Three-and-a-half weeks on, there remains no resolution to the July 19 Tasmanian election, which ended with Liberal on 14 seats, Labor on 10, the Greens on five, independents with five and one from Shooters Fishers and Farmers, with neither Liberal nor Labor winning the confidence-and-supply guarantees needed from cross-benchers. Owing to an unusual provision in the Tasmanian Constitution Act, in which ministers’ terms expire automatically seven days after the return of the election writs, the Governor was obliged to recommission Jeremy Rockliff’s Liberal government last week, inclusive of a ministerial reshuffle. But its survival is not ensured beyond the return of parliament next Tuesday, at which Labor leader Dean Winter plans to move a “constructive no confidence motion”, meaning one that puts Labor in government rather than requiring yet another election. There appears a good chance that this will be accomplished with the reluctant support of the Greens and at least three independents, even without formal commitments to support it through a full term in office.
Labor is determined not to enter anything that might be characterised as a deal with the Greens, without taking the principle to its ultimate conclusion by allowing the Liberals to remain in government, as was done in similar circumstances after the 1996 election. The Liberals are duly looking for four votes out of the six non-Greens cross-benchers, and appear unable to find them: independents Craig Garland, Peter George and Kristie Johnston have all signalled hostility in varying degrees, despite the Liberals offering a multi-party “budget panel”, a ban on greyhound racing and the protection of 40,000 hectares of forest from logging. Labor’s disinclination to follow suit presumably reflects confidence in the strength of their position, despite mounting expressions of frustration from both independents and Greens.
Can we please keep this thread for discussion of the Tasmanian state election. The open thread for general discussion is here.
The Greens need to decide if they’ll continue as the brother party of the Liberals in the noalition, or do what their voters want which is eject the toxic Liberal party.
The Greens need to decide if no deal or even constructive discussion with Labor is worth agreeing to. Is there any point propping up a government that wants nothing to do with them?
In the previous thread Kevin mentioned that if Labor rolled Winter the new leader would have no legitimacy although I’d argue with Labor coming off their lowest ever primary vote and Winter not even getting close to quota in his own right he doesn’t have much legitimacy either
Let’s see what twists and turns the roller coaster ride takes today
Just Wow.
They all need to grow up and work it out. The electorate voted for this parliament. Get on with it.
(Decide which issues you don’t agree on and throw those open to a vote of the parliament while guaranteeing supply! Hint: stadium. Salmon. Forestry.)
Mabwm: “Just Wow.
They all need to grow up and work it out. The electorate voted for this parliament. Get on with it.
(Decide which issues you don’t agree on and throw those open to a vote of the parliament while guaranteeing supply! Hint: stadium. Salmon. Forestry.)”
——————————————————————————
The truism that the electorate voted for this parliament doesn’t help very much in this situation, because the electorate voted in a tangled sort of mess. Yes, if you put together the 14 Lib members, the 10 Labor members and David O’Byrne, you certainly have a majority that would vote for a continuation of current policies re the stadium, salmon, forestry and, for that matter, pokies.
But now we’re talking about something that looks a little like the “grand coalition” that some posters on the main thread seem to favour. And I would bet London to a brick on the overwhelming majority of both Liberal and Labor voters looking on the very suggestion of such a coalition as an abomination: a complete betrayal of everything that they believe in. Something like Carlton and Collingwood football clubs agreeing to merge. It doesn’t matter that, at least in Tassie, Liberal and Labor policies are becoming increasingly the same: political loyalties still run strong in Australia, especially among the boomers (PB can provide confirmation of this).
Moreover, although the combined Liberal-Labor vote was around 65 per cent, opinion polls suggest that rather more than 35 per cent of the population have concerns about the stadium and possibly salmon-farming as well.
I think the best way to interpret the election result is that the sweet spot would be a leftish coalition government under a Labor premier but taking more of an environmentalist approach than Winter and his party appear to be prepared to adopt. (That is, a smidgeon of environmentalism, rather than none whatsoever.) And, of course, adopting some sort of strategy to try to bring down the cost to taxpayers of a Tasmanian AFL team.
