Click here for full display of Tasmanian first preference results.
Saturday
Craig Garland has won the final seat in Braddon reasonably comfortably with 7861 votes after preferences, or 11.1% of the total, to fourth Liberal Giovanna Simpson on 6481, or 9.1%. So the Liberals emerge with 14 seats against ten for Labor, five for the Greens, three for the Jacqui Lambie Network and three independents, which will leave the Liberals relying on both the Jacqui Lambie Network and at least one independent, none of whom are natural ideological allies, to keep the show on the road.
Friday
The odds on independent Craig Garland reducing the Liberals to 14 seats by winning the last seat in Braddon continue to shorten. As things presently stand, three seats remain to be decided between six candidates left in the count. One is certain to go to Labor’s Shane Broad, who is 67 votes short of a quota, and another to Miriam Beswick of the Jacqui Lambie Network, who will be elected when party colleague James Redgrave is excluded, the two between them having 917 votes to spare over a quota. Darren Briggs of the Greens, presently on 4901 votes, will then go out. With the distribution of these preferences, Garland will need to close a gap of 5870 to 5479 against the remaining Liberal, Giovanna Simpson. The assessment of Antony Green is that “there are certain to be enough preferences for Garland to gain the required votes to pass Simpson”.
Thursday
The Tasmanian Electoral Commission is now at a fairly advanced stage of conducting its preference distributions, results for which it unusually reports progressively rather than having a computerised system that calculates it all in one hit. These can be found only on the TEC’s site – the numbers shown on my own results facility, linked to above, are finalised first preferences.
This process has made the result look still more interesting, shortening the odds on the Liberals finishing with 14 seats rather than the generally anticipated 15, with Labor on ten, the Greens on five, the Jacqui Lambie Network on three and two independents. In doubt is one seat in Braddon that could either go to a fourth Liberal, which would get them to 15, or Craig Garland, putting independents at three. What follows is my summary of the situation in each of the five divisions, listed this time in order of interest rather than alphabetically.
Braddon. My assessment shortly after the election was that the Liberals would win four, Labor two and the Jacqui Lambie Network one, “barring some impressive preference-gathering from independent Craig Garland on 0.40 quotas or a late-count surprise for the Greens on 0.52”, potentially reducing the Liberals to three and making the parliament yet more unpredictable. The progress of the count so far has shortened the odds on the first of these scenarios coming to pass, with Garland enjoying such strong preferences from Shooters and leakage from excluded Greens candidates that Antony Green now rates him “favoured to win”.
Garland was outpolled by the collective Greens ticket by 4728 to 3637, but now leads the only Greens candidate remaining in the race by 5118 to 4632. With two Liberals elected and two excluded, their three remaining candidates have a combined 14834, 8875 of which will be used to elect Roger Jaensch, leaving 5959 to spare, some of which will leak when the next Liberal is excluded. Garland, meanwhile, should be further boosted as the one Greens and two Labor candidates are excluded.
What is clear in Braddon is that Liberal incumbents Jeremy Rockliff, Felix Ellis and Roger Jaensch will be returned (the first two having already done so) and incumbents Anita Dow and Shane Broad will win the two Labor seats. None of the three JLN candidates has been excluded yet, but it is clear that Craig Cutts soon will be. His preferences will decide the winner between Miriam Beswick on 3612 and James Redgrave on 3325. Based on the JLN’s form elsewhere, it would be unusual for these preferences to overturn an existing lead.
Bass. It is clear the result here will be three Liberal (Michael Ferguson, Rob Fairs and one to be determined), two Labor (Michelle O’Byrne and Janie Finlay), one Greens (Cecily Rosol) and one Jacqui Lambie Network (to be determined). The front-runners for the third Liberal seat are incumbent Simon Wood and Julie Sladden. Preferences so far have favoured Wood, who has added 1457 to a primary vote of 1949 to reach 3406, over Sladden, who has added 930 to 1747 to reach 2677, and will presumably continue to do so. Similarly, in the race for the Jacqui Lambie Network seat, first preference leader Rebekah Pentland has added 1165 to 2409 to reach 3574 while Angela Armstrong has added 1057 to 2033 to reach 3090, which probably leaves Portland home and hosed.
