I was interested to hear Tasmanian Greens leader Nick McKim comment on the 7.30 Report that neither Will Hodgman nor David Bartlett had yet contacted him.
I linked in an earlier post to an article reviewing the precedents for a negotiated arrangement for support of a Liberal minority government. But that doesn’t exhaust the range of possibilities. The intricacies of the Hare-Clark system mean that it’s still possible that the Liberals will end up with 9 rather than 10 seats, which would presumably give Labor first call on forming a government (the Westminster system never really having been designed – even in semi-proportional incarnations – to recognise votes rather than seats as conferring legitimacy).
It’s also possible that both major parties could refuse to negotiate with The Greens, leaving the onus on them to support or oppose confidence motions, and supply. That might promote ‘uncertainty’, but it would also set an effectively higher bar for an election, because it could be represented as arbitrary or capricious in the absence of written stipulations seeking to define what would be the grounds for removing confidence.
Labor may also be happy to sit in opposition, hoping that the tensions a Liberals/Greens arrangement might produce would give them an electoral advantage as against both parties at a regularly scheduled or early election, should the accord not survive.
And then there’s Richard Farmer’s take, based on the proposition that the result represents an anti-Liberal majority both in votes and seats. He argues that many Greens supporters would be unhappy with propping up a Liberal government, and that such a decision would cause tensions within the party:
Yet what if the Greens unilaterally declare they would guarantee a Labor Government the passage of supply and thus a basic stability to administration but would not do so if there was a Liberal Party Premier?
Such a thought should enter the McKim mind because the overwhelming majority of those that voted for his party are to the left of the Tasmanian Labor Party, let alone the Tasmanian Liberal Party. They surely did not vote Green so that there would be a truly conservative administration. If the Greens elected to Parliament anoint conservative rule for the next four years, there will be much disappointment among their supporters. The risk of losing support next time around would be considerable.
That makes me think this is not yet the open and shut scenario that is being so widely predicted.
Post-secondary education is a big problem down here. Bartlett has championed changes to the college and TAFE system which have been resisted by the AEU, and both the Greens and Libs have promised to return to the prior system. Finding a compromised position on such issues as these might well be the grounds on which a government is formed, rather than electoral prospects up to 4 years down the track.
It is very hard for both Labor and Liberal to share the “spoils of power”, since the pursuit of it has become their primary goal.
You win (and form government) or lose (and go into opposition with other hapless parties with to few numbers).
I find it really interesting that McKim canvassed power sharing between all three parties. Imagine that; the best elected people getting the most appropriate ministries.
Like Malcolm Turnbull getting being the Treasurer of a Labor Government because he is the best qualified person for the job.
They can do this in the United States, but our charade of democracy doesn’t allow for it – yet.
As Mark points out one of the risks for the Greens is that they will back the Liberals and then find that they lose the votes of those who object strongly to this position. So there is case for the Greens to simply provide basic support and largely forget about hard bargaining before anointing a government. (Basic support means support against no confidence motions, supply and at least the total tax requested during budgets.) This would mean that they would have to depend on bargaining during the life of the parliament to achieve objectives that aren’t really supported by either Labor or Liberal.
In addition, the Greens run the risk of being seen as blockers who make the state too difficult to govern if they keep blocking the governments plans. Sure, they can only block with the support of the opposition but it is the Greens that will get most of the blame and punishment by the voters.
I think Richard would be right on the money – if he was talking about any other state. I have close rellos in Tas, and everything Green voters object to most strongly (Pro forestry deals, naked corruption at all levels, undue influence of key firms )is held 100% common by the both of the Gunn’s parties.
Plus McKim is serious about reworking the whole way the voters think about stability – this is what will make the Greens – now a mainstream party – stay that way. Minority govt supported by Greens working fine in ACT.
I reckon he’ll go with the larger vote if they’re level on seats, or larger number of seats if not. That way he’s left it in the hands of the Tas people – no one will criticise them for that stance.
“Grand Coalitions” between the two major parties are not that uncommon in some European countries, but I think it might be a bridge too far in an Australian context (although I’m sure alliances of a similar type have occurred in local government context here).
These situations provide risk and opportunities for all parties (and I should emphasise I have precisely zero direct insight into what the Tassie Greens might do). A chance to have a more direct say over what happens in at least some policy areas has to be balanced against getting tainted with every unpopular decision the government makes – whilst also getting diluted direct credit for popular things that happen during the term of the government.