HBG: “The Greens need to decide if no deal or even constructive discussion with Labor is worth agreeing to. Is there any point propping up a government that wants nothing to do with them?”
———————————————————————————
My mail, for what it’s worth, is that the Greens are struggling to find a way of refusing to back Winter for Premier that doesn’t piss off their voters. Many Greens voters, particularly those who have moved to Tassie from the mainland since Labor went into opposition in 2014, cling to a misguided expectation that Labor in office will be more friendly to the environment than would the Libs.
If I were in charge of the Greens, I would announce a list of very moderate demands (stuff like independent reviews of the stadium and the salmon industry) which would be the bare minimum that they would require in order to support either major party as the government. This would give them some sort of starting point for the upcoming parliamentary sittings. They are going to have to find a way of putting pressure back onto Winter, or else they will end up buckling under and looking extremely weak.
PS: According to Kevin B, Labor is opposed to (sort of) Rockliff’s proposal to shut down the dishlickers.
MB I think that sounds like a sensible approach, reviews don’t sound too controversial
Well until the reviews find the stadium shouldn’t go ahead and salmon farming should be shut down lol
If Labor is opposed to ending greyhound racing it gives the Greens a reason to go with the Liberals
Overall it seems like Labor and the Liberals have more in common than Labor and the Greens down there
Nothing like a cross bench BOP, eh?
Would we all like to dance the Grande Coalition Waltz?
In a somewhat similar situation it can take the dutch up to a year to form a government. The belgians can end up not forming much of a government at all. The central ‘government’ just throws up its hands and cede more and more effective power to the various language speaking groups. The Italians had decades of revolving door governments, seemingly at a rate of about one a year.
Enjoy!
I notice that above there is not the slightest inclination amongst Greens posters to do a bit of self-reflection about why it is that they get treated as if they have virulent political leprosy. What is it that the Greens need to do to make THEM acceptable?
Instead there are just more and more insistent demands on the majors to behave like the Greens want them to. The schadenfreude is delicious.
Bee BOP a lula
Tassie’s my baby!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDU9FP5_B2M
Labor in Tassie is ruled by its industrial wing. Industry and the environment don’t always go hand in hand in Taswegia. Stadium, salmon and forestry.
The ALP’s negotiating style is, surrender completely or fugg off. The Greens appear to be saying something fairly similar.
This is exactly what the voters voted for. It is why no-one has the numbers.
The electorate is entitled to demand all members of parliament buckle down and work it out. Majority government is not going to happen for a long time. Deal with it.
BW: “In a somewhat similar situation it can take the dutch up to a year to form a government. The belgians can end up not forming much of a government at all. The central ‘government’ just throws up its hands and cede more and more effective power to the various language speaking groups. The Italians had decades of revolving door governments, seemingly at a rate of about one a year.”
——————————————————————————-
I think Tassie is probably moving in this direction. And, if the Teals continue to flourish, I think the Federal Parliament will eventually end up in a similar situation.
BW: “I notice that above there is not the slightest inclination amongst Greens posters to do a bit of self-reflection about why it is that they get treated as if they have virulent political leprosy. What is it that the Greens need to do to make THEM acceptable?Instead there are just more and more insistent demands on the majors to behave like the Greens want them to. The schadenfreude is delicious.”
——————————————————————————
Like many mainlanders, you simply don’t get it. Both the Tassie Greens and Tassie Labor are rather different sorts of parties to their mainland counterparts (although I would say that some ACT Greens, particularly Rattenbury, are similar to their Tassie counterparts in being genuine environmentalists rather than watermelons).
There is a green tinge to Federal Labor and some of the state branches, particularly NSW (with Victoria very much at the other end of the spectrum). But, since the demise of Lisa Singh’s career, I think it would be fair to say that Tassie Labor is almost totally free of any concern for the environment. Well, perhaps Bec White just a little bit. But virtually nobody else in the party. As mabwm says, the party down here is ruled by its industrial wing, particularly the AMWU.
I am no fan of the Greens, but they have always been the ones making the approaches to Labor rather than vice versa. In 2010-14 they made many compromises under their coalition arrangement with Labor. In the end, it was Labor who expelled the Greens from the coalition just before the election, not on any particular policy grounds, but in the forlorn hope that it might make it easier for them to win.
