one classifies Bloomfield) majority for the left, but I think it is unlikely all will retain, and despite Hobart's leftness as a city I am not certain the green/left side will retain five after a pretty turbulent term.  Aside from any chance of a shift in numbers back towards the blue side, there are significant challenges from within on both sides (on the blue side obviously Behrakis given his profile and past HCC results, but there are others.)  On the Lord Mayor front if we take the 2022 votes as a starting point then Kelly seems the candidate to beat (though Harvey could poll a high primary vote as the Greens candidate in a Reynolds-free field); has anyone else picked up enough of a following in the 2022-6 term to do so?  

I will as usual be covering the elections with a candidate and election guide in the near future and coverage of the counting.  

Disclaimer

Any comment about this article in any form that reaches either me or anyone related to me will be considered on the public record, especially if stated otherwise.  This is to prevent candidates from attempting to covertly influence my commentary. 

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%.  

When converted, the numbers are overall very similar to the most recent EMRS poll.  A reading of 21.8 (the raw reading actually has a one in front of it) is another poll where Labor hasn't reached Josh Willie's milestone/millstone of 30% by Christmas; in fact it is their worst reading yet.  The numbers are just a little stronger for the Liberals and a little weaker for One Nation and this flows through on my seat model, for which I've just applied uniform swings to my model for the EMRS poll:

 On my model of this poll there is a small chance that the independent vote would be concentrated enough with George Razay to give him some hope of getting over One Nation if their ticket was leaky enough, but more likely One Nation would win two in Bass.  The interesting point is Braddon where the Labor vote is now low enough that it's possible the Liberals could win three seats, though it is much more likely Green preferences and leakage would save Labor's second.  Clark raises the same question about one or two independents as in the EMRS poll and the rest are straightforward.  The most likely result is the same: 10 Liberal, 9 Labor, 8 One Nation, 4-5 Greens and 3-4 Independents.  However it's not far off a bigger seat lead for the government.  

The poll includes a standard platform question of who a voter not supporting Labor or Liberal would preference higher, with 59.7% picking Labor, which would give Labor a 52.5% 2PP.  Except Hare-Clark doesn't work like that and many voters for other parties would preference neither.  In any case the most likely result, for the third poll in a row, would be a Liberal/One Nation majority of one seat.  The poll also has some interesting breakdowns, with the One Nation vote being concentrated among male voters (by a factor of nearly two to one) and peaking in my generation, voters aged 51-65.  I can only put on my best Kevin Rudd imitation voice and intone "On behalf of Generation X, I am sorry."  

Also deserving comment here is the 0.1% reading for the Tasmanian Nationals (I add that all the 0.1% were over 65).  This party ran a shambolic campaign at the state election, polling 1.6% after making contradictory candidate choices and being all over the map on what they would do if elected, failing to exploit anti-stadium sentiment and endorsing one of the state's most infamous anti-gay campaigners (who they then ghosted during the campaign).  It is surely time now for the following message to be sent to the federal Nationals office regarding these embarrassing attempts to make the Nationals a thing in Tasmania: Your attempts are futile here.  Go away and this time don't come back.

Stadium Questions

The main point of this poll was issue questions on the stadium, which I am not going to post vast detail of but which as usual with issue polls need to be examined critically.

The first question is "Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The full cost of the proposed stadium in Tasmania should be disclosed to Parliament and the public?" This unsurprisingly gets an overwhelming 74.4-9.1 (16.4% neutral) thumbs up, after all how could this possibly be a bad thing?  But the thing here is that a great many voters have probably not been exposed to the debate about disclosing the current estimated cost, and hence would not be aware that there is a counter-argument.  The government has argued that disclosing an expected cost could weaken the state's position in the tender process.  Another issue with the question is it doesn't say when.  Another is that it doesn't canvass that the full cost can hardly be known at this time.  And so on.  

The second question is "If the proposed stadium costs more than $1.13 billion, who do you think should be responsible for the cost?"  The results are Tasmanian Taxpayers 5.7% The AFL 55.7% Both the taxpayers and the AFL 26.3% Someone else 5.9% Don't know 6.5%.  Some other options that might have been interesting to include here would be the Federal Government and AFL fans.  I like this question, irrespective of the fact that it is highly unlikely the cost excess would be borne by anyone other than the taxpayers.  (Not only that but if the state is too slow constructing the stadium, the state will be up for $4.5 million a year in penalties, an utterly ridiculous clause that should see the AFL reclassified as a terrorist organisation for even having had the gall to try it on, and the government required to crowdsource the penalties itself for signing it.)  Unsurprisingly Liberal voters are the least likely to say the AFL should pay, probably because stadium supporters tend to be pro-Liberal and are likely to see the proposal that the AFL should pay as a threat to the project.  

The third question is "If the proposed stadium costs more than $1.13 billion, how should the additional cost of borrowed money be funded?"  This is a forced choice between "Increased taxes" (36.4%) and "Reduction in government services and spending" (63.6%).  There are so many other options here - a levy on tickets to the stadium and increasing government debt (shudder) spring to mind; still the breakdowns are somewhat interesting.  Greens voters (59.8%) are most likely of the major options to support increasing taxes while One Nation voters (18.6%) are least likely (probably because they like the idea of reducing government spending anyway).  

The fourth question is "Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?  "The Tasmanian Government has handled the proposed stadium well?" 30.7% agree (including 13.0% strongly) and 50.0% disagree (37.7% strongly).  This is broadly in line with the long-standing unpopularity of the stadium proposal but after three questions about the possibility of cost blowouts and the government's attitude to disclosing the cost the respondents are more likely to agree that the government has not done well.  There's quite a strong gender break on this one, as with several of the others (36.8% of male respondents vs 24.7% of female respondents agree).  There don't seem to be any party breakdowns for this question.