Click here for full display of Tasmanian results.
End of night
I’ve been wrong before about Hare-Clark, but my take on the result is that the Liberals are looking 14 or 15 seats, meaning they have either broken even or gained one; Labor will win 10 or 11, meaning ditto; the Greens have broken even with five; the three independents elected in 2024 will be joined by a fourth; Shooters Fishers and Farmers should win their first ever seat and are a chance of a second; and the balance is accounted for by the evaporation of the Jacqui Lambie Network, none of whose three members have prospered either as independents or Nationals. Four of the five divisions seem to me to have straightforward results, the exception being Bass, though others might also cast doubt over Lyons.
The Liberals gained about 4% everywhere except Franklin, where independent Peter George’s 17.6% drained all comers. This reflected an 8% to 10% Jacqui Lambie Network vote from 2024 being up for grabs in the three regional divisions, only around 2% of which went to the Nationals in Bass and Braddon, increasing to a bit over 4% in Lyons. Conversely, the JLN vacuum didn’t prevent Labor dropping by a few points across the board, though not seemingly at a cost of any seats.
Eric Abetz won the evening’s creative electoral accounting prize for trying to make something out of the Greens’ 6.4% drop in Franklin, but this was clearly down to support for Peter George from voters who would happily have stayed green in his absence. Elsewhere the Greens were up by between 0.4% in Clark and 4.3% in Bass, with some help from a no-show from Animal Justice who polled 1.5% statewide last year. Only half of an increase in the aggregate independent vote from 9.6% to 15.3% was down to George: Craig Garland in Braddon and Kristie Johnston in Clark doubled their vote share, and the competition from George didn’t prevent David O’Byrne from gaining handily in Franklin.
To deal with the five divisions in turn:
Bass. The Liberals clearly have enough for three seats (3.31 quotas), Labor for two (2.21 quotas) and the Greens for one (1.32 quotas), but the seventh seat is unclear. The Greens face the problem that their incumbent, Cecily Rosol, should soak up most of the party’s lower-order preferences without getting elected until near the end of the count, meaning their other candidates will fall by the wayside. Two Liberals (Bridget Archer and Michael Ferguson) and one Labor (Janie Finlay) will be elected early in the count, with Rosol winning only when the last other Green is excluded. Incumbent Rob Fairs will then win a a third seat for the Liberals, and either Jess Greene or Geoff Lyons (both newcomers, though the latter a former federal member) a second for Labor. The last seat will come down a fourth Liberal (impossible to pick out of incumbent Simon Wood and newcomers Julie Sladden and Chris Gatenby), a third Labor (whichever out of Greene or Lyons didn’t win the second) and Michal Frydrch of Shooters Fishers and Farmers. The starting point for this game of musical chairs is 0.37 quotas for Shooters, a 0.31 surplus over their third quota for the Liberals, and a 0.21 surplus over the second quota for Labor. Labor will presumably get a fair chunk of the Greens’ surplus, and the 18.3% vote for the distinctly moderate Archer means a higher-than-usual share of the Liberals’ own vote is likely to leak out of the ticket, some of it to Labor (and presumably not much to Shooters).
Braddon. The Liberals are only a fraction short of four quotas, meaning incumbents Jeremy Rockliff, Felix Ellis and Roger Jaensch are to be joined by a fourth in former federal member Gavin Pearce. Labor is only just shy of two, ensuring re-election for Anita Dow and Shane Broad. Independent Craig Garland doubled the vote that got him narrowly got him elected last time, and had more reason to be cheerful than his ABC TV interview suggested. The Greens, with 0.58 quotas, are no threat to him, and the Nationals managed only 1.6%, ending the short parliamentary career of Miriam Beswick, who ran with the party after winning a seat for the Jacqui Lambie Network in 2024.
