Dr KEVIN BONHAM
Thanks pilko. However the problem with trying to predict that Labor will be “thrown out” is easily enough explained. Of the two scenarios under which this could occur, by far the most likely is a hung parliament. A hung parliament *is* pretty likely. I was assessing it as about 50-50 at the time of the last EMRS poll, but then we had the Ritchie debacle.
An outright win for the Libs is extremely unlikely at this stage. Only one government in Tasmanian history has gone from an outright majority to outright opposition and that was the Lowe/Holgate government, which was ripping itself to shreds in public and had far worse problems than this mob. Even the size of swing that Labor suffered then wouldn’t be enough for a Liberal majority. I do ask myself if it *could* still happen from time to time, but electoral history is totally against it. So realistically that leaves us with hung parliament as the way that Labor might lose.
However to say whether a hung parliament will result in Labor losing office, you need to know how the various parties will respond in such a situation. We can take it for granted that the Liberals will attempt to deal with the Greens. We don’t know if Labor will and we don’t know if the Greens will be willing to deal with them if they do. Trying to nut out how the parties would behave in this situation is much harder than just predicting what sort of swings there might be and who might win how many seats. It is not easy to work out the optimum strategy for each party (except that the Libs need to try to form a government), let alone whether those in charge will follow it. In particular, how will the Greens balance the digust of their supporters with the current government with their supporters’ ideological aversion to the Liberal Party on social issues, if it comes to that? Very tricky question.
Most of the issues you mention have been around for years. Many (not all) are of very limited public interest and they have not stopped Labor polling much the same sort of figures in this election cycle as it was in the leadup to the 2006 election, which it won easily although many here were telling us it would not.
In particular, one message from Pembroke was very loud and clear: pretty much nobody on the eastern shore cares if Honey Bacon is upset about the redistribution of a government department.
What I am waiting to see is whether the Pembroke shambles was the final straw for voters who are indeed concerned about Labor being a rabble but were willing to cut them slack so long as the economy is in reasonable shape *and* Bartlett seems to be in control when it came to fixing things up. Alternatively, voters may not care that much about that either. It may be just another little cut.
I am a little mistrustful of my intuitive judgements on this sort of thing right now because *my own* advocative view as a voter at state level appears to be shifting. For the last decade or so I have typically supported Labor by default at state level (sometimes after putting some irrelevant independent 1) because the other two parties are too illiberal on various issues of concern to me. It’s not an absolute pattern and when particular Labor candidates irritate me, then they do not get my preferences. But in the last month or so, I’m leaning towards only voting for Labor candidates who can really impress me, rather than just voting for most Labor candidates because they are not Libs or Greens. And that could well result in my vote going all over the place.
Thus I am inclined to hold off on any firm comments on how likely a hung parliament now is until I see some fresh data. EMRS polls are extremely blunt instruments but the next one will be very interesting.
This comment appears at the end of this article, HERE. Comment HERE