If the Greens allow Labor to continue to govern, they risk being seen as ignoring a tide of opinion which sees the Tas Labor party as bloated with arrogance, cronyism and (suspected) corruption. If the Greens allow the Libs to govern, they risk being seen as giving extra influence to the extreme right types such as Eric Abetz et al which inhabit that party. But those sort of difficult decisions are part and parcel of what comes with greater power/responsibility, and there are ways to negate those risks, whichever way they decide to go.
It’ll have some challenges whichever way the Greens go (unless Labor and Lib do do the unthinkable (in Australia at least) and form a ‘Grand’ Coalition – which politically might suit the Greens best of all, as it would make them the official Opposition, but would also leave them outside the more direct influence/power which comes from being part of the government.
Having said that, the comments of Nick McKim and his fellow Tassie Greens both before and (more importantly) after election day give me a strong feeling that they are well aware of all these challenges/risks/opportunities and will take their time to make a fully considered decision, based first and foremost on what they think will deliver the best policy/governance outcomes for Tasmania. That’s what really counts – you figure out how to manage the subsequent political dynamics and consequences afterwards.
If Liberal and Labour were smart and visionary thehy would form a coalition. i feel sorry for the majority of Tasmanians who’s will has been trashed by their electoral system.
“i feel sorry for the majority of Tasmanians who’s will has been trashed by their electoral system”
WTF?!?
Is that the <40% of Tasmanians who voted Liberal or the <40% of Tasmanians who voted Labor? How is their will "trashed by their electoral system"? Or is OK for the "will" of less than 40% of the electorate have total dominance over the "will" of the 60+% for the next four years?
By matching % of votes to % of seats, Razor? Yeah…. terrible!
I think its pretty clear Tasmania voted for minority govt – probably to ensure accountability by putting at least two parties in charge.
Will quite possibly work too. If only the rest of us had that option.
It’s also possible that both major parties could refuse to negotiate with The Greens, leaving the onus on them to support or oppose confidence motions, and supply. That might promote ‘uncertainty’, but it would also set an effectively higher bar for an election, because it could be represented as arbitrary or capricious in the absence of written stipulations seeking to define what would be the grounds for removing confidence.
IIRC Canada has a minority government under those circumstances ATM – and its more stable than you would think, mainly because the non-government parties are all too scared of an election, and so keep voting confidence and supply against the wishes of their supporters.
In NZ, bar the first MMP election, we’ve had relatively painless experiences negotiating confidence and supply agreements. The parties accept the electoral hand they’ve been dealt, and try and find an arrangement that works. I’d hope the Tasmanian parties would think the same way. But they seem to still be regarding the Greens as upstart intruders into their cosy political duopoly, which isn’t a good basis for a relationship.
Speaking for myself, I’d love a Hare-Clarke system in Queensland. A multi-member electorate system which eschews party lists? Where people really get to choose their actual favorite candidate from their favorite party? Sweet. Watching the ABC telecasts on Saturday, I noticed how common it was for sitting members to lose to new candidates from the same party. Interesting – a system that permits people to boot out the timeservers, deadwood and other assorted party hacks in favor of people that might actually represent them.
FFS, Razor: what’s not to like?
Yep -its agreat system, as you get PR (within districts) AND (more or less) local representatives as well. Its better on representation than single member districts (the alleged strong suit of SMD)- as most people get a local member from their preferred political party as well. Not just if yours happens to win.
“Minority govt supported by Greens working fine in ACT.”
I pointed that out to some of my friends who support the greens and even they say that the ACT is little more than a local council – hardly something you can compare to a state, even a state as small as tassie.
Bruce @12 they may tell you that but there really isn’t that much difference in the population of Tasmania and the A.C.T.
And once that socialist Rudd manages to get his commie hands, further, on our health system the numbers in Canberra will swell exponentially.*
*Excuse tea bag moment.
I agree with PeterC @ 2. The major parties will happily compromise their core values and policies to obtain power. This is not something the Greens want to be doing. This is not why people voted for or joined the Greens. Worrying about offending certain party members is not something to worry about if you are sticking to your core values and policies as you go about business.
Razor’s argument is absurd. Everyone in Tasmania with an IQ measured in three digits knew that a hung parliament would be the result if they voted the way the polls said they would and they went ahead and did it anyway. Four former premiers from both parties warned the voters about the perils of minority government and the voters gave them the bird. The election result is exactly as intended by the voters.