Clark. A straightforward status quo result in terms of party seat share: the Liberals retain two, with Simon Behrakis re-elected and newcomer Marcus Vermey to unseat Madeleine Ogilvie; Josh Willie and Ella Haddad are re-elected for Labor; Vica Bayley and Helen Burnet are re-elected for the Greens; and independent Kristie Johnston is handsomely re-elected with 15.2%, after dipping from 11.0% to 7.7% in 2024.
Franklin. Peter George’s win looks like coming at the expense of the Liberals, with Eric Abetz and Jacqui Petrusma re-elected but Nic Street missing out. The party has a seemingly solid 2.70 quotas, but stands to receive next to no preferences. Despite the 6.4% gouge taken out of their vote by George, the Greens have 1.11 quotas, ensuring re-election for party leader Rosalie Woodruff, and their preferences together with George’s should ensure that Labor’s 1.82 quotas converts to re-election for Dean Winter and Meg Brown, and that 0.88 is enough to re-elect former Labor leader and now independent incumbent David O’Byrne.
Lyons. It is clear the Liberals will win three seats, re-electing incumbents Jane Howlett, Guy Barnett and Mark Shelton; that Labor will win two, with Jen Butler re-elected and former federal member Brian Mitchell unseating Casey Farrell, who recently filled Rebecca White’s vacancy; and that Tabatha Badger will retain her seat for the Greens. I don’t see the last seat going to anyone other than Carlo Di Falco of Shooters Fishers and Farmers, though others are more circumspect. He has 0.58 quotas and will not suffer leakage, being the only candidate on the ticket. His competition are the Nationals on 0.34 quotas, which means former Liberal member John Tucker; and a fourth Liberal, Stephanie Cameron, given that party’s 0.32 surplus over their third quota. Postals and the New Norfolk pre-poll booth have the potential to change the equation a bit, but past experience suggests not much. So presumably either Tucker or Cameron goes out and their preferences decide the last seat between Di Carlo and the other. I tend to think nearly as many Nationals preferences would go to the Shooters as the Liberals, but if the Liberals go out, maybe there’s some hope for Tucker.
Election night
10.18pm. If anyone’s finding my live results of value, please note that the considerable effort has thus far gone unremunerated, a situation any one of you can correct using the “become a supporter” buttons at the top of the site and post.
9.45pm. Bird of Paradox in comments reiterates a point I made during my podcast appearance with Ben Raue that has since slipped my mind, which is that a fair chunk of the 41.4% Liberal vote comes from an 18.3% vote for Bridget Archer, much of which might be from people otherwise not favourably disposed towards the party. My previous assessment had Bass at three Liberal, two Labor, one Greens and the last seat a race between a fourth Liberal and a second Green – I’d suggest leakage from Archer would shorten the odds on the latter.
9.25pm. Struggling Labor election night panellists have been invoking the potential for late-reporting pre-poll booths to turn things around, as their Coalition equivalents did on the night of the federal election. However, the first three pre-polls are not encouraging on this count. Two are in from Bass: George Town, where the Liberals are up 7.4%, and Scottsdale, where they are up 5.2%, which compares with 3.8% on election day results; and Burnie in Braddon, where they are up 3.4% compared with 4.2%.
8.08pm. So assuming I’m right about all that — and minds better attuned to mine that Hare-Clark will have been focusing their full attention on this while I was hunting bugs — I’ve got Liberal matching their 14 from the previous parliament and hoping for as many as 16. A status quo of 10 looks like the best Labor can hope for, and they may be down to nine. The Greens look like holding their five seats with possibilities of one or two gains through a second seat in Bass or a first in Braddon. The three independents are re-elected and will be joined by Peter George and possibly one of his running mates, plus Shooters look like having a seat. None of the JLN class are making a mark, whether as independents or Nationals.
7.59pm. Shooters are doing very well in Lyons, suggesting Carlo Di Falco could be joining three Liberal, two Labor and one Greens. Brian Mitchell looks like being a third recently departed federal member to win a state seat, taking one of Labor’s two off incumbent Casey Farrell with Jen Butler re-elected. The three Liberal incumbents are untroubled.
