With election day tomorrow, it’s time for another open thread about the Tasmanian election. This thread provides an opportunity for commenters to discuss the campaign and results, share links, make predictions, and so forth!
Please note LP’s statement on electoral comment.
Update: Live chat at The Poll Bludger starting now (2pm AEST).
Update: Latest Newspoll results – Labor 35, Liberals 36.5, Greens 25.5. More detail at The Poll Bludger.
Previous discussion: here.
Update [by Mark] William Bowe is live blogging the election count at The Poll Bludger.
Update [by Mark] On both results and the federal implications.
This is actually a reply to one of Helen’s comments on the old thread.
The BLF which conducted the Greens Bans was the NSW BLF led by Jack Mundey, Bob Pringle and Joe Owens. It was deregistered and taken over by the Maoist National BLF led by Norm Gallagher. One of Gallagher’s young Maoist organisers who was involved in this shameful episode was Jim Bacon, who subsequently became Labor Premier of Tasmania in 1998 until being succeeded by Pol Lenin – sorry, Paul Lennon – in 2004, so Richard Flanagan’s comparison of Tasmanian Labor with Norm Gallagher’s BLF is quite close to the mark.
The material coming through on the ALP campaigning in Tasmania this week suggests a party quite badly rattled and losing judgement.
Listening to David Bartlett on Radio National this morning he betrayed the sense of entitlement of the ALP to rule and how dare all these Tasmanians have the nerve to vote for a party other than the duopoly that currently control the market.
The implications of a result along the lines suggested by the polls for the Federal scene, to the extent that there are any, are not really good news for the Liberal Party.
Update: Live chat at the Poll Bludger starting now (2pm AEST).
Re: Paul @ 1
Kelly’s Bush! And still there today.
Personally, I’m horrified that 75% aren’t planning to vote green. How could anybody seriously contemplate voting for the ‘dirty-tricks’ labor party or the utterly incompetent libs? I’m still hoping (fantasizing) for a late swing to green to make them the majority party.
I fantasise about things too but nothing to do with the Tasmanian election.
Jenny said:
I agree. It would be fabulous to think that the majority of ALP voters would switch to the Greens so that they finished up with 50%+ of the votes, but it’s hard to see.
Last I heard, 25% was what the Greens were getting. One supposes that they could get as high as 30% which would give them 7-8 seats.
I began thinking about how I’d rate the plausible outcomes in terms of the least evils.
From worst to best of the plausible outcomes:
1. Liberals rule in their own right with 13 seats (unlikely but not out of the question
2. Labour returns in their own right with 13 seats (unlikely but not out of the question
3. Liberal minority government supported by ALP
4. ALP minority government supported by Liberals
5. ALP minority government supported by Greens
6. ALP-Green coalition in which ALP is majority
7. Green-led government (8 seats to seven) supported by ALP as a whole
8. Green-led government (8 seats to seven) supported by defecting ALP members leaving 3 rightwing ALP to block with the Liberals.
Some of the benefits of case 3 and 4 lie in the fact that both majors might be discredited. 5 and beyond would give the Greens enormous leverage but with risks.
Helen on the other thread uses one sentence of mine to suggest I am evil like the evil man she says Daniel Nalliah is. Everything I said is on the public record. Nalliah has done some good things, and you should read the catch the fire web site for these. It is correct to say he is a bit of a nutter and a loony but he is not evil. I think he would do a good turn for you Helen if you were in need. I disagree with his views on bushfires, and that is on the public record. Unlike my friend from Geeveston, and unlike Pastor Nalliah, I do not support the election of Jacquie Petrusma in Franklin. Charles Richardson is in Geeveston this afternoon, and he might tell us if he has a conversation with Cait Catt. I’m sure it would be a very interesting one.
Update [by Mark] William Bowe is live blogging the election count at The Poll Bludger.
Where are you myriad74? We need the inside goss.
Hodgman has just claimed victory of sorts, on the floor of the tally room. Barlett vowed that if there was a tie of seats–which is what appears probable at the moment: 10-10-5–then the party with the greatest votes would have the right to form government. Of course, such a promise can be renegotiated, refigured.
Really, all bets are off at this point and there is some way to go before the key seats of Braddon, Denison and Franklin are declared. Nick Mckim, Greens leader is expected to speak next at Wrest Point Casino–the tally room– next. An apt venue!
McKim’s speech was much longer and more passionate than Hodgman’s. Claiming a hung parliament as a victory for a new Tas. Keywords were accountability and stability, and he extended a spirit of “constructiveness and cooperation” to each of the other parties. It is the highest green vote–21.3%–in Australian history.