I like how the Tasmanian election has given Nick McKim a national profile.
Down and Out of Sài Gòn @ 10
No better example than the defeat of former Minister, Graeme Sturges. Sturges is famous for berating a security official with the unlovely phrase “Don’t you know who I am” after being stopped from walking straight through a security checkpoint. The electorate made its judgment: jerk! And just like that he’s gone. If only the senate worked like that so we could do something about Eric Abetz.
Of course, we almost got a Hare-Clark system for Queensland local government (including the Brisbane City Council), had it not been for The Greens’ preference negotiators deciding to put Ronan Lee’s (always questionable) survival in Indooroopilly before the offer of pr in council elections when negotiating with Labor in the lead up to last year’s state election. Huge own goal, and very unfortunate for the people of Queensland.
And just to underscore Andrew Bartlett’s point above, it is very clear that the 60% that didn’t vote Liberal wanted a government sympathetic to those elements of the ALP and green agenda that could be reconciled. For the 40% Liberals to have its way would have zero legitimacy.
Well then Fran, Bartlett will have to be rolled or resign. He’s refusing to talk to the Greens.
And unfortunately – it doesn’t really work that way under Westminster. In the absence of a majority or deal creating one – the largest party gets to test their govt on the floor.
If seats are level, you’d have to go with largest vote share.
As I said above, I think its quite clear Tasmanian voted against majority govt – probably for transparency and accountability reasons.
Mark, your comment #18 has left me groping desperately for a way to reconcile my sense of comradely duty with my sense of intellectual integrity.
I’ve been wondering, if Labor or Liberal ‘win’ on the seat count, would it be a workable plan to offer the Greens the Speakership in return for the Greens abstaining on confidence votes? That seems like an ‘easier’ deal of everyone than negotiating explicit support on confidence.
On reflection, if the seat count is tied, and the Greens threaten not to nominate a candidate for speaker, the Speaker vote determines who forms government. That is, the party who provides the Speaker loses a seat and becomes the opposition. Is that right?
:^)
d
Because we know that Qld ALP has an honourable tradition of maintaining all of their election commitments, especially since the last election…
I sincerely hope that the Greens exercise their balance of power with energy, aggression and without comprimise. I want them to be absolutely and completely true to their aims and willing to block supply or force changes of government when they don’t get their way.
@23 – given that anyone who wasn’t deluding themselves knew that Ronan Lee had no chance of re-election in Indro, and that promises given as part of preference negotiations which are subsequently broken would greatly impact on future negotiations (and that the ALP, it could have been inferred, would need preferences even more for a sixth than a fifth term), it seems to me to be an inexplicably dumb decision, no matter what one thinks of Bligh’s political morality. I know there are people in the Queensland Greens who’d agree.
I’m certainly not defending the resources put into Lee’s seat (including preference negotiations). I absolutely agree about that.
However if the ALP think that such a reform of the BCC electoral system was a good idea that could do it any time they like. Conversely if they don’t think its a good idea they’re hardly likely to fulfil any such bargain. It’s a bit much to suggest that important issues of policy are substantially determined by these prefernce negotiations.
Regardless of the (non)sense of the Greens preference dealing strategy, they have every right to be suspicious of the worth of any such policy deals put on the table.
Jacques @24. The Greens are not the only ones with the balance of power. All three parties have it in equal share.
Bartlett can cut a deal with the Greens but refuses to – so that counts him out. Plus he has fewer votes overall than the Liberals – so he should be a dead duck. What he is clinging on to (other than power) is not clear.
Hodgson can cut a deal with the Greens – and has reversed his pre-election position of refusing to negotiate with them – so it looks like this may break the deadlock.
However, irrespective of who forms government and who the minister are (some may be Green), Labor and Liberal can vote together (exercising their balance of power) on any bill before the parliament.
This seems to be what the Tasmanian people – considered as a block – prefer.
I would imagine some issues won’t be compromised by any party. Paul Lennon even stated on the election night broadcast that old growth logging was over due to Japanese requirements for FSC certification, which old growth logging would never get.
Now we get to see the parties true colours and beliefs.
@26 – Perhaps so, Martin, but then one wonders why they negotiate over policy initiatives at all? At each election, The Greens have asked for specific action or legislation which Labor might easily have done otherwise, had they wanted. If one were to exercise your level of caution, it’s difficult to see why there would be any basis whatever for the two parties to negotiate.
