Menu lock

Tasmanian Politics

Jan 16, 2014

Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings has confirmed March 15 as her government’s date with the polls, which for the second successive occasion means a super Saturday on which elections are held in both Tasmania and South Australia. My most recent poll aggregate chart is featured below, encompassing the crudely bias-adjusted results of 14 EMRS and four ReachTEL polls.

UPDATE (17/1): Kevin Bonham and Ben Raue at The Tally Room have typically excellent reviews of the situation, complete with candidate overviews and such. My own overview will appear in Crikey later today.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

53 comments

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Kevin Bonham
Guest

http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/libs-reachtel-not-completely-over-line.html

Libs’ ReachTEL: Not Completely Over The Line

An internal ReachTEL the Liberals have released is the first Tasmanian state poll for some time that shows the outcome in any doubt at all.

My Mark Grewar piece has hit the local limelight:

These from ABC:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-03/pup-candidate-defended/5235882?section=tas
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-03/palmer-united-party-defends-state-poll-candidate-over-social-me/5235278

This one from Sally Glaetzer (Mercury) is more in-depth and includes the candidate’s responses/excuses:

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/pup-candidate-mark-grewar-in-liberal-party-firing-line/story-fnj4f7k1-1226817089752

Kevin Bonham
Guest

Oh but now it’s back up again at a different URL.

Kevin Bonham
Guest

My candidate guide now has question marks next to eight PUP candidates.

http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/2014-tasmanian-state-election-candidate.html

Their names were released in an otherwise unheralded video that a few PUP supporters were linking to on Twitter yesterday. I investigated the background to one of them and found a Google trainwreck suggesting due diligence failure by PUP in selecting this candidate. As the candidate had apparently published anti-gay material, I published his Google trainwreck. The video listing the eight candidates has now been taken down.

Coast
Guest

Strange to think the pulp mill is being revitalised thru such overt political interference on the eve of an election. The last time those actions were applied it forced the resignation of a premier ( Lennon ) and gave the Greens a solid 2010 election result, didn’t it? Is it not a politically poisonous issue for the majors to go anywhere near? I look forward to the release of the next opinion poll whenever that may be.

Roxanna
Guest

Kevin, I completely agree. But I bet it does become an election issue, when the focus should be on other more real and realistic issues. What a waste of time and money this is going to be.

Kevin Bonham
Guest

The pulp mill thing is a joke; anyone who thinks this election should be about building the pulp mill has forfeited the right to call PUP ridiculous.

I’m not opposed to the idea of the mill per se but I am opposed to massive or indeed any government subsidisation of a private project. And I don’t see any evidence that the thing is anywhere near viable on purely private funding at this time. Millions of dollars of state funds have been wasted on this pipe dream already.

Roxanna
Guest

Here we go again.

[MORE than 600 people packed into the Tailrace Centre in Launceston last night for a public forum against the Tamar Valley Pulp Mill.

The full house heard from a panel of anti-pulp mill speakers including Peter McGlone, Lucy Landon-Lane, Vanessa Bleyer and Bass Greens MHA Kim Booth.

Mr Booth said Premier Lara Giddings had let down a community that expected the “blight” of the Tamar Valley pulp mill to be removed.]

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/2040588/both-sides-out-in-force-for-forum/?cs=95

Kevin Bonham
Guest

A mystery today is the candidacy of Barbara Etter for PUP in Denison. Denison is PUP’s worst seat and the best to run as an indie in. Etter’s existing branding is a perfect fit with a Wilkie-style indie bid and a dubious fit with PUP – unless Etter has gone over to PUP’s conspiracy-theory tinfoil-hat brigade.

Mark Duffett
Guest

Cheers Kevin.

Kevin Bonham
Guest

The 19% figure comes from EMRS after they redistribute their rather high undecided rates proportionally. However, past experience is that the Greens’ actual vote never matches these EMRS figures – those flagged by EMRS as undecided do not vote Green.