Clark. My post-election assessment was that Labor had a chance of winning a third seat at the expense of either independent incumbent Kristie Johnston or second Greens contender Helen Burnet, but I may have been out on a limb even then. It now appears clear that the result will be Labor two (incumbent Ella Haddad and former upper house member Josh Willie), Liberal two (incumbents Simon Behrakis and Madeleine Ogilvie, the latter seeing off a threat from Liberal rival Marcus Vermey on preferences), Greens two (incumbent Vica Bayley and the aforementioned Helen Burnet) and independents one (Kristie Johnston).
Lyons. As seemed likely from the beginning, the result here is three Liberal (incumbents Guy Barnett and Mark Shelton and former upper house member Jane Howlett), two Labor (Rebecca White and Jen Butler), Greens one (Tabatha Badger) and Jacqui Lambie Network one (preferences for the first excluded Lesley Pyecroft seemingly deciding the result for Andrew Jenner over Troy Pfitzner, the two having been closely matched on first preferences).
Franklin. The only vague doubt here after election night was which of the Labor newcomers would win the party’s second seat, and preferences have confirmed that it will be Meg Brown, as always seemed likely. The result is duly three Liberal (former Senator Eric Abetz, Jacquie Petrusma making a comeback, and incumbent Nic Street) two Labor (Dean Winter and Meg Brown), one Greens (Rosalie Woodruff) and one independent (former Labor leader David O’Byrne).
Comments about Pocock independents coming for the Greens in the ACT election are wishful thinking. Pocock was partly elected by Greens & labor supporters voting tactically to get rid of Seselja. Independents in the ACT need to get something close to 10% of the vote to manage a seat in a five seat electorate. An independent in Murrumbidgee who scored 8% last time did not have enough votes to get ahead of the Greens for the fifth seat and indeed may have prevented the Liberal Party getting a third seat in that electorate. The independents who have ventured into the public domain in the ACT sound like disgruntled Liberal and so far look more likely to be a problem for the Liberal party than the Greens.
Mostly Interested: For the love of god, please read my post before responding to what you assumed was in it.
The Libs ruled out working with the Greens. Labor keeps ruling out – or making comments that effectively rule out – minority government at all.
One of these positions is far more conducive to being in government than the other (for either major party).
I’m not sure why some of the ALP types here keep forgetting that a non-Greens crossbench exists, existed before and is is extremely likely to continue to exist.
This result just keeps getting funnier and funnier.
It appears Tasmanians will be in for a stint of reality TV over the next four years(perhaps).
A media network may be interested in sponsoring one group or another, the network offering lots of good publicity, accommodation and other goodies for scoops, inside information and gossip.
I’m predicting a ratings “hit”, Eric, Jackie (from afar) and various others to the fore.
Are Tasmanians ACTUALLY against minority government or is it just a major party article of the faith in Tassie?
I understand the history that scares people off any admission prior to the election that a “vote Labor, get the Greens” government could need to exist but it seems a bit delusional for Tassie Labor. They would probably be in the box seat to form government if they didn’t effectively rule out minority government.
Well, Tasmanians aren’t a monolith, but just over a third voted for somebody other than the two major parties, and you would expect nearly all those voters to not be too concerned about minority government (or alternately less than enthused about the two major parties).
Additionally, its highly unlikely most Tasmanians did not expect a minority government from the polling, nonetheless it doesn’t seem to have triggered a noticeable stampede to the major parties (quite the opposite – combined share down 11 percent).
Tas Labor’s position is relatively well known. Nonetheless, they got 29% primary and gained less than 1 percent of a 12 percent swing against the government.
Boerwar; I’m interested to hear your opinion on what the greens need to do to win back labor’s trust? sounds like you’ve thought a lot about it and must have some ideas?
aggmagpie: “Boerwar; I’m interested to hear your opinion on what the greens need to do to win back labor’s trust? sounds like you’ve thought a lot about it and must have some ideas?”
Oh dear. We’re likely to get a 25 point list.
Two things are going on in my opinion.
Firstly we have a real polarisation of the voter base. I think Hare Clark actually hides this as you see minor parties being elected across the state. But there’s a very real backlash if Labor ot the Liberals align with the Greens.
The second is absolutely a pox on both houses. When the cross bench I’d effectively as large as the two major parties then there’s a real disillusionment with them. I think Hare Clark accentuates this as there’s a greater cross representation through the quota system.
Meanwhile, there’s Gaggle Government trouble in the Netherlands. The former government is trying to address the issue of too much nitrate in the drinking water and related EU standards. The four Right gaggle parties that are negotiating a new government does not want the old ministers to do anything but has yet to agree on the terms of a new government.
Paralysis.
