Two developments on the Tasmanian election, one being the publication of the Poll Bludger’s election guide, including an overview page and a guide for each seat, each with tables, charts, interactive maps, historical detail and voluminous candidate summaries.
The other is the first public opinion poll of the campaign, which suggests Labor is best placed to emerge as the largest party and has at least some hope of stitching together a government arrangement with the independents rather than the Greens. Conducted by YouGov between June 15 to 25 from a sample size of 1287, the poll has Liberal on 31%, down from 36.7% at the March 2024 election; Labor on 34%, up from 29.0%; the Greens on 13%, down from 13.9%; and a generic independents response on 18%, up from 9.6%. Jeremy Rockliff maintains a 43-36 lead over Dean Winter as preferred premier.
The poll having been conducted before the declaration of nominations on Friday, the independents result (together with the lack of a result for the Nationals, who are fielding candidates in the three non-Hobart divisions) might be thought imprecise. But with the usual caveats applying for small sum-samples, the breakdowns by electorate show a pattern of independent support consistent with recent form, peaking at 30% in Clark, where Kristie Johnston seeks re-election and former senior Liberal member Elise Archer hopes to re-establish a career independent of her old party. The result in Franklin is 20%, as it will probably need to be if Peter George is able to parlay his strong federal election result into a state seat without depriving independent incumbent David O’Byrne. The 19% result in Braddon is encouraging for Craig Garland, and 15% in Bass likewise for Rebekah Pentland.
An question that allowed respondents to choose three out of ten potential motivations for their vote choice interestingly included both “pro” and “anti” options for the Macquarie Point AFL stadium, salmon farming and privatisation. The Macquarie Point options scored 55% between them, shading “investing in more health” on 52%, of whom 33% were “anti” and 22% “pro”, with little if any indication of geographical variation. Salmon farming had 18% for “anti” and 17% for “pro”, with some indication of urban electorates leaning to the former and regional ones the latter. Opposition to privatisation was a motivation for 34%, compared with 18% for support. Respondents were also asked if they supported or favoured privatisation and asset sales, with respective results of 36% and 47%.
We have a pollllll!!!!!!!!
Labor would be delirious with 34% even though it’s not an indicator of a majority.
I think if it’s the case that neither Labor or Liberal reach 15 seats then they’ll most likely be up for yet another election next year.
If that’s the case and it’s yet another unworkable minority government then the Hare-Clark system itself should probably come up for review, since it doesn’t seem either party is up for changing things in terms of holding secure coalitions.
look at the seat by seat.
Maybe Labor 13-14. Libs 10-11 Greens 4-5. Indi 5-8 (there are 3 solid ones now plus 3 flaky ones)
had me doing a double take, but I’ve read it correctly now.
Reposting for the Tassie related discussion. To avoid confusion, when stating “economic contribution” I mean in import/export terms and not tax generation – the outlook for the state appears to be producing little of value for export, thus a declining income/living standards outlook for the locals.
Tasmania is an interesting economic question, one that is not going particularly well, and one that no side has the answer for.
Fundamentally, Tasmania is a net detractor to the Australian economy and no one in Tasmanian politics has a solution. It is not an “expensive” detraction, but there is little to keep people in Tasmania, and the public messaging is largely that outsiders are not welcome.
The policy vibe emanating from there is that development and change is not welcome, whether it be non-car infrastructure (the stadium) or alternative productive industries (implicit in the Greens EPA announcement).
Now I’m going to take a step broader back and make the claim that the much hated “neoliberalism” has deeply inflected the left side of politics in Australia – policy is largely essentialist (fund the basics) but weirdly market oriented on everything else.
I’ll use the Tas Greens as an example – policy platform seems to be housing (ok); environment (ok); health (ok); no stadium (bummer) … and? Thats not a sustainable economic base, ie creating some value that could turn the state into a net contributor.
Best I can gather is perhaps some support for environmental tourism, but largely it on the industry front, problematic because it is an incredibly low paid sector.