7.56pm. Peter George doing well enough in Franklin to potentially elect a running mate off his coat-tails, which would come at the expense of a third Liberal if it happened – the rest looks like Labor two, Greens one plus David O’Byrne. Labor newcomer Jess Munday is polling disappointingly, suggesting Labor’s seats to remain with the incumbents. Eric Abetz and Jacqui Petrusma will be elected, with Nic Street the loser if George gets that second seat.
7.52pm. A big shift in Clark from Labor to Kirstie Johnston, but it still looks like a status quo of two Labor, two Liberal, two Greens and Johnston, with Elise Archer failing to register. Madeleine Ogilvie looks like losing one of the two Liberal seats to newcomer Marcus Vermey, the strongest on the Liberal ticket.
7.50pm. A big result in Braddon suggests this is a good night for the Liberals, suggesting four seats with former federal member Gavin Pearce taking the second without unseating any of the incumbents, namely clear leader Jeremy Rockliff followed by Felix Ellis and Roger Jaensch. Labor are down as much as the Liberals are up, such that they might even be reduced to Anita Dow — Shane Broad, if he gets up at all, will first have to overcome Vanessa Bleyer of the Greens. Craig Garland has a quota in his own right, making the result four Liberal, one Labor, one Greens and Craig Garland, with the last seat either a second Liberal or first Green.
7.46pm. In Bass we’ve got big movement from Labor to the Greens, suggesting polls showing the Greens a shot at a second seat might have been on the money. Shooters are polling well no doubt because of an imbalance of rural booths in the current numbers. The Liberals are up, so my initial impression here is Liberal three, Labor two and Greens one, with the last seat a battle between a fourth Liberal and a second Green. Janie Finlay assuredly gets Labor’s first seat with Jess Greene and Geoff Lyons fighting for the second; huge result for Bridget Archer, to be followed by Michael Ferguson and Rob Fairs, with Simon Wood doing no better than lower-order newcomers in the race for a possible fourth seat; anyone’s guess who a second Green might be. Rebekah Pentland is failing to register as an independent.
7.40pm. I think I might have fixed the problem now, so will finally have some analysis to offer shortly.
7.15pm. I believe there is a problem with my projections, which are at present too favourable for the Liberals, but the system should at least be of use for observing results and swings at booth level.
6.50pm. So anyway, we’ve got one small rural booth in for each of Bass, Braddon and Lyons, and a mobile result from Clark from which my swing figure won’t tell you anything useful. But the first three all have Liberal well up and Labor well done. Early days though obviously, with about 400 votes in all.
6.48pm. Eric Abetz on the ABC wishes he had swing figures from the Irishtown booth. The only and only place you can find such a thing is through the link above.
6.44pm. A little later than I’d have figured, there are some numbers and my system seems to be processing them okay.
6pm. Welcome to the Poll Bludger’s live coverage of the Tasmanian state election count. Polls are now closed and we should be getting the first results from small rural booths fairly shortly. Through the link above you will find live updated results throughout the night and beyond, inclusive of an effort to project party vote shares in each of the five divisions through booth-matched swings.
PP conflated 74 reasons and pretends its one issue and that it’s Labors fault.
But Aldi is seen as some kind of heavenly sent saviour for grocery prices. Aldi won’t move here because Bass Strait and no economy of scale.
meher babasays:
Monday, July 21, 2025 at 8:11 am
You certainly can’t achieve much from opposition. But you also can’t achieve much as an opposition if you refuse to oppose most of what the government is doing.
That’s Labor’s biggest problem down here. It might be offensive to refer to them as “Liberal lite.” But unfortunately there’s a lot of truth in it too
_________________
People think I’m havin’ a lend when I suggest a grand coalition…
If the long-speculated grand coalition where to ever happen, it would surely be the end of Labor in Tasmania, at least on a state level. (Though I could imagine serious federal consequences too.)