(A bit like the serial paralysis delivered by the gaggle of Dutton, Pocock, Lambie and Bandt in the Australian Senate).
They are well into the fifth month of negotiations.
Boerwar: “(A bit like the serial paralysis delivered by the gaggle of Dutton, Pocock, Lambie and Bandt in the Australian Senate).”
Again with the serial crossbench hate, no matter the political stripes. You (and others of your ilk) prefer to bang on about the Greens, but can’t cope with having to negotiate with Pocock and Lambie (or O’Byrne/Johnston/JLN/Garland) either. I just don’t get how this streak of ‘you know, Tony Abbott had the right idea about crossbenchers’ Labor fervor suddenly took off.
Missed the second part of blackburnpseph’s Q re recounts: there have been two cases of a recount going to another group to the vacating incumbent. The better known one is Bob Brown winning Norm Sanders (Dem) seat ahead of a bunch of obscure Democrats, helped by Brown-Sanders votes going back to Brown in the recount. The less familiar one was Reg Turnbull, an ex-Labor Independent, quitting in 1961 and his seat going back to Labor instead of to his running mate. (There is also the case of Madeleine Ogilvie winning a Labor seat and immediately quitting the party to sit as an indie, and another case where the recount winner was going to do the same thing but was ineligible and never sat.)
The Greens behave like a set of traffic lights.
The Green light illuminates but before you know it the warning orange light emerges and we all end up back at red.
The blue light only then triumphantly arrives when the green light refuses to be alerted to forthcoming red light.
And the blue lights reiterate their delight with the ensuing blackout.
All clear!
I don’t much like the far left party that the Greens have become in recent years (albeit a little less so in Tasmania, where they still more grounded in local environmental concerns than are their mainland counterparts).
But Labor can fume and rant about the Greens all that they like, and the fact remains that they have been steadily capturing the votes of younger people and inner city residents who, from the 1970s through to the 2000s, were stalwarts for Labor. Even the heartland Labor seat currently held by the Prime Minister will most likely switch to the Greens when he retires.
So Labor is facing an existential problem here. And I don’t think the right solution is ever going to be found simply by getting angry and telling the Greens to piss off.
I think the right solution is for Labor to try to re-establish itself in the minds of the voters as the party that has practical solutions to environmental problems. Graham Richardson, for all of his multifarious and multitudinous faults, was very effective in taking forward this approach as Minister for the Environment. It’s not simply a question of having the right policies, it’s also about displaying the right attitude. Part of this would take the form of expressing a willingness to work with the Greens on their reasonable proposals, while eschewing all of their ratbaggery. That would enable Labor to begin to educate younger voters as to what is feasible and what isn’t.
An important first step is to get past resenting the Greens for “stealing our votes” and to take them seriously where that is possible.
But that will require Labor to change. It was changing in the 1970s and 1980s, when the rise of Whitlam, followed by the Dismissal, attracted a lot of new members from the middle classes, leading to the creation of the “Centre Left” faction and also to Graham Richardson’s successful (for a time) efforts to bring more of an environmental focus to party policy and the way it was sold to the public. Then the union-aligned left and right factions formed an unholy alliance and basically put paid to the “trendification” of the party (as I once heard one heard a left faction powerbroker describe it).
So Labor did not evolve into the “Social Democrat” party that some leading lights of the 1970s and 1980s had hoped it would become. It remains the party of the union movement, even though that movement represents a consituency that is now far short of a majority of the electorate, and is likely to dwindle further over future decades. At the heart of the union movement lies what used to be described in the Victorian era as a “muck” constituency: that is, vested interests who see economic advancement and the creation of jobs as being goals of such importance as to justify the poisoning of the environment in order to achieve them.
As the proportion of union members who are service sector employees rather than blue collar workers steadily grows, the muck element is now far less powerful within the labour movement than it once was. But the power brokers of the ALP continue to be loathe to cross it. Which is the root cause of why Labor can enter into an alliance with the Greens in the ACT – where there is no mining, minimal forestry and little other heavy industry – but is unwilling to do so in a place like Tasmania.
So, in short, if Labor wants to recapture the votes it has lost from the Greens, it will first need to transform itself. It started to do this in the 1970s and 1980s, but then reversed its course. Consequently, a high proportion of the children and grandchildren of the Whitlamite middle classes are now voting either for the Greens or the Teals. So it’s going to be a long way back for Labor, and I’m far from convinced that they will ever get there. In which case, Labor’s future in most jurisdictions looks like it’s going to become a Hobson’s choice between opposition or coalition.
meher baba
I see a truck load of bovine assumptions there, with the driver wearing blinkers, the bombs flung all over the place and the truck no longer believing the driver has any idea where it is going.
