So – it looks like Tasmania will have a hung parliament (as in, a more democratic one) with no single party having enough votes to govern without the agreement of one of the other two. The Liberals are fairly confident they’ll be able to form government with the Greens, although I don’t know how that would work – on what do the Liberals and Greens agree, apart from that the Tasmanian ALP are presently a shameless bunch of incompetent crooks (and liars)?
As for South Australia – it looks like the ALP might have just held on, which would mean the good news that the Liberals have lost. On the other hand, it would also mean the bad news that the repulsively sneaky state ALP has won, and that prize-winning turd and opponent of democracy Michael Atkinson could remain state Attorney-General and continue putting the children of the rest of Australia at risk.
Neither party deserves any sympathy from Australians, including progressive Australians. It’s about time there was a cost for taking their base completely for granted, and for playing dirty, dirty politics.
And don’t think you’re getting a free pass, Liberals. After a term of your equally corrupt but even more malevolent style of government, a chastened and reformed ALP might well earn its way back in. Along with the Greens, of course. We’ll be watching.
UPDATE: It looks like SA might have produced the best result possible (short of Greens MPs): a Liberal defeat AND no more Michael Atkinson as AG!
Moved On 
Is that the sound of Blotter blowing it out his arse?
Of course not. No shame, ever.
If you want a crystal ball-view of what is going to happen in Tasmania over the next few years, you just need to know two things: Murdoch/ABC monomedia and what they both did when Brisbane had joint Lord Mayors Campbell Newman and David Hinchcliffe.
It was all smiles and hope and respect for the will of the people, for about a minute or so, then it was full-on feral Murdoch’s flying monkey army to ensure that the poor stupid illiterates understood that the reason we couldn’t have totally cool expensive Goldman-Sachs stuff was because of those stinky gay thwarting Labor types.
Then we got “can do” campbell newman as mayor with total majority. His media advisor, of course, was the local Murdoch “city council” reporter. Crooks.
It’s a bit surprising that poison pen or lefty haven’t yet picked up on the scandal last week. Murdoch’s Brisbane man (the editor of the ‘Courier-Mail’), David Fagan, wrote that he was pissed off with Newman for not giving him an exclusive on Brisbane’s stupid “Clem7″ tunnel.
In effect, Fagan said: we put you there and we can take you out!
Of course, that is not only true but it’s exactly how Murdoch works in every country he has infected.
Poor old Fagan appears to have gone troppo and mistaken himself for his boss.
Wooops!
Anyway, out of the blue he has been relieved of the editor’s job.
Even Rann is not claiming victory in South Australia yet, none the less a swing between 7 and 8 percent to the Libs is a good result for the conservative side of politics how ever you slice it. I am taking my lead from Isobel Redman and not conceding it until all of the votes are counted. Transpose that swing to a federal election and Brother Number One would be calling in the movers to the Lodge….
As for Tasmania that is a good example of just how problematic having a silly voting system can be according to some the Hare Clarke system gives a more democratic result but I think that it only guarantees weak governments and eternal compromises and some very strange bed fellows.
“As for Tasmania that is a good example of just how problematic having a silly voting system can be according to some the Hare Clarke system gives a more democratic result but I think that it only guarantees weak governments and eternal compromises and some very strange bed fellows.”
If by “weak governments” you mean “government by parliament as the constitution requires that is actual democracy” then, sure. “Silly”? Democracy is “silly”?
The only real problem with a democratic system like Hare Clarke is undemocratic parties like the ALP and Liberals that don’t actually advocate for anything. A “broad church” party is all about thwarting the will of voters by subsuming as many of them as possible under one group in parliament regardless of what they actually want to have happen.
If you think about it, why on earth should one party ever have more than50% of the seats? More than 50% of the population does not agree on a majority of issues. Why is it not better for people to have advocates who represent their particular views and who can debate with the representatives of other people’s views on particular issues? Surely that’s the way it should be done in a democracy.
Proportional representation is democracy. Single member electorates are a means of frustrating democracy by spreading non-big party votes thin. How can you support a system where a party gets 10% of the vote and 0% of the seats in the main chamber?
I am taking my lead from Isobel Redman and not conceding it until all of the votes are counted.
I believe under the SA system that Rann can claim victory prior to Iain Hall conceding.
What a silly voting system.
Jeremy
The Hare Clarke system for the primary house in Tasmania may be more democratic in your eyes but does eternally having weak governments (of any flavour ) really make for good administrations? I think that the way the federal system works by having single member electorates for the reps and proportional representation in the senate provides both workable government and representation for minority interests in the parliament.
The madness in the Tasmanian system is a perfect example of just how something may be good in theory but bad in practice.
“may be more democratic in your eyes”
Is it open to debate? On the present figures:
Labor 37.1% -> 40% of seats.
Liberal 39.1% -> 40% of seats.
Greens 21.3% -> 20% of seats.
Contrast that with South Australia:
Labor 37.9% -> 53% of seats.
Liberals 41.4% -> 38% of seats.
Greens 8% -> 0% of seats.
Fundies First 5.2% -> 0% of seats.
The only reason you could prefer the latter result is if you have utter contempt for the voters and would prefer that the system “corrected” their votes.
“provides both workable government and representation for minority interests in the parliament.”
Ensuring that the only independents who can ever be elected in the House in which the national government is formed are local-issues ones.
What “madness” in the Tasmanian system do you identify? In what way is it “bad in practice” for Greens voters to be represented in government?
a swing between 7 and 8 percent to the Libs is a good result for the conservative side of politics how ever you slice it.
Well I’m going to slice it on the side of reality by reminding you that elections are won on the number of seats won, not the 2PP vote, so an overall swing is meaningless unless it occurs in the seats you need to win. According to Antony Green the swing was 1.7 per cent in marginal Labor seats, 7.7 per cent in safe Labor seats and 11.3 per cent in very safe Labor seats. There was also an average 8.3 per cent swing to the Libs in the 14 seats they already held. That’s why Labor has won – the Libs didn’t get the swing they needed in the seats they needed to win.
Jeremy: I have no idea how a Lib-Green government will go. Perhaps Iain, having “observed politics for 40 years or so” can tell us.
Well it looks like Atkinson will quit the ministry.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/attorney-general-michael-atkinson-to-quit-front-bench/story-e6frea6u-1225843341005
Didn’t Iain predict yesterday that Rann would be ousted?
Shame Rann didn’t go or atleast only form a minority. Though great news that Atkinson is quitting the front bench
I know, that’s fantastic news. The best possible result (save a miraculous win for the Greens) is a defeat for the Libs, but Atkinson resigning.
Yes he did Keri. He also predicted that the Chantelois scandal would be *the* decisive factor in his loss.
Very glad to hear that Atkinson has finally fallen on his sword!
SA’s legislative assembly appear to have elected a F First person too.
Oh, don’t. Now I’m all sad again.
That’s what single-member electorates do: the only independents who can get through are local fanatics, like religious nuts.
They also had a Independent running on a Dignity for Disability get through in last position as well.
Independents. Silly.