Since then, it has remained an article of faith within the Labor Party that it was dealing with the Greens that lost them the 2014 election and that their only way back to government is to keep refusing to have anything to do with them.
And how has that gone for Labor? In 2014, Labor got 27.3 per cent of the primary vote and the Greens 13.8 per cent. In 2018 – an election in which Labor adopted a more Greens-like policies on several issues, especially the pokies – the respective proportions were 32.6 per cent and 10.3 per cent. In 2021, after Labor went back to trying to make themselves as indistinguishable from the Libs as possible, the respective proportions were 28.2 per cent and 12.4 per cent. In 2024, 28 per cent and 13.9 per cent, and in 2025 25.9 per cent and 14.4 per cent.
In short, the only election since 2014 in which Labor made any sort of forward progress with its primary vote was in 2018, when it adopted some policy positions closer to those of the Greens. Since then, they’ve been going steadily backwards.
Tassie Labor is surely in the realm of Einstein’s apocryphal apohorism that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
But I’m an optimist: if Winter becomes Premier, circumstances will force him to slowly take his party closer to a pro-environment position and towards making more sensible decisions about the stadium and other issues. As I posted yesterday, softlee softlee catchee monkey. Tassie Labor desperately needs to reform and modernise itself. It has failed miserably to do so in opposition, but, you never know, it might be able to do so in government.
A lot of talk about “growing up” of the elected politicians. Maybe the Tasmanian electors should also “grow up” and elect a workable paraliment. I guess you can afford the luxury of electing a rabel, when you are a parasitic state living of the hard work of the mainlanders.
meher baba – so your advice is Green give up any demands for real change and go with some bland inquiries and reports to support a hapless leader who appears to excel at shooting himself in the foot even when the gun isn’t loaded? Hard to see how that wins them any more votes.
Seems to me that the real risk of no one being able to form government is that Labor will be wiped from the map if we go to another election – the Greens and independents who supported the motion of no confidence managed to increase their vote.
Its hard to see the difference from Winter’s current positions of not compromising on his *unstated* values, and 4 years of Liberals without a majority.
Perhaps the only way of achieving your desired change in the Labor party will actually require another spanking at an election – something that the Greens and Independents may not want, but may end up embracing.
Loath as I am to agree with one of my least favoured commenters on this site, it’s time for Tas Liberals and Tas Labor to put on their big-boy pants and talk grand Coalition if they’re going to stick to their crossbench-wooing strategy of “give us everything we want and we offer you absolutely nothing meaningful in return”. They clearly have more in common with each other on policy (yes to the stadium, yes to salmon farming, no to transparency, no to protecting the environment) than they do with the majority of the crossbench, including the Greens.
Can someone explain to me why getting rid of greyhound racing has become a more salient bargaining chip in the negotiations for government than say, the salmon farming industry or the AFL stadium?
c@t: “Can someone explain to me why getting rid of greyhound racing has become a more salient bargaining chip in the negotiations for government than say, the salmon farming industry or the AFL stadium?”
——————————————————————————–
The only explanation I can think of is that the Libs considered it to be an expendable thing for them to offer up to the crossbenchers, whereas salmon farming and the stadium are no go areas.
I think, C@tmomma, because at this stage there is no difference between Labor and the Libs on the stadium or salmon farming.
These issues could be used as a bargaining chip, but at the moment they are not being used.
Tropical Wonderland: “meher baba – so your advice is Green give up any demands for real change and go with some bland inquiries and reports to support a hapless leader who appears to excel at shooting himself in the foot even when the gun isn’t loaded? Hard to see how that wins them any more votes.”
——————————————————————————–
Given that I don’t seriously believe that the Greens are capable of following through with any threat to support the Libs over Labor, or perhaps even to abstain, I think the strategy I have outlined is the best available to them. As opposed to going quietly into that good night by ending up backing Winter without getting anything in return.
How another election would go is a bit uncertain. I would suspect that both the Liberal and Labor vote would increase and the Greens – who would be universally blamed for the election – would see their vote decrease. So it’s definitely not in the interests of the Greens, and probably not in the interests of most indies as well. Every party and candidate would struggle to find money for another campaign.