This is not just the Greens though, it seems to be the general approach across the crossbench. The economic vision for Tasmania seems to be:
– you get a house, then sit and twiddle your thumbs; or
– work in tourism, not earning enough to enjoy the services you are selling; or
– become an aged care nurse, waiting your turn to occupy the bed you are currently cleaning.
What Tasmania could be is a destination for affluent remote working class – tech workers and such who might prefer the lifestyle (the digital nomads). The problem is that nothing is being offered to attached this cohort – Hobart et al are the antithesis of “walkable urbanism”, and efforts to invest become a massive shit fight between north and south.
So if I as a non-tasmanian seem particularly attracted to proposals like the stadium, it is because of this: the state needs to do something to be a desirable place for higher income working professionals – walkable urbanism is in, car dependency is out. Hobart in particular is competing with half a dozen better cities to live in Australia (pretty much all capitals sans darwin and sydney).
Don’t get me wrong, I love visiting Tasmania, but I enjoy it knowing my visits are short and I have my mainland income to spend it up.
Ah, now I remember what Tasmania’s situation reminds me of, Madelinette, which was a seemingly unwinnable game as long as both sides know not to blunder.
Incidentally the “Final Boss” situation in the old Nintendo game Mission Impossible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7vIkD-FEAw
Agree with bizzcan.
Moreover tas needs at least 3 times its population and there would not be a single politician there of any party who agrees with me on that.
Tasmania is too old, too white and too NIMBY.
It’s not just the Wesley vale pulp mill, cable cars and stadiums that get vetoed. Everything.
And it’s no good saying to them that the bright young things all leave, the powers that be like it that way.
Bizzcan @ #NaN Monday, June 30th, 2025 – 9:30 pm
People are bundling together ideas and prejudices without truly understanding what’s happening. Tasmania’s unemployment rate is below 4%—remarkable in historical terms, and traditionally a marker of economic success. So things aren’t as bad as some suggest, though the scale of government support is unsustainable. Housing, once a Tasmanian strength, is no longer cheap, but that’s partly because enough mainlanders have chosen to stay—suggesting the state has decent digital connectivity for remote workers and a health system that appeals to retirees. Yes, we often argue over new industries, but considering we’ve kept century-old zinc smelters and the nation’s oldest paper mill running, maybe a bit of argument is part of the process.
I’m in Launceston as well speak.
Beautiful town. Every time I come here it is a little more multicultural.
You would not know there was an election on. A couple of small businesses have corflutes in the window, 2 libs and one independent.
The only issue (my non-scientific survey of chatting with 5 locals) is the stadium. Here the argument seems to be, yes to the team, no to the stadium. Nine of my beeswax, but how about; yes to the stadium, yes to the AFL paying for it.
I would have said that gaining 5% since the last poll is pretty strong and puts Labor in a position to say tactically “look how close we are to getting stable majority government for once, and look how dead in the water the Liberals are” and let people who value a stable majority government flock to them. There’s plenty of time left to run up the score.
@MABWM:
“Here the argument seems to be, yes to the team, no to the stadium. ”
The perennial problem in politics. Everyone wants to have the cake without paying for the cake and thinks that’s a brilliant position.
” how about; yes to the stadium, yes to the AFL paying for it.”
I don’t think the AFL is interested in spending their money to help solve Tasmania’s budget problems. It’s not the AFL that wanted a team in Tasmania;
Mostly Interested at 9.08 and 9.17 pm + 4.12 pm on main thread, B.S. Fairman at 7.15 pm on main thread
Where are the Libs going to lose their current third seat outside of Clark?
Franklin certainly, but in the three non-Hobart seats the Libs on that poll are level with Labor, admittedly on small samples per electorate.
Assuming the independent vote in Clark is overstated, the Libs will still get two seats in Clark and Franklin.
To drop the Libs to 11 seats they would need to lose their third seat not only in Lyons (possible) but in either Bass or Braddon (much less likely).
Garland, who got 5.1% and overtook the Greens and the 4th Lib in 2024, looks strong, despite his drug driving conviction. He still has much ground to make up before getting a quota, so preferences of his voters would matter.
It is unclear from this poll why Labor should be favoured over the Libs as a stronger chance in Bass and Braddon.