I can’t see the Labor Left having any bar of such an agreement and the party membership (and likely much of the union movement) would be in open revolt, and – depending on the numbers both in caucus and the state rank-and-file – either those for or those against the grand coalition would end up quitting or being expelled from the party.
Meanwhile, the Greens would achieve their dream of becoming the official opposition, with some sort of merger between the Greens, progressive independents, and the Labor members who want no part in any coalition with the Libs likely to be the eventual result after another term or two.
Actually, now that I think about it further, that may well be the best thing for progressive politics in the state in the long-term. Or it could lead to the Tasmanian left and centre-left being locked out of power for generations. Always hard to tell with this sort of thing.
No one in the labor membership is suggesting a grand coalition with the Libs. But there is a lot of chatter about an agreement with the Greens (not universally supported one must state).
Mostly Interestedsays:
Monday, July 21, 2025 at 1:37 pm
No one in the labor membership is suggesting a grand coalition with the Libs. But there is a lot of chatter about an agreement with the Greens (not universally supported one must state).
________________
They should be discussing a grand coalition with the Libs, given the policy alignments.
What’s the point of being a political party if you aren’t going to try and win Government.
Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.
in case it wasnt clear from my long post this morning, I support a grand left coalition (call it what you will) and that will have to include the Greens. To do otherwise is to make Tas Labor irrelevant as a party.
What are the chances that Labor would welcome David O’Byrne back into the fold and straight into the leadership?
Mostly Interested:
Agreed. Time for Labor to accept the reality of present-day Tasmanian politics and actually try to take power. Only the impotent are pure, can’t achieve anything from opposition, worst day in government is better than the best in opposition, etc, etc. They might be cliches, but they are also true. With the very occasional exception (the 1929 Federal election comes to mind), one is always better off taking office than remaining in opposition. The benefits of incumbancy are nothing to be sniffed at.
Sure, given the way the numbers are looking right now, it is quite possible that there isn’t a realistic path to government for Labor and that Rockliff will remain Premier. If that’s the case, then so be it. But the ALP had damn well better try to negotiate an agreement, and that includes by negotiating seriously with the Greens and the other crossbenchers rather than this childish “my way or the high way” approach.
If you arn’t willing to govern when given the oppurtunity, then why the fuck are you in politics and why the fuck should anybody vote for you? The ALP have a duty to their members and their voters to do all they can possibly do to kick the Libs out of office. To shrug their shoulders and say, “Nope, sorry, majority or nothing” is a betrayal of everyone who spent the last month and a bit volunteering for them in what I’m guessing was some pretty grim weather.
Could Labor fall in behind a Greens+George+Johnston+Garland+O’Byrne alliance that may have the same seats as Labor? They won’t want to but may need to to break the impasse.
In the long-term, I think any “grand coalition” would turn out similar to when Billy Hughes and his fellow pro-conscription defectors merged with the Commonwealth Liberals to form the Nationalists.
Originally, Hughes and his other former Labor members managed a reasonable job of pushing their conservative colleagues to a somewhat more moderate position on IR and the like (apart from when he went full fascists with stuff like the train strikes), but as the elections went on, Bruce took over as PM, and the former Labor members gave way to new Nationalist MPs, leaving pretty much only Hughes and Pierce left among the Labor defecters, the Nationalists became as conservative as they get, resulting in their eventual trouncing in 1929.
(Though, to be fair to Bruce, he did at least take the funding of infrastructure and essential services seriously, at least by the standards of the 1920s.)
I don’t see Labor entering into any agreement that doesn’t see them providing the Premier, and I think that’s probably fair enough on their part too. They will have the most seats out of the various parties and crossbenchers that would make up such a government, and the convention since 1922 has been – with the occasional exception – that the biggest party in a coalition provides the PM or Premier.
The Greens would be well entitled to demand Woodruff be deputy premier and get the ministry of her choice in such a situation, though.