I’m starting to feel that Winter is probably going to make it to Premier. But he’s going to be in an extremely precarious position. And I think his team is very weak: he’s fortunate to be able to bring in Ruth Forrest and Craig Farrell (who I understand is giving up the presidency of the LC) to strengthen it a bit.
Lots of sensible posts from Meher Baba, IMO.
FWIW, I don’t have much time for ANY of the Tasmanian parties, including Labor. The only reason I would back the latter is that it is a bit more in favor of distributing wealth while the Liberals are the opposite when it comes to that particular value. And, by jingoes, poor Tasmanians really ARE poor.
My real point is that if you vote for an indie or the Greens you are voting for instability with no real idea of where that might lead.
ATM there are six big no/yes on the table: no/yes to logging in native forests, no/yes to a salmon industry, no/yes to dogs running around in circles, no/yes to a stadium, no/yes Marinus Link, and no windfarms.
How do you negotiate which no or yes gets up and which goes down?
I suppose Labor could compromise and build windfarms only in locations ‘approved of’ by your random Earthian. Those locations come under the general heading of ‘somewhere else’.
Either the dogs go round or they don’t.
You can’t build half a Marinus Link.
You could alter some of the parameters of the stadium but you still end up either with a stadium or not.
Logging? The Greens will never be satisfied if there is any logging in native forests. The Liberals and Labor will never be satisfied if it is stopped.
You either kill the dogs off, or not. You can’t halve the difference there.
There might be scope for killing off parts of the salmon industry. Save the Maugean Skate and make Strahan disappear, perhaps? Noting that with climate change the Skate is almost certainly headed for extinction. As is the salmon industry itself.
IMO reviews on any of the above might be a face saver but it is merely kicking the can down the road.
There are a few opportunities in there for 14% to get 14 per cent’s worth. But not a lot, really. The real problem is the general perception that the Greens are the Beef Wellington of Tasmanian electoral politics.
Whoever gets into bed with the Greens knows several things for certain. None of them nice. And we all know what they are so for once I will not be reminding everyone.
As has been pointed out many times by others, but doesn’t seem to have sunk in with some people, a Grand Coalition between Labor and Liberal would make the Greens the official Opposition. A bigger legitimacy coup for the Greens is hard to imagine.
And it would mean the major parties actively campaigning on the fecklessness and incompetence of their coalition partners whenever the next election rolls around. You know all those ‘Lib/Lab same/same’ comments minor parties and independents like to throw around? Try explaining them away under circumstances like that.
For crying out loud, it just won’t happen.
“Grand Coalition between Labor and Liberal would make the Greens the official Opposition”
Would it? The never going to happen “grand coalition” would be nothing more than Labor saying “we won’t cause another election for x months, for stability reasons.” That wouldn’t preclude them being the Opposition.
Labor saying they won’t cause another election for x months and becoming the Opposition isn’t a grand coalition. It’s not any sort of coalition. It’s letting the Liberals form government.
I think the better move from Tasmanian Labor would have been to cool off its heels after the election and conduct a review. It hasn’t won a majority since 2006 and with a vote below 25% in 2025 it’s not going to get one any time soon.
If it can’t, then Federal intervention into the state party should be on the table. This is getting ridiculous. If it comes to another state election this year I wouldn’t be surprised if Labor’s vote goes below 20% and people just vote for the Liberals out of exasperation and give them the majority.
Hard to see it really going to another election this year, doubt anyone really wants it either.
And even if some really want it, no-one wants to be seen as the ones that caused it to happen and therefore be wiped off the electoral map by indignant voters taking their votes elsewhere or staying at home in protest.
So if it does happen, it really will be either a desperate tactic by someone; or it happens suddenly/by default due to a parliamentary vote of no confidence that goes differently to how it was ‘supposed to’.
I doubt there’s any coming back for Winter now that the Greens called his bluff.
He wedged himself by refusing to even speak to the Greens (instead of just having policy red lines), which ruled out any kind of playing-nice informal co-operation, and I can’t see Winter managing to dig himself out of the situation given Woodruff’s comments.