Although EMRS gives Labor as 22 and Green on 19 a more plausible reading of their poll is something like 26.5 to 16 and even that is high-end for the Greens compared to some of their state polling in 2013. Both William and I have aggregates with Labor in high 20s and Greens in mid teens.

I went into this more here:

http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/emrs-another-shocker-for-labor.html

Mark Duffett
Guest

meherbaba@19

The basic demographics of this (anti-Green) thinking is that it is disproportionately represented among Tasmanians who were born here, are over the age of 50, have no tertiary educational qualifications (and in many instances haven’t completed secondary school) and do not live in Hobart.

For what it’s worth, I am
– born in Adelaide
– under 50
– have postgraduate qualifications
– live in Hobart
and generally despise the Greens!

So there you go. Does that make me an exceptional person? 😉

But what I actually came here to query was Kate Crowley’s piece in The Conversation today, in which she mentions the Greens polling at 19%. Does anyone know the source for this? 19% would be a lot higher than what they achieved at the Federal poll.

Oh, and hear hear Kevin Bonham (@30, @39) on what does and does not constitute legitimate protest.

Roxanna
Guest

Socrates, what we need in Tasmania is for some young people to stay, and run for Parliament. What we’re being offered is recycled people, like Amos and Llewelyn.
Not all of us are comfortable with the entrenched poverty culture. If culture you can call it.

Socrates
Guest

William

Kudos to you for covering the SA election. I hope it is the start of a growing career.

MB
[In my view the only really viable future for the Tasmanian economy is through the further development of a number of niche primary and tertiary areas: tourism (focusing on bushwalkers, foodies and arty farty types), high quality forest products (ie, timber rather than pulp), lifestyle (eg, high income teleworkers moving here from the mainland), scientific research (Antarctica, etc) and boutique, high quality agriculture (cheese, wine, berries, etc.)]
I strongly agree. Tasmania’s economy has been a disaster in the past decade. The progress of Jim Bacon has been reversed, and turned back to traditional industries with little future. It is one thing for the majority of locals to be hell bent on enteenching poverty. They seem to expect the rest of us to subsidise them in the process. Neither major political party deserves credit for pandering to this. Not much leadership is evident across the Strait. My advice to young people in Tassie: leave.

Kevin Bonham
Guest

New Matilda commissioned me to write a thing about the election which is up on their website.

https://www.newmatilda.com/2014/01/19/tassie-will-be-gimme-libs

Some editing and the title is theirs not mine, eg “have predicted Will Hodgman’s Liberals could win an election” originally read “that had an election been held at the time, Will Hodgman’s Liberals would have won. “

Kevin Bonham
Guest
MagicPudding@35 they can’t seem to convince too many people via normal peaceful protests Obstructive protests are still peaceful. They are also pretty normal; they have been going on for decades. You mean “via protests which do not inconvenience anyone”. Not quite. For instance street marches cause inconvenience to traffic and cause costs to police that then come out of taxpayers’ pockets, but I don’t have a problem with those. Just as I don’t have a problem with the existence of government-funded media. Whether obstructive protests are deemed “peaceful” or not comes down to what context of “peace” is being used and is not of great importance. What is important is the functional difference that some protests do not stop the target of the protest going about its lawful work, while others, temporarily, do. These are not just impacts that affect faceless big businesses but that can also affect the livelihoods of employees and contractors. If some protestor someday obstructed my work and caused me to miss out on income, I would consider that person to owe me the money I had lost, and would consider that at the very least the law should entitle me to recover it from them through the courts. A rally would need large numbers to attract national publicity, and even then there is no guarantee of coverage if it does not suit the media proprietor’s interests. People have other ways of getting their word around these days. I think that if people will be sympathetic to a large protest then they are likely to find out about its existence. Of course some commercial networks will not give such events coverage but those who exclusively watch such networks are very unlikely to be convinced anyway. In any case, I don’t think anyone has an automatic right to have their protest cause covered by commercial media should commercial media not wish to cover it. I am sure most protesters are well aware that they risk arrest and are prepared to cop a penalty for their activities. Like anyone who finds themselves before the court, they or their lawyers will try to minimise such penalties. Most protesters will indeed avoid prosecution or be given a “slap on the wrist” because in the scheme of things their offences are trivial; this is in the opinion of prosecutors and magistrates who make the decisions. It is also the opinion of… Read more »
Tom the first and best
Guest
Tom the first and best