FWIW:
https://citynews.com.au/2025/drawn-out-minority-talks-after-states-snap-election/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_source_platform=mailpoet&utm_campaign=canberra-daily-today-s-news-today_7801
I assume that Tasmania will be sans stadium, sans salmon and sans an economic future after everyone gets to stop what they don’t want and refuses to pay for what they do want.
I am surprised to see Winter hanging on as leader, it sets a dangerous president to reward such incompetents. The ALP need another term in opposition so they can sort out what they actually stand for. At the moment they are just the “we kinda like the stadium party but some of us don’t” party.
You get the parliament you deserve.
Good call Mostly Interested, I hope your view is in the majority in the party
I raised the election in a meeting I was in today and was told the north south divide within the party is an issue in terms of doing a deal with the Greens i.e. there’s more support in Hobart. Kind of makes sense although I hope it can be overcome
Labor lost votes to progressive independents not the greens, so thats why they are leary of an agreement. But it can’t be ignored that those independents all have conservation messages. Labor voters dont have a problem with conservationists. And those voters didn’t go to the Libs. Labor won’t be punished for a government that includes the Greens in some form, punished is a 26% primary vote.
The election may have ended up with the same number of Libs. Labor and Greens – but the remaining crossbench is very different.
Bizzcan (Sunday 1.18am)
Very good post/questions, shame no wise guys/gals could offer much in response to it. (afraid idk the answers)
Seeing as the subject has come up again, with some quite uncharitable/ignorant posts to Arange, herewith my post on the pre-election thread (which probably no-one read as this new thread had started):
“Arange never pretended the keys were ever more than a popular vote winner prediction, and acknowledged countless times that this didn’t indicate who would form government on many occasions in different polities with a variety of voting systems.
It’s really not as hard as people are trying to make it. It’s very simple. And no-one has to agree with it or like it. But it’s still simple in its concept and some people like using it for a bit of fun at least, and it won’t hurt anyone.”
Silly how people are resentful of such a thing as ‘the keys’, whether they value it or not. Certainly more of a contribution than some of the posts that merely bemoan the Tassie situation without any meaningful psephology being offered.
“You don’t need imported thinking to tell you that splitting the progressive vote two thirds one third will result in the ALP not winning the popular vote.”
Except that the split was nothing like described above:
* Lib + Nat + SFF = 44.4%
* Lab + Green = 40.4%
*Indies / others of all stripes = 15.4%
(of which a larger chunk of candidates are ‘progressive’ but let’s be honest, regardless of the candidates themselves, many voters from across the political spectrum may have voted for an ‘Indy’ candidate purely on a single issue such as ‘no stadium’, ‘no salmon farming’ etc. and not because of a broader ‘progressive’ agenda).
So much more like 50-50 not 66.6-33.3. Perhaps it’s people who can’t add up who think that somehow there’s a very clear ‘progressive’ majority that should be holding hands to form a wall that stops the (very decisive) winner from governing.
Had it been any other system bar Hare-Clark, a 6.3% vote change Lab-Lib would have led to an increase in Lib seats. The counting system is what it is, but the popular vote shares shouldn’t just be ignored in this situation where no-one has a majority and consideration is being given to who has the clearest mandate to have a go at government – as decided by voters who gave one party 40% of the vote, and not by a hotch-potch of resentful Indy politicians who are throwing their weight around with arrogance it appears; nor by a soundly defeated Labor or soundly defeated Green party.
It seems the message is “We all need to work together for the good of Tasmania” – but only if we ignore the party that the voters made the winner! and distort the result in the eyes of the people to seem like something it wasn’t.
That’s NOT putting personal interest aside for the good, stability and progress of Tasmania, it’s petulant and dishonest.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jul/20/minority-government-the-new-normal-in-tasmania-as-voters-turn-away-from-major-parties
Stupid headline (no doubt the Guardian Political Editor’s fault, not Kevin’s – he doesn’t say the above in his article) – “voters” gave exactly the SAME combined vote share to the ‘major parties’ in this election as the last one! (and it’s still 65.7%, still considered fairly high for 2 parties only, in many polities – but I digress with this point).