Woodruff has made clear that they’re not promising any kind of confidence in the Liberals, just unable to support Winter. I’m confident a third election would be disastrous for Labor and probably not great for the Greens, but it raises the real prospect that Labor could form a government that lasts the term if someone challenges Winter.
Tas Lib premier should have brought parliament sitting forward all he has done is allowed drift and labor and greens and independents think and talks time.
Is the Mercury correct in reporting that the Greens won’t support Winter’s ‘no confidence’ motion?
If so, it does seem like Rockliff is not far wrong in publicly telling Winter that “The game is up.” and to let the Libs get on with governing.
BTSays: Yes.
They have left the door open a bit: “If Labor wants to form a stable progressive minority government, they’ve got a week to engage meaningfully on policy with the Greens. Our door remains open” – but that backs Winter into a corner. His best shot was to agree to play nice with the Greens and *not* give significant policy concessions; if he wouldn’t even talk to the Greens before, he’s not going to give them actual concessions now.
Rockliff is right – Winter is politically a dead man walking. But Rockliff does not have the numbers if Labor decide to get serious with a new leader.
Thanks Rebecca
“But Rockliff does not have the numbers if Labor decide to get serious with a new leader.”
Maybe not, but timing is everything. If Labor don’t succeed next week, with or without Winter, then it will hardly be a good look to introduce another ‘no confidence’ motion just because they feel like it with a different leader who has a somewhat different agenda to Winter. Sagacity would suggest this would be an arrogant and potentially suicidal move.
I don’t think the outcome of next week’s vote suggests anything much beyond that vote, though.
Woodruff was very clear that in no way were they promising any kind of confidence to the Liberals, the crossbench is broadly Labor-sympathetic, and Rockliff has no guarantees of ongoing support from anyone.
Essentially the only way Rockliff serves a full term here is if Winter blows it and Labor decide to unofficially provide confidence to the Libs rather than try again.
I suppose it’s plausible Winter could still salvage it this time if he went the review route meher baba suggested upthread, but it’s about the only way I can see a way forward for him, and it’d still be a fair comedown given his previous arrogance towards the crossbench.
The salmon industry employs directly and indirectly 5,000 Tasmanians, brings in around $1 billion to the economy and in many communities is the main source of good jobs (UTAS data). The multiplyer effects of closing the industry would put Tasmania into a recession.
It’s remarkably efficient in producing protein, and pens have a total spatial footprint of about 1km in the most recent industry data, that’s 100 hectares a tiny fraction of the Tassie inshore waters and about quarter of the area of Hobart Airport as a point of comparison. Its uses less than 1% of the nations farmed antibiotics, and water sampling repeatedly shows water quality is high. That’s independent samples by the EPA. The industry uses modern efficient practices built off Tassies natural advantage.
The Magellan skate numbers are increasing in IMAS UTAS data, and it’s not clear what’s really happening with the species long term with global warming almost certainly the main risk factor. With continued global warming the stratification events which seems the big risk factor are going to get worse and worse, not salmon.
The salmon fish kills are largely driven by global warming through heat stress (leading to infection), deoxygenating water with a good dose of jelly fish transported south on a accelerating east Australian current, similar to the factors driving the kills in South Australia native fish. Like farming and forestry, salmon is on the edge of climate change, an industry needing help with adaptation.
As for onshore farming, that’s barely successful anywhere globally, with less than 1% of farmed salmon onshore, and that comes with huge energy and resource use. It’s not clearly better from a full life cycle analysis, and the globally tiny output point to major challenges. Sure encourage it, support it, but it’s not even demonstrated as viable in Tasmania at present.
Of course, everything’s humans do have an impact, but that’s not the debate.
FWIW, it is ‘Maugean’ Skate, not ‘Magellan’ Skate. Maugé died in Tasmania in 1802 which is not the sort thing to get any species off to a flying start. Magellan did not make it either.
‘Rebecca says:
Wednesday, August 13, 2025 at 7:26 pm
I don’t think the outcome of next week’s vote suggests anything much beyond that vote, though.
Woodruff was very clear that in no way were they promising any kind of confidence to the Liberals, the crossbench is broadly Labor-sympathetic, and Rockliff has no guarantees of ongoing support from anyone.