When the Green vote is being surpassed by Teals and independents, a degree of self reflection is probably more beneficial for the Greens.
The Greens continue to need to preference Labor in most cases in most elections.
The independents benefit more fairly under Hare-Clarke.
What is obvious from recent elections and the Tasmanian election is that the Liberals together with the exotic Nationals are the group that will continue having difficulty scrapping together enough opportunists to form any long term government.
The outlook in Tasmania for a Liberal government is wobbly at best with very little confidence.
Labor has made a good decision to correctly “read” the outcome of the recent elections.
The Greens not so!
The minors are starting to publicly state their position. I wont make value judgement on the content of the stories, but there are some clear policy positions which are misaligned with the Liberals and the Premier’s policy positions.
The Greens – https://archive.md/qx8cF
The JLN – https://archive.md/M7tHg
BW: the Libs have been able to strike deals with the Nationals over many years that have generally not driven their party into adopting political positions that alienate the voters of the centre.
Of course (contrary to what some might think) the Nationals have generally been led by people who are highly pragmatic and have a good awareness of exactly which buttons to push and which are best left alone.
The Greens are always going to be more difficult to deal with, but the work nevertheless needs to be done. I’m not talking about forming a coalition: I’m talking about doing a deal on policies in exchange for confidence and supply. What will need to happen is for some existing economic activities and development projects to be scaled back or abandoned: I’m not talking about crazy stuff like shutting down all irrigation farming. I’m talking about offering to put some mining projects on hold, make some aspects of environmental regulation more strict, declare more national parks, and to scale back forestry more quickly than current timetables, etc.
In the event of Labor requiring their support in order to form government at the Federal or state level, there would have to be a package of changes that the Greens would find sufficiently attractive to sign up to, but which wouldn’t prove to be unbearable for Labor or the economy. It’s called win/win: Gillard managed it, as has ACT Labor and even Tassie Labor in the recent past. It’s doable, but you have to be prepared to give something up to get something better.
Bec White seemed to be willing to give such negotiations a go, but the party heavyweights wouldn’t back her, presumably because they cling to the hope that a few years of Rockliff struggling to hold a coalition together will result in their sweeping back into office with an outright majority.
And good luck to them if this ends up working. But I’m pretty sceptical. The Labor heartland down here is also, for the most part, the heartland of the Greens. Labor currently has only around 30 per cent of the vote in greater Hobart, and is going to need to raise this to closer to 50 per cent in order to win 4 seats in each of Franklin and Clark and at least 3 in Lyons: which they will need to do in order to get anywhere near a majority of their own. And it is possible that future redistributions will take some of the outer suburbs of Hobart out of Lyons and back into Clark, which will make Lyons more conservative.
And getting 4 seats in Franklin or Clark isn’t going to be made any easier by the existence of independents O’Byrne and Johnston. Some in the party perhaps dream of O’Byrne being permitted to rejoin at some future point, but that would cause internal ructions and also have the effect of completely alienating Johnston.
It’s all pretty tricky, and Labor’s declining primary vote around the country is the source of the problem. If a good friend ditches their long-term partner for a person you don’t like or trust, it’s never a good idea to keep lecturing your friend about the inadequacies of their new squeeze: it simply strengthens their resolve to stick with the person. Likewise, there is nothing to be gained from Laborites ranting and raving about the Greens: it just further alienates the voters who are abandoning them.
MI: “…there are some clear policy positions which are misaligned with the Liberals and the Premier’s policy positions.”
Yes, and if Rockliff agrees to some of them (particularly re forestry), he will incur the undying wrath of Uncle Eric. Despite all that I’ve written about Labor’s problems, it’s conceivable that the pincer movement betwee the crossbench and the right wing of the Liberal Party will deliver Labor undeserved electoral success in the not too far distant future.
That said, at the end of the day the Libs are always more pragmatic than Labor. A majority of Liberal MPs – even some right-wingers like Michael Ferguson -realise that the timber industry is slowly setting into the sunset and that it is actually detrimental to the interests of stronger business sectors such as property, tourism and food production. The problem is that Eric himself simply doesn’t seem to recognise these things: his emotional attachment to the timber industry borders on the obsessive.