‘Voters turn away from Labor’ would have been slightly more accurate, but not in line with the Guardian’s editorial bias where they’d prefer to deny the Libs a ‘win’ in the minds of their readers.
How seriously, pleasantly and privately (in contrast to the public grandstanding for political reasons) have the Indys reached out to Lib or Lab, either in 2024 or now?
They keep saying that it should happen the other way round, I’m just wondering if that’s a 2-way street or. . . as stated above, just grandstanding when they don’t want to be constructive with people who think differently to them when it comes to the reality.
BTSays, but you also can’t ignore the voters predominantly voted for progressive independents. Put them on the left side of the ledger and you end up with a 60:40 split away from the Libs. BTW, none of what you quoted above is from me, but we still can’t ignore a fifth of the electorate in these results, ie translated into actual seats.
“How many mainland LGAs with a population of 500k or so allow for the mayor to hire a staff of 90 or so lol”
You may have a valid point, I wouldn’t know, but surely part of the reason is that the governing cabinet is so small in the first place – with ministers holding multiple portfolios? So inevitably a lot of delegation is needed to actually execute stuff. And obviously the cost is counter-balanced by a smaller team at the heart of government.
But as to how many or what numbers they should be, I don’t know. Civil services etc. tend to bloat over time anywhere in the world, and need a DOGE every decade to give to the taxpayer more value for money.
EDIT: hadn’t seen William Bowe’s 6.56pm post when typing the above. That’s a helpful comparison, and agree re the economies of scale. I wonder what the territories’ equivalent numbers are.
Ian Whitchurch 7.01pm
What is the actual tax take as a %, in Tasmania vs. other states? (like-for-like, all-inclusive comparison including taxes in all but name)
That would surely tell a story? – from what you’re saying, Tassie’s would be the smallest %?
Also, I’m ignorant re fed and state tax jurisdictions, but assume fed taxes are the same wherever you live in Australia so the comparison can still be done on everything else.
Plus, what is the fed government’s contribution to each state, per head of population? This is presumably the other half of the ‘money available to spend’ story.
“BTSays, but you also can’t ignore the voters predominantly voted for progressive independents. Put them on the left side of the ledger and you end up with a 60:40 split away from the Libs. ”
No you don’t. Even with your gross over-simplification, you’d end up with 55-45 essentially.
Is it possible under H-C for a party/grouping to get >1.0 quotas in total, yet have no-one elected due to the split amongst multiple candidates and leakage? – or do they legally have to be allocated one winner from the list in that scenario?
Clark
Madeleine Ogilvie does have 0.54 of a quota already as the Lib vote share is spread quite efficiently between the top 3 candidates.
Is it possible:
a) Ogilvie could come out in front of Simon Behrakis in the end? (presumably ‘yes’, although not anticipated particularly)
b) Ogilvie could nip in ahead of Helen Burnet of the Greens in the end, e.g. with Elise Archer’s prefs, and give Libs a 3rd seat? (even if technically ‘yes’, she would need a decent flow of her Lib colleagues’ prefs as well as Archer’s, to even have a chance, given that there’s no Nat or SFF to hope for prefs from.)
The headline swing to the Libs seems a bit illusory – it looks like this will be a more left leaning Parliament than the last one. Winter seems serious about about being Premier so we will see if he can make a deal. He should be able to – as long as there is also goodwill from the Greens and a suitably constrained agenda for Government. As leader of the Tasmanian left, Winter can’t continue to prop up a minority Tory government. Legitimacy is gained from numbers on the floor of the Parliament, however you get them.
If Winter becomes Premier he should be telling the AFL that Tasmania will build a new stadium for $300m maximum, at a suitable location of the Government’s choice (and without roof), or they can shove it.
