Tas Tasmanian Election 2024

[Jazny]

Ex-police minister's office notified of child sex abuse concerns before Paul Reynolds's honour-guard funeral

The office of former Tasmanian police minister Michael Ferguson received a police briefing note warning of child sex allegations against a senior officer before the force held a police funeral and full guard of honour for him, documents obtained by RTI show.

www.abc.net.au

That story doesn't say senior members of any political party covered up anything either? What are you guys talking about? It was about that disgusting police officer receiving full funeral honours despite Michael Ferguson being aware of a memo sent to him after his death about the allegations against him.

Why do people think that this tweet
represents anything that is actually happening in Tasmanian political parties? It seems more like a hypothetical scenario or something?

 

[Gralin]

That story doesn't say senior members of any political party covered up anything either? What are you guys talking about? It was about that disgusting police officer receiving full funeral honours despite Michael Ferguson being aware of a memo sent to him after his death about the allegations against him.

Why do people think that this tweet
View attachment 1930567represents anything that is actually happening in Tasmanian political parties? It seems more like a hypothetical scenario or something?

is your problem that it hasn't happened yet without a law in place or that you think it would never happen in Tasmania given the revelations of the last decade or two about what happens in Tasmania?

The government has a history of covering up child sexual abuse

there is a 3000+ page report on in that has recently been tabled but Jeremy is more interested in stopping people that disagree with party policy from leaving the party than dealing with that issue

 

[Jazny]

is your problem that it hasn't happened yet without a law in place or that you think it would never happen in Tasmania given the revelations of the last decade or two about what happens in Tasmania?

My issue is with people taking that tweet as though it is describing a real scenario that is happening in Tasmania. The last two decades uncovered a lot of horrible stuff that happens in government institutions, but the allegations aren't about either political party members covering things up to my knowledge.

I dont think I have an opinion on the Rockliff proposal about members of a party quitting forcing them out of their office. It is ridiculous that people who are only getting votes due to political party allegiance quitting and then going against what people voted for. Like if you voted for a Greens candidate and they suddenly became a RWNJ and quit the party and started to vote for de-forestation or something, that doesn't seem right. But I dont know, there are probably some cases when I would disagree with a member being forced out when they quit their party too. I dont have a strong opinion on it.

 

[Gralin]

My issue is with people taking that tweet as though it is describing a real scenario that is happening in Tasmania.

that wasn't happening though

The last two decades uncovered a lot of horrible stuff that happens in government institutions, but the allegations aren't about either political party members covering things up to my knowledge.

then you haven't been reading literally anything on the topic, including what has been posted in this thread in response to you asking questions

I dont think I have an opinion on the Rockliff proposal about members of a party quitting forcing them out of their office.

oh cool, I assume everything you write after this will then in fact, not be an opinion on the above

It is ridiculous that people who are only getting votes due to political party allegiance quitting and then going against what people voted for.

How do you know they are going against what people voted for?
Did people vote for an AFL stadium?
Do people vote for every piece of legislation a party proposes?
Do politicians care if the polls show they don't have support from their own base for something they want to do?
The answer to all of these I believe is no

Like if you voted for a Greens candidate and they suddenly became a RWNJ and quit the party and started to vote for de-forestation or something, that doesn't seem right.

Interesting that you picked this particular scenario to go with, why would that be?
Is it because the actual examples you have access to, don't actually work like this and largely paint the Tassie government in a bad light and you don't like that?

But I dont know, there are probably some cases when I would disagree with a member being forced out when they quit their party too. I dont have a strong opinion on it.

For someone without a strong opinion, you've been pretty strongly in support of it

The primary purpose of an elected member is to represent the interests of their constituents who voted for them, not to represent the interests of the party they belong to. Democratically speaking of course, as reality is generally the opposite but you've been conflating the two in all your arguments so far.

 

[Jazny]

that wasn't happening though

You said that tweet was "...a pretty accurate summation of the Tasmanian government I would think given the coverups"

then you haven't been reading literally anything on the topic, including what has been posted in this thread in response to you asking questions

I read them. The one about Michael Ferguson was not about Michael Ferguson covering anything up, just his decision to allow the full honours funeral to go ahead after he recieved a memo about allegations against the police officer.