Labor should not be delirious with a mere 34% vote. They need more than that to emerge with the most seats.
On that poll Labor might get 3 seats to the Libs’ 2 in Franklin and Lyons, with the reverse in Bass and Braddon, leaving both Labor and the Libs on 12.
Much depends on where the erstwhile Lambie voters go, but if Labor had stuck with the anti-stadium view which Winter expressed in 2023, they would be looking stronger in the N.
Doc D: it’s possible the indie vote in Clark is overstated (people thinking of Andrew Wilkie), but also possible Elise Archer takes the Libs #2 seat. Last time both Libs won without a quota (see Kevin’s website for the gory detail), so if Archer gets 7-8% she could jump into that game of musical chairs.
Taking that poll as is, it looks kinda like (as ALP, Lib, Grn, Ind):
Bass 3-3-1-0
Braddon 3-3-0-1 (Garland)
Clark 2-2-1-2 (Johnston, Archer)
Franklin 2-2-1-2 (O’Byrne, George)
Lyons 3-3-1-0
Total 13-13-4-5
That assumes multiple indies spoil each other’s chances in Bass and Lyons. Also has Archer taking a seat off the Greens instead of Libs in Clark, but those last two seats could do anything.
That’s 18 seats for ALP+Ind, although good luck getting those five lined up. I think any Labor government not involving the Greens can go in the “mathematically possible” pile.
Kirsdarke: I’m not sure ditching Hare-Clark would make majority government any easier to get – single member districts would be tiny and very likely to elect lots of local indies. (Just look at the upper house.) Hobart by itself would elect half a dozen Greens. God knows what the seven chunks of Braddon would come up with.
https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2025/07/there-must-be-some-way-out-of-here.html
There Must Be Some Way Out Of Here: YouGov and DemosAU Tasmanian Polls
my reading/very early predictions based off poll and quota being 12.5%
Bass
Liberal 36 (2.88q) – last election 38% and 3 elected
ALP – 34 (2.72q) – last 29.8 and 2
Grn – 12 (0.96q)- last 12 & 1
JLN – not running – last 8 and 1
Ind/other – 17 (1.36q but sure to leak and spread)- last JLN
Prediction 3/3/1/0 with both last lib/alp seats at risk to ind/other
ALP +1, other -1
Braddon
Liberal 35(2.8) – last election 45.6% and 3 elected –
ALP – 34(2.72) – last 24.7 and 2
Grn – 5 (.4ish) – last 6.6 & 0
JLN – not running – last 11.4 & 1
Ind/other – 26 (2.08) last Garland and JLN
Prediction 3/3/0/1 (garland) with both last lib/alp seats at risk to ind/other
ALP +1, Other -1
Clark
Liberal 24(1.92) – last election 27.1% and 2 elected –
ALP – 27(2.16) – last 30.5 and 2
Grn – 17 (1.36ish) – last 20.9 & 2
JLN – not running – didnt run
Kristy Johnston (Ind) – last 7.7 &1
Sue Hickey (Ind – not running but maybe a guide for Elise Archer support levels) – 4.9 &0
Ind/other – 32 (2.56) – last Johnston
Prediction 2/2/1/1 (Johnston) – lib and ALP are close enough to 2 not to be at risk for 2 or pushing for 3 – johnston I would expect to be safe -Archer is taking Lib/ALP votes not green votes but might surprise me – I expect Greens with 2 lead candidates, expected strong preference flows from johnston and no other strong contender to win last seat in
– no change
Franklin
Liberal 31(2.48) – last election 34% and 3 elected –
ALP – 38(3.04) – last 27.3 and 2
Grn – 9 (.72ish) – last 19.8 & 1
JLN – not running – last 4.9 & 0
O’Byrne(Ind) – last 8.8 and 1
Ind/other – 22 (1.76) last O’Byrne
Prediction 2/3/1/1 – probably George wins as the independent. obyrne could surprise but i expect will lose support back to the alp. george has taken a lot of greens support, but i expect will come back in preferences and greens to still be safe (greens nearly had 2 last election). its possible obyrne and libs combined vote equals 3 seats, which then leaves greens without their leader, but i expect alp 3 to be at risk before that happens.
