Tasmanian Times


Hung Parliament

A HUNG parliament would be returned if Tasmania went to an election today, according to the latest poll.

And the Liberals would pick up an extra three seats as they have enjoyed a 12 per cent rally.

The EMRS poll released yesterday showed Labor had suffered an 8 per cent loss of electoral support since March 2004.

The result mirrors that of a Morgan poll, released in January, which showed Labor had slumped 8 per cent under Premier Paul Lennon.

In more bad news for Mr Lennon, the EMRS poll also showed that more than four out of 10 people did not know who they wanted to be the premier of the state.

The Mercury link:
Poll blow to Labor

Also, The Examiner:
War chest

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]


  1. Rebecca winter

    July 7, 2006 at 7:22 am

    i reckon that people should be allowed to vote when they turn 16. they are mature responsible teenagers who need to learn the responsibilities of voting in a democratic society.

    please email me back if you have any extra information for me.

  2. Barnaby Drake

    February 20, 2005 at 4:46 pm

    It is very likely that the decision to build a Tsmanian pulp mill was made between Paul Lennon and John Gay.

    What we are seeing now is the theatre associated with that decision.

    In less than a year from now, the preliminary work will probably start on constructing the site. The only problem for the protagonists of this deal is the delay that public opinion may cause them, not the outcome. Between times, they will have to suffer the protestors and the environmentalists and all the other interested parties who think that they might be able to influence the outcome of this decision. They have already issued carefully spun and edited documentation outlining their case and are going through the motions of listening — but then, this is all part of the theatre!

    What is all important is the immense increase in company profits, distributed not among the owners of the timber, but among the shareholders of Gunns. In this, they have a head start over their detractors, and are now engaged in a carefully orchestrated plan to minimize their influence and sway public opinion. Under the guise of saving jobs, increasing profits for Tasmania, they are preparing to indulge in the largest fraud ever perpetrated on the people of this island. As part of this project, moves to silence the opposition have taken dramatic and vicious terms in the form of personal SLAPP actions against the main opponents. Goliath has used the brute force of the Law to silence the Davids of this conflict. This action coincides with the issue of the official literature extolling the virtues of the scheme and placing it squarely in the court of Gunns. Destroying futures in Tasmania!

    After all, who actually owns all the forests and timber that they are about to process? Whose environment is at risk? Who will bear the brunt of this gigantic exercise in terms of degradation of infrastructure and environmental depletion? Who will suffer due to the loss of tourism in what was once the finest example on Earth of a cool temperate rainforest?

    None other than the citizens of Tasmania. The very people who are supposed to be the benefactors. With leaders who act like Judas goats, how are the ordinary citizens supposed to recognize that what they are being offered is a Mess of Potage.

    It is the people of Tasmania who own these forests and the old growth timber. It is the people of Tasmania who have been duped into paying for this conversion of their heritage into plantations of fast growing weeds. And now we have the justification in the form of higher company profits, dressed in the guise of ‘more jobs’ and ‘good for the economy’ being thrust upon us by self-interested corporate business and a puppet government.

    Why have not the people of Tasmania been offered a genuine share in these profits? Why could not the citizens be at least part owners of any such pulp mill? After all, they are the prime asset holders in this equation. Almost the entire timber and infrastructure that supports this mammoth proposition belongs to them. Why could not the same loans and financial grants that have been made to private industry, be made to the people of Tasmania, the rightful owners? !

    In a one-sided report published in the Sunday Examiner entitled ‘Pulp Mill – The Opportunities’, we are shown pictures of a rainbow over a huge pile of wood chips, a smiling timber worker who would just love a pulp mill above a cartoon of a repulsive looking Greeny who objects to everything. A prime example of vilification, the very thing for which Gunns is suing the Greens. Statements such as ‘people will only invest in further downstream processing if they are confident that the industry is going to survive in the long term and there’s not going to be interference with the resource base.’ Translated, this means shut up and let us get on with the carnage! We are then told that the destruction of our heritage ‘is the best forestry practice in the world.’ If this is so, God help the planet.

    In the entire 40 page supplement, there is no word of criticism or a mention of the ‘Tasmania Together, project. This is a massive piece of spin put out in favour of Gunns. To counteract this, it would need an equally expensive campaign, and as there is no direct financial gain from doing so, it is unlikely to happen.

    The Greens and the Wilderness Society are only chipping away at the edges of this problem. They are the thorn in the flesh that has drawn down this SLAPP action to silence them. Perhaps a better direction for the campaign would be to insist on at least, part public ownership of such a project. It would have two main effects: one, making it less attractive to Gunns, and two, to give the people of Tasmania a share in the profits that would enable them to actually protect and save what remains of our old growth forests.

  3. Barnaby Drake

    February 20, 2005 at 4:13 pm

    If the Parliament is to be hung, can we watch?

  4. Dr Kevin Bonham

    February 19, 2005 at 10:59 am

    1003 voters is actually quite a respectable sample for an opinion poll and is likely to be accurate to within a few per cent as an indicator of statwide voting intentions. There’s no need for Jason Lovell to ask the opinion of Richard Herr on the sample size when the track record shows that Herr’s polls have sometimes used smaller sample sizes – for instance a sample size of 535 voters for the September 11, 2001 poll frequently and falsely claimed to prove majority public support for ceasing old growth logging.

    However the 200 vote electorate-by-electorate samples are individually very unreliable. Even with accurate sampling of voter intention it is hard to predict Tasmanian results using raw quota figures anyway, because sometimes the distribution of votes between individual candidates is significant. I haven’t seen the electorate by electorate breakdowns from the EMRS poll so can’t comment on whether the predicted result (10-10-3 with 2 undecided) is a fair call based on the figures.

  5. Greg

    February 17, 2005 at 9:12 am

    Tasmania’s only hope is to elect a minority government. The Labor and Liberal parties time and time again demonstrate their contempt for Tasmanians and their wishes with regard to important issues such as healthcare and forestry.

    The economic growth Tasmania is enjoying will grind to a halt if old growth logging is not stopped. Tasmania’s natural environment is its greatest asset and yet the Labor party advocates it being cut down at the fastest rate ever.

    Each and every Labor and Liberal member in Tasmania is a source of shame for the people of the great island state.

  6. Jason Lovell

    February 16, 2005 at 4:57 am

    So, EMRS have again conducted a poll of 200 people in 5 Tasmanian electorates (1000 people total) and have again come up with some surprising figures.

    The only surprise for me is that anybody puts any store in these polls. Really, 200 people are not going to give a very clear picture of the intentions of the 65,000 voters in each electorate.

    I think its more likely that these small samples actually contribute to some distortion of the result’s reliability, but I don’t know enough about stats to be definitive – I’d love to hear Richard Herr, Tony McCall or Tony Hocking’s own opinions on this.

    I think the real problem for EMRS was revealed by The Mercury (16/2): “Pollster Tony Hocking conducted the telephone interview of 1003 people between Jan 28 and Feb 3.”

    Maybe a few extra staff are called for?

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Receive Our Weekly Tas Roundup

Copyright © Tasmanian Times. Site by Pixel Key

To Top