You could also make an argument that in the BCC, proportional representation would be in Labor’s interest too, as there’d very likely be Liberal majorities in Council on only very rare occasions.
Jacques: let’s see if I understand you correctly. You want to Greens to act exactly like your party the LDP would act if they ever got within cooee’s distance of holding the balance of power?
Certainly you could. There would seem to be a decision as to whether the ALP would prefer frequent power-sharing arrangements with the Greens or less frequent single party rule.
I imagine that a number of hardheads in the ALP have reasonably strong opinions about this subject which is why I am sceptical that the same would allow the decision to be effectively made by Greens party negotiators.
The offer came from Labor, Martin.
Martin B #30 has prompted me to recall an address by former Tasmanian ALP Leader Michael Field in the 1990s about the original thinking behind the “Labor Majority government in Tasmania” line and associated intransigence towards the Greens. His argument was that this would force Green voters and would-be Green voters to realise that they were wasting their time voting Greens, that the real choice was Labor versus Liberal, and that this would force them back into the Labor fold. In this light the strategy must be deemed an historic failure. The question is whether Tasmanian Labor hardheads are psychologically capable of recognising this reality.
I’m not a convention nerd but I don’t think that’s how it works in Westminster either.
I believe the incumbent Premier is perfectly entitled to test their government on the floor of Parliament where the situation is unclear.
If the situation is clear, because of an explicit comment of the third party, then the Premier should offer their resignation and if they don’t the Governor would be entitled to withdraw their commission.
In this instance Bartlett is voluntarily offering to step down because of receiving fewer votes. But that’s not a conventional requirement.
I’m not sure how that affects any of the arguments I’ve put forward.
It does raise another question though: are the ALP preference negotiators the same people who are in a position to determine legislative policy through cabinet and caucus?
A question for Andrew Bartlett. Are you related to David?
@34 – They’re certainly people who can commit the Premier. Caucus doesn’t count for very much in the Queensland ALP.
Btw – agree with you on @33.
My impression is the Westminster system can work that way in the UK and has done since I think 1688 from time to time in that there is no restriction on members voting against their own party. (a bit like the Libs here, theoretically. It’s where they got the idea from.) However, party discipline here in the ALP, and for that matter in the Libs if they have a very slender majority, and even the Greens (remember the fuss about Bob Brown and Telstra?) makes it a very unlikely scenario for Australia, except when Independents hold the balance of power. Only the Democrats seemed to have embraced this Westminster theory of independence and look what happened to them.
On checking Carney’s book, the only thing to add to this is that if the situation is genuinely unclear then the Governor should summon the Parliament as soon as practicable to do this.
Now, now. Some of our best friends…
“The Greens’ preference negotiators”? Plural?
“An inexplicably dumb decision… I know there are people in the Queensland Greens who’d agree”.. including some candidates, the people in the front line, who’d put their lives and jobs on hold to stand, and who could see the “Now Is The Time for All Good party Folk To Come to The Aid Of Ronan” preference deal damaging their own chances.
Most spectacularly hospital-passed was the Gympie candidate Kent Hutton, (most definitely in this context not to be confused with Hutton, Drew). Kent had to jettison the famous qld greens ‘head office says’ party discipline and go public,
That story in the Gympie Times ( it really is called that) got to carry what has to be the most mishievous , in the best ‘Man Bites Dog’ tradition, headline of the election
The issue Danny raises is a recurring dilemma for the Greens and for the environmental movement – what to do in an election where one party is supporting an environmentally harmful development in a particular region or locality, but is considered to have the better platform overall. A similar thing occurred in 1995 – activists opposed to the South Coast Motorway who were forced, by Goss Government intransigence, to carry that opposition into the election (with spectaculare success), disagreed with the peak conservation groups who were campaigning for the re-election of the Labor Government on the strength of its better overall environmental policy.
This is an important and intriguing issue, but I fear that it is OT on this thread.
“It does raise another question though: are the ALP preference negotiators the same people who are in a position to determine legislative policy through cabinet and caucus?”
The Greens in Qld have, in the past, had some trouble working out who they should bother talking to in the Qld ALP. We once had long and difficult negotiations with the ALP State Secretary only to discover after the election that Premier & Cabinet didn’t regard his commitments as binding them to anything.