Essentially the only way Rockliff serves a full term here is if Winter blows it and Labor decide to unofficially provide confidence to the Libs rather than try again.
I suppose it’s plausible Winter could still salvage it this time if he went the review route meher baba suggested upthread, but it’s about the only way I can see a way forward for him, and it’d still be a fair comedown given his previous arrogance towards the crossbench.’
=============================
Why would he do it?
Winter knows he would be not much more than a glorified hostage to the crossbench with close to zero prospects of lasting the term given the fundamentally irreconcilable settings of the Greens and Labor on ALL major policies.
At the appropriate time of their choosing they would focus on some populist policy or other and slaughter him.
I do appreciate the humility of the Tasmanian Greens.
C’mon Hill Billy – leave the salmon industry lobbying garbage to the politicians that receive their donations – according to Australian Bureau of Statistics census numbers, there are at best 1,722 people employed in the salmon industry in Tasmania. This figure is almost certainly an overestimation by including employment in other seafood industries. The figure also includes seafood process workers and seafood wholesaling. (BTW 1,722 makes up about 0.7% of employment in Tasmania)
As for your unsubstantiated claims about protein efficiency and relying on a hobbled EPA – c’mon you can do better than that drivel.
Not to mention they are all foreign owned – one by a Brazilian company convicted multiple times of bribery – just the kind of people you want to leave in charge of your most precious natural resources.
Does anyone recollect the reasoning for calling for a “no confidence” vote in the first place ?
Tropical wonderland, here’s the UTAS IMAS assessment. 5188 direct and indirect jobs.
https://www.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1689368/2020-21_Social_Economic_Analysis_contributions_December2023_snapshot.pdf
Here’s the UTAS IMAS assessment of the Maugean skate, numbers are increasing under current management.
https://www.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/1795799/2014-2024-Macquarie-Harbour-Maugean-skate-population-status-and-monitoring-report.pdf/_nocache#:~:text=While%20there%20was%20evidence%20of,impact%20environmental%20events%20that%20occurred
The EPA monitoring is independent. Rejecting independent data is not science.
The areal footprint is verifiable.
The lack of land based salmon farming globally is a fact.
The fact an industry is foreign owned is irrelevant.
Focussing on an overblown NIMBY issue is shifting the focus from the real material threats to our marine environment, sets up unproductive culture wars, and threatens the livelihoods of thousands of families for no obvious reason.
Boerwar, you can thank autocorrect… 🙁
“ FWIW, it is ‘Maugean’ Skate, not ‘Magellan’ Skate. Maugé died in Tasmania in 1802 which is not the sort thing to get any species off to a flying start. Magellan did not make it either.”
Meher Baba: “How another election would go is a bit uncertain. I would suspect that both the Liberal and Labor vote would increase and the Greens – who would be universally blamed for the election – would see their vote decrease. So it’s definitely not in the interests of the Greens, and probably not in the interests of most indies as well. Every party and candidate would struggle to find money for another campaign.”
I’m not so sure about who would cop the blame, other than “those bloody politicians” if there were yet another election in Tasmania.
What I would venture though is that the result will be exactly the same, just as the 2024 and 2025 election results were identical in terms of seats.
The people have elected their reps – the reps now have to govern. No-one is getting a majority in Tasmania!
If there was another election I think the Liberals would get to majority, I don’t think anyone wants that though
There didn’t seem to be much action on the rollercoaster yesterday, maybe they are working up to the top again getting ready for the wild ride next week
Obviously supporters of salmon farming would have no issue with an independent inquiry if it’s ticking all the boxes as suggested
My non data driven sense is if an election was called today the Libs would get a majority. At the cost of Labor and an indi or 2.