LNP – 1, ALP +1, change of ind to a much greener independent from a pro governemnt (either major) one
Lyons
Liberal 34(2.72) – last election 37.6% and 3 elected –
ALP – 34(2.72) – last 32.8 and 2
Grn – 13(1.08ish) – last 10.9 & 1
JLN – not running – last 8.4 & 1
Ind/other – 19(1.52) last JLN
Prediction 3/3/1/0 with both last lib/alp seats at risk to ind/other
ALP+1, Other – 1
overall
LNP 13 (-1)
ALP 14 (+4)
Green 5
Garland 1
Johnston 1
George 1 (+1)
Obyrne 0 (-1)
JLN 0 (-3)
Greens no change, ALP are picking up a seat in all electorates except clark, JLN seats all go to ALP, and Libs lose 1 seat to ALP too (Franklin). Garland and Johnston keep seats and George replaces Obyrne in Franklin giving cross bench a far greener twinge than previous.
In this scenario the greens have sole balance of power and could (theoretically) support either major to government. for their to be an a non green path to government liberal would have to lose a seat to ind/other or ALP lose 2. There is a high a independent/other vote which may coalesce around nationals or other independents, but im not seeing enough from here to actually predict any. either major would need support of 4-5 independents from across the political spectrum so would be a long way from stable regardless.
The joys of polling and the analysis of same especially when they throw such dramatically different results
I guess the question is if the polls themselves will shape the campaign at all? i.e. could concern over landing with a very similar result as last time push voters towards one or other of the majors?
I don’t generally buy into preferred leader polling but Rockliff being in front and a big swing to Labor seems contradictory
Bring on Kevin’s “somewhere in the middle” poll and some further breakdown of the one from DemosAU (how did they do federally?) especially as it’s a lot bigger
I might need to start stocking up on the popcorn, I could need extra for the days after the election as the pieces fall into place
Sorry my quote from Kevin should be “falls somewhere between these two”
He has a great analysis of both polls and what they’d mean
Where DemosAU landed federally in their last poll
“On a primary vote basis, the Liberals led on 33%, Labor 31%, the Greens 12%, One Nation 9% and Any Other Candidate 15%. The biggest change from 2022 was a 4% gain for One Nation and a 2.7% swing against the Coalition.”
52/48 Labor
For what it’s worth, from their website
Yeah I probably overstated the Indi seats and understated the Lib seats.
But I have now seen some internal Labor polling. I’m suspicious of it but let’s just say it is not as good as the YouGov polling. As good little poll watchers we add it to the aggregate.
The first three weeks of the campaign have demonstrated that Labor hasn’t got a hell of a lot to run with in terms of issues or policies. As Dr Doolittle says, the election might have become a referendum about the stadium, but Labor (I believe under orders from Canberra) has lined up behind the Libs on that issue.
Given all that, the YouGov poll is surprisingly good for Labor. Perhaps some of the love from the Federal election has rubbed off on the state party, which is what Winter was hoping for.
The sad part for Labor is that, even with this level of swing towards them, they might end up with no more seats than Labor and with a steep hill to climb to try to form government with 4-5 independents, some of whom hate each other and/or will have run against the stadium or salmon-farming or both.
Nevertheless, if this poll is in any way reflective of reality, there seems to be a live chance of a Labor government, which I hadn’t believed possible up to now (other than in a coalition with the Greens, which I don’t think Albo will ever allow).
the Grn number in Franklin is not believable. They polled 10.5 % federally with a candidate that pulled out due to S44 issue. Woodruff topped the poll at last state election with more than a quota. She is Leader of the party No way her vote is tanking as much as the poll suggests. yes expect a drop on polling day due to presence of George but not that much. (On a side note I have been campaigning for the last few weeks attending markets and street chats in Bass Have never experienced so many long time voters for Lab or Libs telling me they can’t vote for either this time. Not a poll but personal experience is saying that there is a change in the wind. Based on these experiences I would not be surprised to see the vote drop for both to around low 30% )
I meant to say that Labor might end up with no more seats than the Libs (it’s hard for old guys with arthritic hands to write posts on iPhones).