And Mark, I might be misreading you, but in Jan 2007 the QGreens advised the Qld ALP and P&C of our position on local government electoral reform. It might be true the ALP brought an offer to the table at the start of the 2009 negotiations, but that was in response to a preexisting log of claims from the Greens.
d
Darryl, thanks – I wasn’t aware of the backstory.
@39 – indeed!
@42 – Darryl, I suspect that’s because it’s been a long time since the State Secretary really counted for much, as opposed to being head apparatchik when not bypassed by Hawker Britton during election campaigns. I suspect it’s a variation on the negotiating tactic often used in IR where you send someone in with an impressive looking title, but no real authority – usually as a stalling tactic. I imagine the prize catch until recently would have been to get Kaiser in the room, because he kinda *was* the Queensland ALP for all intents and purposes there for a while (one of the reasons the show is in such a mess now, incidentally!)…
Anyway, I seem to have derailed my own thread!
You could even say that Kaiser was the king of the Queensland ALP for all intents and purposes.
Just to get back to Tasmania for a moment
People who think that the Tasmanian ALP and the Greens are naturally more closely aligned are very ignorant of the history down here.
Tasmanian Labor with few honorable exceptions is right wing and strongly controlled by similar & more unpleasant arms of the unions and big business. I could write a dissertation on all the ways that the ALP has in 12 years done disgraceful monopoly deals with some business including forestry, has completely neglected and actively undermined environmental management, is tainted repeatedly with corruption, and has comprehensively failed to deliver on core ALP values such as health and education. There are very few shining lights for the ALP down here, although some new blood, which in turn will hopefully allow more progressive members such as Deputy P Lara Giddings to step out, might help.
It would also pay to have a look at the suite of policies that the Tas Libs put forward and you might start to see more policy alignments with the Greens than you would at first think. Hodgeman is more like Turnbull than Abbot.
Fundamentally too, Hodgeman is more honest, but disappointingly weak in the face of the Lib back-room boys.
So I’ll predict neither deal as more likely but will point out that people who think there’s a natural alignment – particularly around environment – between the ALP and the Greens in Tas are very mistaken, and whatever transpires with either Libs or the ALP will come down to who wins the internal tussles in the major parties -the hard right or the more progressive elements.
Myriad, we only have to think back to 2004 when the Tasmanian Labor government and the leadership of the Forestry Thugs Division of the CFMEU connived to prevent Labor having a coherent and disciplined position on forests coming into the 2004 election. We should not allow the Fashionable Cult of Anti-Latham to divert us from where the real blame lay in that episode.
I can’t speak exactly for the LDP — my gut feeling is that LDP MPs would act less like disciplined party members and more like independents — but in the case of the Greens they definitely need their turn on the big bench. Because it only has to happen once for people to realise that the Greens are the party of regress. I want that party — as it is today, riddled with anti-capitalists — to fail in the long run.
Premature success is often deadly to any outlying ideology. Mine too. Our system of voting requires you to carry the median voters. That is its greatest strength and most troublesome flaw. It makes patience the most important quality of a reformer.
On the other hand, you always need the inflexible types to pull the whole debate in your direction. You need ideologues who are never satisfied with any compromise, no matter how generous.
Agree entirely Paul. I keep having to write in a hurry, but I also meant to point out that this being a small state, people really do know or know people who know their local politician, and it counts very much.
I think given half a chance a lot of Tasmanians would prefer a government made up of politicians from across the three parties who are held in high esteem around the state. It’s the irony behind the reflexive fear of minority government so carefully fostered by the bruvvers.
Why would the Libs go further to the left than the ALP to make an arrangement? Cut the Greens out of it.
if the greens have anything to do with it
Abject poverty
Jacques,
Indeed. For those reasons I think that the Libs should just be inflexible with their platform and essentially force the ALP and the Greens into office. I can’t see the ALP being any less dishonest or any less likely to stick to their ideals nor can I see the Greens being any more likely to be sensible on the Treasury benches. The result is likely to be a short-lived government, another election and then a Lib majority government.
That said, I have little confidence that the Libs, in government, would be truly liberal.
Like the Liberals are going to give up the opportunity to get driven around in the big white cars and be called “Minister”.
ROFL.