The one you linked did not mention anything about senior members of any political party covering up sexual abuse claims.

oh cool, I assume everything you write after this will then in fact, not be an opinion on the above

How do you know they are going against what people voted for?
Did people vote for an AFL stadium?
Do people vote for every piece of legislation a party proposes?
Do politicians care if the polls show they don't have support from their own base for something they want to do?
The answer to all of these I believe is no

If they voted for a political party and not the candidate like I said, then they are voting for that party being in government as they prefer their policies or ideology.

For someone without a strong opinion, you've been pretty strongly in support of it

Have I? lol. What did I say that was strongly in support of it?

The primary purpose of an elected member is to represent the interests of their constituents who voted for them, not to represent the interests of the party they belong to. Democratically speaking of course, as reality is generally the opposite but you've been conflating the two in all your arguments so far.

Yes but those who voted for Alexander and Tucker in the last election probably weren't expecting them to quit over fake outrage over a stadium lol. I think they were wanting a stable Liberal government like the Liberals campaigned on. I dont think they represented their constituents very well.

 

[Gralin]

You said that tweet was "...a pretty accurate summation of the Tasmanian government I would think given the coverups"

Because you asked if it was Qanon
You didn't ask if the person was talking about an actual allegation
Given the wording of the tweet it was pretty clear they weren't talking about an actual event but were talking about the possibile implications of the proposed legislation
We keep getting reminders that those in power will consistently choose to protect that power over people
This legislation is about doing that
Tassie libs have an atrocious track record on not doing that

I read them. The one about Michael Ferguson was not about Michael Ferguson covering anything up, just his decision to allow the full honours funeral to go ahead after he recieved a memo about allegations against the police officer.

"Just"
He was also health minister with the paediatric nurse one

The one you linked did not mention anything about senior members of any political party covering up sexual abuse claims.

I see we're into the jazny semantics of the wording of things part of the conversation
This is about the time I tap out for the benefit of the thread because like I said you've already decided how everything went and will just argue that is what happened regardless of anything else

You don't care you just want to win

If they voted for a political party and not the candidate like I said, then they are voting for that party being in government as they prefer their policies or ideology.

Ok

Have I? lol. What did I say that was strongly in support of it?

Uh huh

Yes but those who voted for Alexander and Tucker in the last election probably weren't expecting them to quit over fake outrage over a stadium lol. I think they were wanting a stable Liberal government like the Liberals campaigned on. I dont think they represented their constituents very well.

Cool, I don't care

You can reply to this but I won't be continuing further

 

[Jazny]

I see we're into the jazny semantics of the wording of things part of the conversation

This is the part where you realise you can't support what you were saying and then blame me for it.

 

[Gralin]

This is the part where you realise you can't support what you were saying and then blame me for it.

No it's the part where you word search and article and when that one word doesn't come up you run your check mate line and frankly I should have known better than to ever engage you in good faith

 

[Jazny]

Liberals called the election because they thought they'd win a majority nothing else. There was no "ransom".

Not a literal ransom lol. More like a "if you don't do this and this, then I will withdraw my supply and confidence" from one minister. It's not really a good way to run government.

Tasmanian MP John Tucker threatens to 'bring the government down' over CCTV in abattoirs, AFL deals

The maverick independent MP says the government needs to support his demands for mandatory CCTV in abattoirs and a cessation on AFL projects until the Macquarie Point stadium passes parliament.

www.abc.net.au

I dont believe the Liberals wanted an election, they would have preferred if Tucker and Alexander just gave supply but the constant instability meant they had to go to an election or face another year of uncertainty. They made the right decision.

 

[Festerz]

Interesting advert...

Vote for people NOT parties.

 

[Jazny]

I listened to some of the leader debate and I must say how blessed we are to live on this peaceful island with such a small population and yet our two leaders sound infinitely more intelligent than Trump vs Biden

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Is it blind stupid prediction time? Its blind stupid prediction time. My confident prediction is that every electorate in the following prediction is wrong.