Oh yeah, in an echo of someone familiar to Lprodders, McKim claimed the result one for the new believers!
That is a high green vote- it looks like the scare tactics are starting to fail. It will be interesting to see whether Labor learns a lesson about that federally.
Barlett’s speech is as long as McKim’s and quite odd. It sounded, in part, much like a campaign speech and he spent a considerable time thanking his staff, family. The speech was bookended by a couple of quotes: one about the weight of responsibility that falls to those that lead, and another from Eleanor Roosevelt about believing in dreams. Tony Jones called it a gnomic speech. I agree; it was mystifying on the basic questions . . .
Update [by Mark] On both results and the federal implications.
@13 – Ag, that’s a good line!
Ya reckon. Trouble is belief is now so passe.
I mean, aren’t all greens agnostic?
Jesus, that’s a bit of obscure Kremlinology. Though I hadn’t realised how tenuous the old BLF’s claim to be soulmates of the Green movement was. I imagine ‘We invented the term Green’ isn’t something Left unionists, whether in the modern CFMEU or not, really care for.
Richard Flanagan’s brother is Martin the Age columnist, right?
I actually wouldn’t mind reading what he has to say about Tasmanian politics, as I doubt it would be filtered through Melbourne seventies- or Bacon Derangment Syndrome-filters.
BTW, Lennon as a trade union official was a backer of Senator Harradine, but I wouldn’t be trying to walk that connection back to Norm Gallagher.
There is a connection. The National Civic Council once did a deal with the Normie Gallagher BLF to get some of their candidates elected to the ACTU council. Can’t remember the details but the Gallagher BLF were less harmful to the NCC when Santa was alive than pro-Moscow variety Communists of the Mundy variety and home grown commos like Halfpenny.
NCC types have long memories, and some in the SDA helped Lefty Jenny Macklin over the line in her preselection in Jaga Jaga against Labor Unity right-winger Phil Bain. Seems Dr Bain, according to Andrew Landeryou’s news site (the OC I think – it’s currently called Vexnews) was a Communist at La Trobe Uni as a student but saw the light and joined the Right. So it’s not all that surprising that Lennon or even Bacon once supported Harradine. Santa was one of the best strategists around, and deals with what he considered a lesser devil were better than doing deals with a greater devil.
I actually wouldn’t mind reading what he has to say about Tasmanian politics, as I doubt it would be filtered through Melbourne seventies- or Bacon Derangment Syndrome-filters.
Nick, only too glad to oblige.
A classic article, and one everyone should read. Still relevant to what’s happening now. Some of the faces and tactics may have changed…
ALP 10 seats….er, can they be certain about the flow of Liberal preferences in Franklin to secure their second quota?
Caroline Church @ 21; this legacy doesn’t surprise me. I think this is one reason why serious labour history buffs (i.e. the kind of people who study the subject objectively, and not merely to reinforce some feelgood narrative that will make the hearts of themselves and their sainted union grandpas sing blah blah blah) refrain from trying to enforce any old sanctions. Because every section of the movement had their part in shady politics in the good old days.
Helen, it was Martin’s views I was interested in, not Richard. I read Richard’s famous politics of personal destruction piece.
Helen, it was Martin’s views I was interested in, not Richard.
Oh, okay, see here.
Nick @20 re Paul Norton @ 1. He’s right. I thought eveyone knew that.
Caroline #21, Jack Mundey wasn’t a Moscow-liner. He was a strong supporter of the CPA’s independent line from 1967 onwards and the Green Bans were opposed in the crassest terms by some of the Moscow-liners in the construction unions.
“Richard Flanagan’s brother is Martin the Age columnist, right?”
Just because two blokes from Tasmania have the same surname doesn’t mean they are brothers. This is just propagating the worst stereotypes.
Sam #28, Andrew Norton and I strongly agree with you.
But I thought you two were brothers.
Come to think of it, I’ve never actually seen Andrew and Paul in the same room…
d
Quite right Paul … by then it was Pat Clancy from the SPA which was pro-Moscow
http://catchthefire.com.au/blog/2010/03/21/vic-equal-opportunity-urgent-please-write-to-mps/
Oh look, yes Danny is a lovely bloke, Caroline Church . Right now he is exhorting his flock to subvert the Victorian Equal Opportunity Bill 2010 and water it down even more than it already is. You see, it should be their holy right to discriminate against unbelievers for any reason they want.
http://anonymouslefty.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/one-test-for-whether-a-bill-is-worthwhile-or-not-ctfm-opposition-almost-certainly-a-good-thing/