It’s possible that, faced with the choice between upsetting Eric and going into opposition earlier than they would like, the Libs might choose the former. A possible scenario would be for Ferguson to supplant Rockliff, but then proceed to do a deal with the cross bench around forestry, aquaculture, etc and generally try to keep the party reaching towards the political centre. That would be the smart move.
But it won’t be easy. Several of the Liberal MPs – eg, Behrakis and Barnett – are strongly loyal towards Eric. But, in the Liberal Party, expediency usually wins out over principles and even close personal friendships. It’s a wonderful organisation like that.
When is this going to be finished?
I can understand a few days to allow for mail, maybe – but weeks to get the seats alone is ridiculous.
mb
The Nationals have driven the nuclear nuttiness, blind sided the LIBERALS on climate and are pushing far right nuttiness on social issues. Clearly the Nationals were a major reason why the LIBERALS got Teamed.
mb
The Nationals have driven the nuclear nuttiness, blind sided the LIBERALS on climate and are pushing far right nuttiness on social issues. Clearly the Nationals were a major reason why the LIBERALS got Teal ed
Fubar, all counting was finished last Saturday. We know who won the seats: 14 Liberal, 10 Labor, 5 Greens, 3 Jackie Lambie Network and 3 “mostly left” independents. The discussion in this thread since the weekend has been focused on the formation of a Government given the post-election mix of members. Of special interest is Labor’s apparent reluctance to form Government, meaning the Liberals will form a minority Government with some kind of support from the JLN and Independent members.
https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/04/tasmania-2024-is-this-hare-clarks-new.html
Tasmania 2024: Is This Hare-Clark’s New Normal? (Election review)
@goll
where is the green vote being surpassed by teals and/or independents?
What a stupid process. No wonder people hate politicians. Who thought this was a good idea? FFS
Interesting 10 extra seats created using the 2021 election as a reference point. The libs went from 13 to 14 seats.(+1) Labor 9 to 10 (+1) cross bench including greens from 3 to 11(+8).
Mostly Interested at 9.39 am
Now, which of the JLN MPs will emerge as their parliamentary leader, as distinct from Lambie as the populist patron?
Odds must be with Jenner, who has more experience, albeit as a local Tory in UK. A closet Lib.
Here are two signposts to the Tassie election result from Dr Bonham’s excellent analysis:
1) “The election saw the sixth highest swing (it finished at 12.05%) against an incumbent Tasmanian government party.”
2) “It’s very probable that a narrow majority of Tasmanians would have preferred some sort of Labor government to the Liberals. And yet, because of Labor’s commitments on the campaign trail to not give away ministries or do any deal with the Greens, and because Labor finished up so deeply in minority then decided to declare the election lost rather than see if the Greens would give them confidence and supply for nothing, it seems the Liberal government will continue. … Indeed if one wanted to vote for a party or prominent independent that was clearly committed to throwing out the Liberal Government in any hung parliament, no such voting option existed.”
Did Rockliff know that last point when he called the election, or was it a campaign gift?
Dr D: “Did Rockliff know that last point when he called the election, or was it a campaign gift?”
I reckon he realised that there would be a swing against the Government, but that almost all of it would flow to minor parties and independents rather than to either Labor or the Greens. What that would mean in terms of numbers of seats was highly uncertain: I reckon he would have been hoping that the JLN and Garland would have done slightly less well than they did, so that some more of them would ultimately have fallen short of a quota and their preferences would have elected additional Lib members.
It’s still a reasonable result for Rockliff under the circumstances. The JLN, Johnston and O’Byrne all seem to be well aware that an ongoing stable government is only possible under the Libs, and will work hard to maintain that state of affairs. Better still for Rockliff personally, whatever Entente Cordiale he is likely to arrange will most likely depend on him continuing to serve as Premier. The JLN has revealed a somewhat surprising environmental streak which is going to make it very risky for Uncle Eric to mount a coup against Rocky, if indeed that is his plan (which I suspect it very well might be: as I have argued in the past, former AFL champions who shift to playing in country leagues tend to expect to be given the role of captain-coach. Michael Hodgman didn’t, but he had invested his remaining ambitions in his son.)
If Abetz were to choose to back Michael Ferguson to supplant Rockliff, that outcome might not result immediately in another election because Ferguson, while an evangelical Christian, is likely to be a bit more pragmatic as leader than Eric would ever be, especially on environmental issues.