I’m not so sure that Labor and Green are natural allies. Essentially both Labor and Liberal are dedicated to plunder of the Earth’s resources (maximising GDP) and the Greens would like to slow it down. Of course Labor and Liberal disagree about the distribution of the plunder between bosses and workers, but only a little. In recent years, federal ALP have become adept at portraying themselves as having an environmental side, but if it exists at all, it’s very ineffective, and they’re always a bit embarrassed about it. No such pretence though in Tassie; Labor are sworn enemies of the Greens and always have been.
It’s been said that if one of the new Liberals, Matthew Groom, had walked in to a Greens office offering himself as a candidate they would fallen over themselves to sign him up. Can’t say the same about any of the new Labor MPs.
The CFMEU will never allow any deals with the Greens and the Hodgeman is too weak to stand up to Abetz so I guess it’s back to business as usual for us… http://tinyurl.com/yaresed
See you in the bush.
From the ABC: Tas Liberals rule out Green ministers. So if there’s going to be a coalition, it’s going to be either Labor-Green, or Razor’s dream combo of Labor-Liberal. Of course, the latter partnership will make the Greens the official party of opposition, as well as seriously pissing off the base of the other two parties. Go for it, I say.
“I believe the incumbent Premier is perfectly entitled to test their government on the floor of Parliament where the situation is unclear.”
Well, leaving aside the fact he’s said he wont – that may be true in theory, but 5 minutes later we’d be reverting to the largest party or largest vote share – unless a deal was cut for majority on confidence issues.
Put it this way: if you don’t have more seats, a larger vote share, or a deal guaranteeing confidence: next!
In this situation it would certainly help a leader if they could advise the governor that as the Tas people didn’t create a majority, or even a larger plurality, the next best thing is their larger vote share.
If the Libs have really ruled out having greens in their ministry the whole ministry has to come from their 10 whole members. Not sure of their quality but there are going to be some very third rate ministers.
It might be better for the state if the premier was someone who was good at building up a consensus and the ministry came from all parties and/or included some outsiders. So perhaps the parliament should elect the premier directly (with the candidates not restricted to party leaders – ideally, what is needed is someone who is acceptable to all parties) with the cabinet elected using Hare Clarke or similar so that all the parties end up with at least some cabinet ministers.
Down & Out @57, this doesn’t rule out a deal between the Liberals and the Greens.
With Labor spitting the dummy and ruling out any negotiations, it simply means that the Liberals don’t have to include giving the Greens ministries as part of any power sharing deal.
For those who think Labor and the Greens are aligned, remember that Senator Kim Carr and his merry men cut the preference deal with Family First the elected fielding rather than the Greens David Risstrom in Victoria. And the pro logging factions (ready CFMEU) in Labor hate the Greens too.
Also, the Greens are not currently threatening any Liberal seats, but they are threatening 3 to 5 Labor low house seats (State and Federal) across Australia, so its game on. Expect more Labor dirt campaigns like the one just done in Tasmania. And the Liberals have used similar tactics too, when it suits them.
John D, that would be a ministry comprising 11 members, assuming they get 10 in the lower house. They have their current shadow AG, Vanessa Goodwin, in the upper house. That said, that’s a shallow pool in places. One long term solution to this problem is to expand the seats back to 35. In the short term, I’m hoping for some compromise, but the counting of preferences doesn’t begin until next Tuesday, so there’s bound to be some posturing, like Hodgman’s this morning, in the meantime.
Tasmania has an upper house? Haven’t seen that mentioned in any of the coverage. Was it part of the election?
Josh #62, the Legislative Council is elected separately and on a different basis, as explained here.
As I write, the preferences are being distributed in Braddon following the elimination of Labor’s Shane Broad. His preferences will get the second Labor member Brenton Best elected. After that, unless the distribution of Best’s surplus allows the Liberal’s Brett Whitely to catch up 600 votes on the Greens’ Paul O’Halloran (which is highly unlikely,Whitely will be eliminated leaving O’Halloran and Liberal Adam Brooks as the final two members elected and a 10/10/5 split in the Lower House.
Paul O’Halloran has taken the last seat in Braddon, giving the Greens 5 and the old parties 10 each.
And in other wonderful news, David Llewellyn has lost his seat – so long to the Minister for Threatening Species, he will not be missed.
Interesting outcome in Tassie. Bartlett has been asked by the Governor to pick up his dummy that he spat out and put it back in and has done so. He remains Premier.
Hodgson has just spat his out in a major hissy fit. I have two words of advice to them both – grow up.
Nick McKim is the only political leader in Tasmania displaying good leadership right now.