I’m a bit surprised by some of the responses above – I’m personally still in the camp that the Greens absolutely should not enter into a formal coalition and take ministerial positions again after the last time around, and that both sides would be better served with a more informal arrangement.
Winter’s just not acting in a way that seems serious about taking office to the point where I’m not sure why he hasn’t conceded. He doesn’t seem to be making any kind of serious overtures to get even the most obviously sympathetic indies on side, and his apparent indecision is allowing Rockliff to frame himself as the more stable, status quo option, to the point where even Garland and George are increasingly starting to sound like they don’t think they really have a choice but to work with Rockliff to maintain a seat at the table.
Small band of independents offer Liberals and Labor a path to power in Tasmania
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jul/21/tasmania-election-independents-offer-liberals-and-labor-a-path-to-power
William Bowe:
Tasmanian Labor just bought itself an extra year in opposition
Labor leader Dean Winter saw a chance to deal his party back into the game — and duly overplayed his hand.
https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/07/21/tasmanian-election-labor-party-opposition-extra-year/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter
“Labor looks the biggest loser, having brought on the election with a no-confidence motion against Premier Jeremy Rockliff that may only have bought it an extra year in opposition.
:::
Labor on the other hand managed barely a quarter of the vote, falling more than 3% short of its already feeble showing from last year, despite the 6.7% vote of the effectively defunct Jacqui Lambie Network being up for grabs.
:::
Beyond self-interested strategic calculation and malign cultural blindness, there is nothing to stop Liberal and Labor forging a power-sharing agreement, serving out a full term with a thumping joint majority, and delivering on every point of substance that they took to the voters.”
BTSays says:
Monday, July 21, 2025 at 6:04 pm
“You don’t need imported thinking to tell you that splitting the progressive vote two thirds one third will result in the ALP not winning the popular vote.”
————
ALP Got 25.8 – Greens got 14.6 – that is two thirds / one third of the progressive vote.
25.8 / 40.4 = 0.639
14.6 / 40.4 =0.361
you will recall that two thirds is .66 recurring.
you will recall that one third is .33 recurring.
So yes, not exactly two thirds / one third but numerically very close.
That is how numbers work.
Hint: I just didn’t say what you say I did.
It’s now obvious that Tasmania’s 35 seat Hare Clark model is not going to produce a majority government, and the new Parliament is more left leaning than the last. It’s over to Winter now to see if he can put together a left alliance to take Government. Lots of warm noises being made by the other left-leaners, including the Greens. Better 4 years in Government than 4 years in opposition.
MABWM
Apologies, I misread your OP as meaning vote split ‘progressive’ vs. ‘other’.
It led to some interesting comparisons, though, and hopefully my accompanying comments were pertinent (if irrelevant to what I quoted from you!).
All good BTsays.
I like numbers too!
“It’s now obvious that Tasmania’s 35 seat Hare Clark model is not going to produce a majority government, and the new Parliament is more left leaning than the last. ”
A stretch to say that’s obvious. I’m not quite convinced it’s even the case, let alone obvious. Let’s see where the seat counts finish and review again.
Certainly the vote shares don’t tell that story, but it is possible that the Parliament make-up might, when all’s concluded, be marginally more left-leaning – though again, one has to understand what voters were voting for/against when voting for Independents especially, and when single issues were the the predominant theme of the day.
You can’t just look at an Independent’s overall profile and say “the voters voted for more progressive politics because x, y and z Indys are ‘left-leaning'” when that may be anything but why the good Tasmanians voted that way.
People are trying to be simplistic to create a narrative re ‘left-wing majority’ that they hope will stick regardless of its veracity, and it seems their efforts in the media have rubbed onto several posters here (with the best of intentions from said posters, maybe).
Not sure why there is criticism of Winter public statements. Winter has to bring the various Labor and union groupings along if he is to become Premier. Racing out to join up with Greens and Indies is sure way to alienate some in Labor Party and unions.
Softly softly catchee. There is plenty of time for sorting things out.