But, for now, I think Rocky is in an ok place. It might have been a bit easier if the Libs had won 15 seats, and he had only had to deal with the JLN. Although it’s far from certain that the JLN will speak with a single voice for very long. But, if he can get the three of them, plus Johnston and O’Byrne, to commit to supply and to vote against frivolous no-confidence motions, he’s better off than he was in having to deal with Alexander and Tucker, given that Alexander was totally unpredictable.
The large cross-bench is helpful too: he has a veritable candy shop of different people with whom he can negotiate the passage of legislation through the Parliament. I predict that he’s going to have far more trouble within his own party room than on the floor of the House of Assembly. That’s going to be the most interesting bit.
And so it begins.Funny if the independents decide to put the kibosh on the king maker deal.
https://tinyurl.com/25g2e4wv
meher baba 8.18am,
Jackie Lambie has the unfortunate failed opportunist “by the balls” and the poor bugger will be told exactly what “the state of play is”.
I hope for Tasmania’s sake the Liberal leader doesn’t attempt to undo the “bracelet” Jackie has tightened around the nether region and is prepared to confined his government’s activities to those preapproved by JLN.
meher baba you’re dreamin’ !
https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2024/04/tasmania-2024-is-this-hare-clarks-new.html
As expected the JLN is starting to wobble already. Voters are just now starting to realize that they voted for a board of business people who sit behind the JLN and make the real decisions. Also the deal they signed yesterday is being unpacked and shown for the rubbish it truly is. It is being said that the deal will fracture the JLN very quickly.
https://archive.md/rByQy
Satire on the JLN deal
https://tasmaniantimes.com/2024/04/jln-snares-tasman-bridge-in-rockliff-deal
Mostly Interested at 8.40 am
It is poor satire. The most interesting sentence is this:
‘“Originally we were interested in it [the bridge] to try to, uh, span the gap between Jacqui’s ego and Tammy Tyrell,” he {Andrew … [Jenner]} explained.’
It would be revealing if the biggest gap is between Jenner (the JLN MP for Lyons and former Tory local councillor in the UK) and what his plan was for the election on the one side, and Tyrell on the other.
There might have been a serious disagreement between Lambie/Jenner and Tyrell about what the JLN group should do in the parliament. Tyrell may be more critical of the Libs’ priorities than Lambie is.
As for Jenner, he may have the minimal skills needed to get on the JLN ticket and then ensure that the duchessing of the JLN three by Rockliff could be reduced to a bare minimum, without even an entree.
The JLN three are unlikely to destabilise Rockliff because they are lucky-dip MPs, interested mainly in avoiding a new election, for 4 years if possible. The real discussion is between Rockliff and O’Byrne, Johnston and Garland.
Note that D. O’Byrne got a quota, whereas Abetz finished marginally ahead of the next Lib in Franklin. Consequently, for all his ego and media chatter, Abetz has an interest in avoiding another election.
Johnston may be the likely choice as Speaker, which could lift her profile. If so, Rockliff would need one of either D. O’Byrne or Garland, who would consequently have the most potential influence.
It is bemusing to me coming from the more, I guess, “adversarial” systems on the mainland that a premier who suffered a 12%(!!!) swing against him in an early election he called as a referendum on his government is still standing. Especially when the largest bloc of votes clearly went to his ideological opponents (Lab/Green).
Luke M. It’s not surprising when you consider that one of those opponents (Labor) point blank refuses to work in any way with the other (Greens).
In that circumstance, Rockliff was inevitably going to remain Premier by default.
I am wavering between two conflicting thoughts. One is that Tasmanian Labor is playing a masterful tactical game: waiting for the minority Rockliffe Government to implode over the next 12 months, before riding in to save the day for Tasmania and forming a stable Progressive Government for the next 3 years, creating a new multi party paradigm in the process. The other thought is that they are complete idiots.
I wonder if the cross-bench could form government? More parliamentarians than the ALP. The ALP could guarantee confidence and supply.
That way the ALP kick out the Liberals but don’t go into coalition with anyone else, keeping their promise. 😉
They could hope that the independents, JLN & Greens finally fall apart to put them in a better light.
The Liberals have the confidence numbers. Well for 12 months, anyway.
https://archive.md/XOycn#selection-855.42-855.55
disasterboy: “I wonder if the cross-bench could form government? More parliamentarians than the ALP. The ALP could guarantee confidence and supply.”
The ALP wouldn’t do this in a month of Sundays. It’s not how they roll.
meher baba
https://www.pollbludger.net/2024/04/05/tasmanian-election-endgame-2/comment-page-3/#comment-4259187
You are right. Its academic now as there seems to be sufficient support for the Liberals.