36

There is a vast distance between leaving a decades old existing wildlife corridor (created for non-environmental reasons) which has significant support, and killing humans which is only supported by the fringe of the fringe of the fringe. There are even more steps in between those two things, the most prominent being converting existing human use land back to wildlife use (not all that radical) to allowing and sometimes even encouraging the world population to decline.

peter cavanagh
Guest

You have missed the most important aspect of a Tasmanian election “family size” if all your family vote for you you are in.

Paul Austin
Guest

MagicPudding: The Green movement is getting more extreme. In Germany, they had the area around the former inner German border turned into a Mother Earth wilderness area simply because it had not been used by humans for years. They plan to do the same in Korea.
It’s only a small step from that to deciding that it’s ok to murder humans to clear the way for the restoration of areas of Mother Earth wilderness.

MagicPudding
Guest

Kevin@30,
Mostly love your work, but I have to differ with you on the subject of protests.
[they can’t seem to convince too many people via normal peaceful protests]
Obstructive protests are still peaceful. They are also pretty normal; they have been going on for decades. You mean “via protests which do not inconvenience anyone”.
[…and there’s probably a reason for that]
Indeed, and you gave it in your preceding sentence,
[…because it gets more publicity than just a peaceful rally.]

A rally would need large numbers to attract national publicity, and even then there is no guarantee of coverage if it does not suit the media proprietor’s interests. Remember how big rallies against the Iraq war were mostly ignored? A confrontation, especially if there are some arrests, is harder to ignore.

I am sure most protesters are well aware that they risk arrest and are prepared to cop a penalty for their activities. Like anyone who finds themselves before the court, they or their lawyers will try to minimise such penalties. Most protesters will indeed avoid prosecution or be given a “slap on the wrist” because in the scheme of things their offences are trivial; this is in the opinion of prosecutors and magistrates who make the decisions. The protesters’ own views of the seriousness of their offences is not a relevant factor in these decisions.

I do agree with your comments @17. The Labor Party could not go to the election as a coalition, and while the way it has been handled looks a bit clumsy it is probably the best available in the circumstances, both for Labor and for the Greens. It would probably have been better to include a sunset clause in their agreement, but it is understandable that this was neglected at the time. If the Green ministers had not been dismissed they would have had to resign over the proposed pulp mill legislation, damaging their narrative of stable power-sharing government. Being sacked absolves them of blame, while allowing the Labor Party to look at least a little bit hairy-chested to its base.

Kevin Bonham
Guest

I have great difficulty ordering my vote for the coming election because all three parties in parliament were fundamentally unpalatable to me at some stage or other. The Liberals when they all opposed abortion law reform and same-sex marriage, Labor and the Greens when they supported an amendment to anti-discrimination law that I viewed as having extremely dangerous implications for political commentary and internet debate. The latter was fixed by the Legislative Council but not before I put a lot of work into putting the case that it was not just right-wingers who had reason to be worried about the proposed changes.

Then there is PUP who have not fundamentally annoyed me in the same way but who I’m very wary of as they seem to be an incoherent mess of populism with low quality control and no valid political purpose.

I may only feel obliged to vote all the way down if there are right-wing religious types who I need to put last.

On that score the Australian Christians have applied for registration but they’ll be pushing it to make it in time; indeed any properly-framed last-minute objection (however spurious) will scuttle them.

wpDiscuz