Worst case scenario is going to be something like Lib and Lab both on 13 seats, 5 Greens and 4 independents of whom one or more have campaigned strongly against the stadium and salmon-farming.
Kevin B is right to quote All Along the Watchtower. The current situation is about as easy to fathom as are Dylan’s lyrics.
I’m in the strange position of not cheering for a Labor win, as I usually would, given their position in relation to the Greens. Hopefully reality will hit and they realise they are part of the mix and they will potentially have to work with them, in some form, if they want to form government
They need a game changer though, surely the smart thing to do would be to jump on the changed language from some close to the AFL re the stadium and say they’ll reopen negotiations if they win
Either way, the voters will decide where it all lands and it will be up to the politicians to work it out from there. Hopefully common sense prevails
Tally Room dropped a podcast. the curse of podcasters, the polling came out just after the episode, but it all holds true enough.
https://www.tallyroom.com.au/60826
Betting if anyone cares. But there might be some money to be made on those Lib odds given the 3 polls we know about.
A leading Tasmanian bookmaker has expressed surprise at recently released betting odds for next month’s state election, with online gaming giant Sportsbet installing the Labor opposition a piping-hot $1.30 favourite to win government.
The Sportsbet market, which pays on the party that supplies the Premier after the 19 July poll, lists the incumbent Liberals at long $3.60 odds, with the Greens priced at $36, and any other outcome paying $41.
President of the Tasmanian Bookmakers Association, Robin Wilson, said he had expected near identical prices for the two major parties with just under three weeks of campaigning until election day, claiming the Liberals were currently being quoted “a mile over the odds”.
“They should be so much closer together, in my opinion, because I don’t think there’s anything in it myself,” Mr Wilson said.
“The Liberals government at $3.60, that’s huge.
“Obviously Sportsbet think that the Liberal government is very unpopular, but I just think they’re misreading it.
“I’d have the Liberals at $1.90, and Labor probably at $2.10.”
I’ve been reluctant to say the stadium is going to have an impact on the election. In my view it’s a wash with the votes going everywhere.
What I do think though is that there wont be a majority government until the stadium is either built or the AFL pulls the plug entirely on the whole project. I’ve used this analogy a few times, but this is like Brexit. It has split the vote of the two major parties and that turmoil wont settle down for years. Maybe a new consensus emerges around 2030.
MI: you’re 100% right (perhaps not quite with the Brexit analogy, but that doesn’t matter).
If the stadium gets built, it will not be worth the strain it places on the Tasmanian budget. But it will bring many benefits and make many people happy, so the controversy about it will rapidly fade.
If it doesn’t end up getting built, there will be issues to resolve re the proposed AFL team, but there will be an end to that kerfuffle eventually and then life will go on.
However, given Albo’s strong support for the stadium, I’m struggling to envisage a scenario in which it doesn’t go ahead, because I reckon he’s prepared to keep on throwing more money at it until it becomes a reality. For some reason, he seems to have a slightly sentimental attitude towards Tasmania. It seems to happen with some PMs. Tony Abbott was the same: it was bad news for us when he was replaced by Malcolm Turnbull.
(Gough Whitlam was said to be not this way inclined. He allegedly once said to a journalist who asked him about the Tasmanian economy: “What does it matter, the whole place is f___ed” and then, according to Mungo MacCallum, went on to make an infamous crude joke off the record that perhaps I won’t repeat here.)
Based on this poll and the analysis above, the only thing that is certain is that Tasmania is likely to need another election after this one to get anywhere near a workable Government.
Best case scenario still has Liberal and Labor in minority, and good luck getting an agreement with Garland, George and Johnston when you are pro-stadium and pro-ocean-salmon farming.
Presumably after this unnecessary election the majors will be a little more gun shy about another election and come a bit closer to rethinking their entrenched positions – although you wouldn’t want to be holding your breath.
Building the stadium, even with full Fed funding, might resolve the impasse when the stadium is finished and in use, but that is at least a couple of election cycles away – presumably the opponents anger will still be red hot at the 2028 election…if a Government makes it that far!!