I’m reserving the rest of my thoughts until after Tuesday.
https://www.pollbludger.net/2025/08/13/tasmanian-election-aftermath-week-four/#comment-4584393
Hmmm, GRN 5, LAB 10, IND 5, LIB 14, SFF 1, protracted, clear as mud, just like this post
Given the major parties/ crossbenchers have been ruling out/ in various possibilities it seems the Blitzkrieg has turned into a Sitzkrieg
Compromise, others mentioned yet more reviews
Art of the possible, I’d say LAB, some IND to blame for backing away from election commitments in the state interest, LIB would make the most doable combo, especially since it does appear that on many hot button issues (opportunity/ airport/ ferries/ …, housing, education, health, budget, stadium, Stinky Fishies, logging, …) in the media, rather than to voters, centrist LAB/ right of centre LIB have considerable overlap, scrutinised by GRN/ rest of IND
Voters can expect quite a bit of transparency from any disagreements leaking
In the end count on pollyTICs and their self-interest
The various alliances/ combos/ coalitions are going to have to focus on what they agree on, and find some way of dealing with what they don’t ((un)fortunately many of those are salient issues for voters, and in Albo’s words go with what you campaigned on)
As someone that has lived in single or multi-party rule environments I prefer alliances/ coalitions, that in Tonicchio’s words are based on if not governing principles than governing contracts (Holy Land’s occupying power, Switzerland, Netherlands come to mind)
As one former Tasmanian GRN/ LAB state government premier pointed out they had a mechanism for a while how to deal with the not agreed upon stuff, be it negs/ polling/ votes on the floor/ though not referendums
Right now it would appear that vote of confidence on the floor would look shaky, but a week is a long time in pollyTICs
Looks like the Greens have revealed their true nature once again. Tree Tories. More interested in keeping the corporate shills in the Liberals in power than helping the working class.
Dean Winter hopeful he will become Tasmanian premier, despite stalled negotiations with the Greens
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-14/dean-winter-premier-tasmania-hopeful-stalled-greens-negotiations/105650720
“Labor leader Dean Winter is still hopeful his bid to become Tasmania’s premier will be successful, despite the Greens saying they cannot support a Labor government “at this stage” due to a lack of policy compromises.
:::
A Greens spokesperson said the decision to not attend Tuesday’s meeting with Labor and crossbench MPs was also agreed to by Mr Winter.
“It was jointly acknowledged that the conversation between Labor and the Greens had not progressed far enough,” the spokesperson said.
“It’s hardly good faith for Mr Winter to claim otherwise.
“The Greens’ door is still open. We hope Labor comes back to the table to negotiate tangible outcomes for the people of Tasmania.”
I can’t help but wonder if Winter would be in the position he is now if he had taken the kinds of positions about playing nice with the crossbench he seems to be taking in that article at the beginning, instead of the couple of weeks he spent refusing to talk to Woodruff at all and telling the entire crossbench that he basically wasn’t prepared to negotiate about anything.
I doubt that it’ll save him now.
Ghost Of Whitlam says:
Thursday, August 14, 2025 at 12:27 pm
Looks like the Greens have revealed their true nature once again. Tree Tories. More interested in keeping the corporate shills in the Liberals in power than helping the working class.
——————————-
Looks like the alp have revealed their true nature once again, Liberals. More interested in keeping the corporate shills in the libs in power rather than helping the working class.
Works both ways.
Refusing to negotiate or compromise will keep them on the opposition benches for ever and we all suffer for that.
Politics is the art of compromise. Obviously not in Tasmania!
Mabwm 4.54pm
Don’t feed it! – I was pleased that the 12.27 comment had been ignored by everyone . . . until I got to yours.
Mostly the provocative, partisan (and often analysis-free, or partisan trash dressed up as ‘analysis’) comments are reserved for the main threads, thankfully.
Above ABC article is a very interesting read, it looks like the Greens’ decision has given Peter George cover to open up to backing the Liberals, which makes things even harder for Labor. Also interesting that Eric Abetz actually seems more open to tax increases than Labor; honestly given the material coming out of both parties one could quite genuinely make the claim that the Tas Libs are more left-wing than Tas Labor, at least while the bargaining is going on.
Mabwm the Greens Political Party only have a single choice to make. Do they want the awful Liberal premiership to continue, or do what their voters want, which is Labor in Government.
BTSays – I agree – also a higher quality of commentator – on average. Main threads are unbearable. But must confess it is hard to resist stuff like tree torries and the working class.
Next week’s events will hopefully reveal all about the many assumptions and backroom whisper informed comments here.
Almost more exciting than election watching!!