Via Kevin’s blog: Bridget Archer’s leakage rate is apparently huge, in the order of 25%, so if that sticks there’ll be no Lib #4 in Bass. If a lot of that goes to female candidates in particular, that helps Jess Greene, and potentially spoils Labor’s Ginninderra scenario (their #2 and #3 splitting 1.2 quotas as 0.6 each). If a chunk also goes to Cecily Rosol, that indirectly helps the Greens, because more minor Green candidates have their preferences go to whoever Green #2 ends up being instead of getting buried in Rosol’s quota.
So, sixth seat to Greene, seventh… still clear as mud.
It’s interesting that Bridget’s vote is leaking so much, where is it going though? I’m guessing left
I wonder if she will take over from Rockliff this term? He has talked about retiring to the farm for a while. A moderate for a moderate would be a good flip for the Liberals
In terms of the Greens, I don’t really mind which way it works, inside or outside a government it supports. Key point though, it can’t be a total capitulation to Labor, compromise is needed from both sides
It’s pure fantasy to think Labor can form some sort of government from the current position – like it or not, the Liberals are 4 seats away from a majority, Labor are 9 seats away from it at present, Rockcliff is far better placed to do a deal with the independents, even if the vast majority of those independents are from a centre left orientation. Also, you can’t form government when you’ve just recorded the lowest primary vote in your party’s history.
Yes, I think the Hare-Clark system is antiquated and stupid, but that’s the result they got out of it, Rockcliff could end up with 15 or 16 seats and about 40% of the vote, that’s a fair sort of mandate in my books.
Dean Winter badly miscalculated, when he put up that motion of no confidence, Rockcliff was able to turn the election into a referendum on Labor sending you back to the polls for the 2nd time this year and only 12 months after the last state election.
Labor should accept they’re in opposition for another 4 years, dump Winter as leader, and give somebody else a go, the party was ill-prepared for an election and at a state level, they look totally inept and dysfunctional to me.
BTSays @ #389 Monday, July 21st, 2025 – 10:05 pm
Yep when the Libs pick up votes there are arguments both ways.
Redemption is at hand Dean Winter Needs to show us what is made of. A hung parliament entitles him to attempt to form a government there’s nothing unusual about that. Like the majority of voters I voted labor Green and Independent in my electorate so a Labor Green Independent government would be just the ticket
BTSays,
I strongly recommend you read Saul Eslake’s report.
https://www.sauleslake.info/independent-review-of-tasmanias-state-finances/
Mundo,
If you wanted Labor in government, you should have voted for Labor.
But you voted for Green and Independents, so Labor didn’t win enough seats, so what is going to happen is enough Independents are going to give Rockliff enough support for him to continue in government.
I didn’t say I wanted Labor in government. I wanted a Labor/Green/Independent government.
I continue to struggle with the concept that the Greens and Labor have a great deal in common at the state level in Tasmania. They are diametrically opposed on several key issues: eg, the stadium, environmental protection and pokies. The issues on which they agree tend to be ones on which the Libs also broadly agree (although there are differences on how to deliver on them): eg, better health, education, other services, etc.
There’s a big ideological divide between the “old left” Tassie Labor and the Greens./George/Garland. It won’t be easy to bridge it and form some sort of a coalition.
BT 10.05pm
Where is this seat count at the moment, using the Hare Clarke, where it seems that a large numbers of voters have opted to support a thoroughly incompetent Liberal government,which has shown itself to be both fiscally blind and devoid of any forward planning skills.
Tasmania is in a “hole” and the Liberal plan is to “place a roof over” the hole with money it doesn’t have and “the devils” will win a premiership, which will stop people talking about Salmon farming, lack of government services and “ferries” in a far away place.
Repeating the dictum that Labor and Winter should not have called a en early election will fix all
It seems to have been enough for many a Taswegian to be sufficient reason to remain firmly attached to the Liberals “black hole” for a further period of time.
Tasmanians believe in always put off till tomorrow at every possible opportunity.