Popcorn and extended periods of breathless waiting for the final distribution of votes in store for a few weeks at least. Followed by the excitement of negotiations between people who refuse to adjust to the reality of minority government.
TropicalWonderland says:
Tuesday, July 1, 2025 at 9:56 am
Followed by the excitement of negotiations between people who refuse to adjust to the reality of minority government.
_____________________________
It is what it is, but from an outsider Tasmanian politics still seems very much like a very, very long list of things that people don’t like, and a short list of things people agree on. When everyone gets a veto, it doesn’t seem like a particularly friendly place for big ideas to get up.
I’m still not seeing anything other than an effective status quo outcome.
Despite all the acrimony It would make sense at this point for Labor to take government with a no-deal promise of supply from the Greens, which Woodruff seems potentially inclined to be willing to do, in fairly stark contrast to the attitude of the federal Greens. Labor could then rely on the Greens for supply, and have the choice of relying on the Greens or the Liberals to pass legislation depending on the politics.
Unless that happens – or independents do much better or much worse than anyone seems to be predicting – it just seems like Tasmania will have inevitable minority Liberal governments for years to come.
Rebecca says:
Tuesday, July 1, 2025 at 1:03 pm
I’m still not seeing anything other than an effective status quo outcome.
Despite all the acrimony It would make sense at this point for Labor to take government with a no-deal promise of supply from the Greens, which Woodruff seems potentially inclined to be willing to do, in fairly stark contrast to the attitude of the federal Greens. Labor could then rely on the Greens for supply, and have the choice of relying on the Greens or the Liberals to pass legislation depending on the politics.
_______________________________
I think it is worth unpacking what this means in practice – “Supply” is thrown around pretty liberally as some neutral term when it could be far from it.
Hypothetically, were some combination of parties to pass the enabling legislation for the stadium and the following budget contained administrative funding for the measure (public servants working on it), would the Greens pass it?
The issue is that the government could/would be brought down the first time a legislation negotiation broke down. Salmon seems like a pretty obvious starting point. Then work you way down the entire list of primary industries.
The political economy of Tasmania, given malapportionment in both the House and (much more so) the Senate, is such that it is virtually guaranteed to be a net drain on the country’s economy overall. They have 17 federal politicians for 580,000 residents; NSW has 58 for 8.5 million. There will always be some need to bribe the state to “go along to get along” federally until the malapportionment is gotten rid of (which is essentially impossible, as the smaller and more malapportioned the state becomes the less the privileged residents have any incentive to change that status).
This is a perpetual problem in federal nation-states. Land should not be given extra votes. But we’re weighed down by the dead hand of the past.
At any rate, returning to the immediate issue at hand, the cloud-cuckoo-land fantasies of Labor majority government have been comprehensively scuppered by these polls (not that anyone who understood basic mathematics would have ever given them any credence to begin with), so… what now? I don’t think “we have no platform other than not being the Libs or the Greens” is going to win anyone over.
MI: “The issue is that the government could/would be brought down the first time a legislation negotiation broke down. Salmon seems like a pretty obvious starting point. Then work you way down the entire list of primary industries.”
——————————————————————————–
In a normal political environment, the solution would be a Labor-Greens government in which both sides worked towards compromise outcomes for things like salmon farming, forestry, the stadium, etc, etc. This sort of thing has proved to be possible in the past, so why not now?
Well, the main reason is that Albo has gone way out on a limb on salmon farming, the stadium, and an point blank refusal to work with the Greens.
If by some chance the election throws up 13 Labor and 5 Greens or 14 Labor and 4 Greens, this “I’m going to sit on my hands and hold my breath until I get my own way” stuff from Labor is going to be quite difficult to sustain. If more than 50 per cent of the candidates returned by the electorate are to the left of centre, that does rather suggest that the electorate is expecting a left-of-centre government. As would be the Governor.
We saw this scenario play out in 2010, when Peter Underwood pressured David Bartlett into forming a government with the Greens. I wonder if something like this might happen again?