BASS
ALP 2
GRN 1
JLN 0
LIB 3
Others 1 (Alexander)
EMRS polling suggested Alexander might hold that last seat, I don't trust that number but JLN seems almost equally unlikely. LIBs a very good chance of a fourth and regaining Alexander's seat. If you're a Bass voter, don't let your vote exhaust - this count could have a lot of rounds.


BRADDON
ALP 2
GRN 0
JLN 1
LIB 4
Others 0
Garland could well have won a seat as an independent last time had that election been under 35 seat system, JLN poll numbers suggest they will claim that seat instead.


CLARK (edited after spotting error)
ALP 2
GRN 1
JLN 0
LIB 3
Others 1 (Johnston)
Sue Hickey would have won a set in the previous election if the re-established house size was in place then. Being out of the public eye in the interim might cost her chances, assuming any lost vote returns mostly to LIB she came from and gets them the third. But that could really go anywhere - including holding up and gaining the seat - as some that vote will be "not major party" vote rather than just redirected Lib vote. Don't even write off a second GRN on that basis.


FRANKLIN
ALP 2
GRN 1
JLN 0
LIB 3
Others 1 (O'Byrne)
Abetz gets in, Petrusma's personal vote on return ensures the LIBs get three.


LYONS
ALP 2
GRN 1
JLN 1
LIB 3
Others 0
Tucker may be the big loser of the campaign period. At the start he seemed assured of holding, but hasn't (or seemingly so from here) been able to develop any momentum and the only media has been with Archer. I've switched being solid on him holding to slightly favouring him losing.
The obvious result of that would be a fourth LIB, but I just can't see ALP being held to 1 seat in the electorate so have placed it there with zero confidence, and Labor should be close to two quotas on primary so won't need a lot of preferences to gather that second. Some AJP, some leakage, and a couple of other indys having preferences all over the shop should be enough.
I am also not confident in that JLN call, the traditional "polling day drift" to the majors could hand the LIBs a fourth instead.
A bit like Bass, this is a mess to decode without results coming in.



TOTAL
LIB 16 (+5) : range 14-18
ALP 10 (+2)
GRN 4 (+2)
JLN [assume LIB leaning] 2 (+2)
Others [assumed ALP leaning Johnston, O'Byrne] 2 (-1)
Others [assumed LIB leaning Alexander] 1 (-)


A campaign built on stunts and chocolate fountains might see Rockliff rewarded for having gone to an election early because minority government is unstable, by handing him minority government without even being able to claim the people voted for a majority one. Best case seems to be 17.
And further reward is possibly being rolled for not winning outright, both major party leaders could be gone within weeks.
Is Abetz set to make a run for premier before ANZAC Day?

edit : Not looking highly accurate on early figures

 

[Financialpanther]

Not a bad hook there - I think it’s 15lib, 10 alp, 3 green and remainder in indies (Jlm are indies really).

 

[campbell]

Libs will win.

Imo, having local knowledge, they are stuck back in time..

 

[Ghost Patrol]

ABC coverage is bizarre, it's like a mockumentary from the 80's.

 

[Gough]

ABC coverage is bizarre, it's like a mockumentary from the 80's.

You rang?

 

[Financialpanther]

ABC coverage is bizarre, it's like a mockumentary from the 80's.

The exit poll stuff is funny, I am pretty sure the common response to an exit poll is 'go and get f&*ed"

 

[Ghost Patrol]

The intro pieces with the flying colors across the landscape remind me of Ghostbusters Afterlife.

 

[Jazny]

Eric Abetz is like a cartoon villain.

 

[Financialpanther]

Geez I don't like McKim

 

[Jazny]

Geez I don't like McKim

The greens are like youtubers and twitch streamers who are just trying to clip farm all day. Attention seekers. Zero credibility.

 

[Financialpanther]

The greens are like youtubers and twitch streamers who are just trying to clip farm all day. Attention seekers. Zero credibility.

I remember McKim trying to close schools in the last minority government....if I recall, he couldn't get to the federal seat quick enough after that dismal performance.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Eric Abetz is like a cartoon villain.

His origin story is fitting for a cartoon villain

 

[Financialpanther]

View attachment 1937284

He is a complete campaigner

 

[Jazny]

View attachment 1937284

Yeah I know, but I don't judge someone based on their relatives. That's pretty unfair. But he has his own history of awfulness to account for.