I’m not saying that I am keen to see the Greens as part of a Tasmanian government. But good political leaders need to find ways of working with the parliament that the voters give them. Bartlett wasn’t a good leader, but he managed to do it, and Giddings was better at it than him. Gillard managed to do it when, by rights, Abbott should have been able to negotiate his way into the lodge. And Andrew Barr managed to do it for quite some time in the ACT, without any major problems.
So Labor should be able to do it in Tassie. I’m quite sure that Dean Winter would be prepared to give it a crack. But he’s not calling the shots.
I’m from Melbourne so admittedly ignorant, but who is Elise Archer? Isn’t Bridget running?
MB @ #35 Tuesday, July 1st, 2025 – 7:17 pm
there are two Archers, not related. The famous one in the north, and the (locally) infamous one in the south.
Interesting to see it suggested here that Albanese is dictating the actions of Tasmanian Labor in relation to salmon, the stadium and the Greens. I can’t imagine that would play too well with Tasmanians if it was widely known
Still waiting on these other polls that have been mentioned, hopefully they are published soon
Hard Being Green: the Albo factor will play ok with that segment of the electorate that deeply dislikes the Greens. The exact size of that segment is open to dispute. I suspect it’s rather smaller then some in Labor think, and mostly consists of older, rusted-on Labor and Lib voters.
A far larger component of the electorate would favour majority government. But neither of the majors can seriously offer that in the coming election, so it’s not really relevant.
Yeah fair call, they can dream of majority government all they like but the voters will decide if they get it or not
You can’t achieve things from opposition so play the hand you’re dealt imo
Full numbers of the DemosAU poll are out and I’ve updated my read of it; I get it as 13 Lib 11 ALP 5 Green 4 IND and 2 unknowable. Some pretty extreme seat readings in that one.
https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2025/07/there-must-be-some-way-out-of-here.html
Thanks Kevin, so potentially headed for almost exactly what they have now, if that poll is correct
Fun times ahead
As a Labor member I’m not briming with enthusiasm. We’ll see though, I’ll still go to the tally room on the night.
Attended a community candidates forum tonight on the East Coast. After a presentation on underfunding the local council the first issue that was raised was ….the Stadium. The convenor did a hand raise poll, all about but 5 of the 60 or so people in the room were against the stadium – so maybe the polls on that are acxurate. The general feeling was we can’t afford it, but we still want the team. A statement from the crowd that we all dislike the AFL got a round of applause.
Nothing of particular note was said by any of the candidates, although I was intrigued to hear the SFF candidate say he agreed with the Greens leader about taxing resource companies. Lib and Lab both banged on about stability and majority government, and there was quite a few questions but few answers on the financial circumstances of the State. The Greens member was the only person all night to say the word policies.
It will be intriguing to see if the stadium is a big enough issue to push voters out of their usual homes and where exactly their votes will go, and the net effect of it all.
I hear locals say the stadium is an issue, I read the ABC reports with comments from voters that they will be changing their party for the first time ever, but I won’t believe it til the counting is done.
The one positive thing I can say about this election is that any result appears possible which does make it a little interesting.
Just had a look at the keys. They favour the Liberals.
Definitely True 7
Probably True 2
Probably False 1
Definitely False 4
5 false keys is less than 7 which means the incumbent gov (libs) should win the popular vote.
(Doesn’t add up to 13, cause I added the Major News Event key, which is true if there’s something major triggering a ‘Rally around the flag effect’)
(Also added 1 to the number of false keys needed for the opposition to win the popular vote, as key 14 is nearly always false)
Tropical Wonderland at 10.11 pm
The attendees at your forum might skew toward the better informed or the better educated, so the extent of opposition to the stadium there might be even more than the polls suggest.
For the stadium to be a decisive issue it must be connected with the prime cause (for Winter) of the election, which was budget mismanagement. Winter has refused to do that. He is not trying to harvest public dislike of the imperial manner of the AFL.
Meanwhile the estimated cost for the car park alone of the stadium is $97 million, according to a technical report to the Planning Commission.
Winter does not want to be labelled as the man who stood up to the AFL. Yet doing that might help Labor gain votes in Bass, Braddon and Lyons, i.e. seats where Labor needs to improve most to be able to govern in minority.
New thread.