The Australian‘s coverage, however, is interesting in its own right. Before even telling the reader what the poll numbers are, it proclaims that “In NSW, the Keneally government is dead in the water.”

Now, I can’t object to someone reporting an opinion poll with that phrase, because I’ve done so myself. In a blog post on 18 June 2007 (let me know if you can find it in the Crikey archive, because I couldn’t) I reviewed the Howard government’s poll results under the heading “Is the government dead in the water?”, answering the question with a guarded “yes”:

Things could change; nothing is impossible. But there is simply no precedent in modern Australian history for a government coming back from such a dire position.

But that was only five months out from an election, not eleven; the quantity of polling evidence was much greater; the Howard government was trailing 57-43, not 55-45; and the electoral boundaries were not weighted in its favor the way they are for the NSW government.

The Keneally government would have a reasonable chance of winning an election on a 52-48 deficit, a movement of only 3% from its current standing. Anyone who thinks they can write off the chance of a 3% movement over almost a year has got no business writing about politics.

For the record, I don’t think such a movement is likely; a Coalition victory is much the more probable result. But it’s some distance away from the certainty that the Australian would have you believe.

In breaking news this evening, Tasmanian Greens leader Nick McKim has turned down the offer of a seat in premier David Bartlett’s new cabinet. You can read Bartlett’s letter of offer here, although unfortunately we don’t know what portfolio was on the table.

He probably doesn’t want my advice, but it seems to me McKim made the right decision. If you’re contributing half as many MPs as the senior partner, I think it’s reasonable to expect more than one ministry out of nine. A fair proposition would be something like six ALP, two Greens and one upper house independent.

And that seems to be the Greens’ main issue: McKim says Bartlett should “make an offer to the Greens that better reflects the will of the Tasmanian people.” He may also have concerns about how the exceptions to cabinet solidarity would work.

In my view it would be good both for the Greens themselves and for the health of the political system for them to be represented in cabinet. (My friend Guy Rundle put the opposing argument last month – it’s well worth reading, but I think he’s mistaken.) But clearly not at any price.

It looks as if the door is still open for a deal, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out. What McKim really needs is for Will Hodgman to join in the bidding war.

Who’d have expected Tasmania to provide one of the most gripping and exciting state election battles in recent years? This one had it all: backstabbing, dirty politics, suspense, robots, Gunns, single transferable vote proportional representation…

But the election may have just been round one: Liberal leader Will Hodgman has already slammed the new government as one built on “deceit and lies”, accused the Greens of selling out, and has threatened to move a motion of no-confidence:

“In their lust for power, [the Greens have] sold out to the Labor party, soundly beaten at the election and have offered unconditional support – so when I said a vote for the Greens is a vote for Labor, I was right.”

“[Mr Bartlett is] forming an illegitimate government with the support of the Greens – Tasmanians now have a Labor-Green government that is built on lies.”

Stay tuned: it looks like this one might be just heating up.

Twenty-two seats are decided: nine each Labor and Liberal, four Greens, and three doubtful. The outgoing House of Assembly was 14-7-4.

The Greens are leading the Liberals for the last seat in Braddon, and Labor is leading the Greens for the last seat in Franklin. Neither is certain, but I’d be surprised if they were to change at this point. That brings it to 10-9-5.

The close one is Denison, where the last seat is a three-way contest between the second Liberal, the second Green and independent Andrew Wilkie. I’d be inclined to bet on Wilkie, although Antony Green’s computer puts the Liberal ahead.

Oh, and I was right about South Australia.

And here’s a photo for Sophie:

No how-to-votes, no campaigners, no sausages.

Denison is central and suburban Hobart, west of the Derwent, from Austins Ferry in the north to the northern edge of Kingston in the south. It’s the only electorate with no rural component. It is also the Greens’ best electorate and the Liberals’ worst.

Pre-poll voting in central Hobart

In 2006 the ALP won three seats and the others one each: the Liberals finished on 1.6 quotas, only narrowly ahead of the Greens on 1.48. In 2002 the Greens had actually outvoted the Liberals, although neither won a second seat.

At the beginning of the campaign one would have said Denison will definitely return two ALP, a Liberal and a Green, with the fifth seat up for grabs between all three. But in light of what’s happened in the last few weeks, and the fact that the opinion polls just seem to get worse for Labor, we can pretty much reduce that to a straight Liberal vs Green contest.

As I explained this morning, the figures in Newspoll (assuming a uniform swing) would put the Greens slightly ahead. And in fact they don’t even need to be ahead: if it comes out, for example, at Labor 2.5 quotas, Liberals 1.8 and Greens 1.7, the Greens could reasonably hope to overtake the Liberals on Labor preferences.

At the moment, however, Labor looks like being much closer to two quotas than two and a half, and could conceivably slip below two. If that happens, the Liberal-Green contest becomes moot: they could each win two seats, leaving Labor with just one.

For the Greens, winning two seats in one electorate – and Denison is clearly their best chance, although Franklin is not impossible – is the real breakthrough moment. Until they can do that, they will always be a minor party; if they break through, they can set their sights on parity with the other two.

Labor’s troubles in Denison are compounded by the fact that it’s the electorate of the premier, David Bartlett, and there is serious talk that he could lose his own seat. One of the new Labor candidates is Scott Bacon, son of former Labor premier Jim Bacon (just as one of the Liberals is the son of 1990s Liberal premier, Ray Groom – hey, it’s Tasmania), and he is streets ahead of the others on visible publicity.

Mention should also be made of Andrew Wilkie, former Green and former ONA whistleblower, who is running as an independent and has drawn first place on the ballot paper. No-one gives him much chance of winning, but he could provide a handy bundle of preferences to the Greens, and the fact that he is the only independent of note in the state highlights how completely the three parties have come to dominate the picture. (Socialist Alliance is also running, for light relief.)

But that’s not quite true. While 10-10-5 is a very likely result, Newspoll actually says that Labor will retain a narrow plurality, 10-9-6.

The calculation isn’t difficult. Reducing all the numbers to three-party terms, Newspoll has Labor statewide on 36.1% (down 14.3% from 2006), Liberal 37.6% (up 5.1%), and the Greens 26.3% (up 9.3%).

Then multiply by six to get quotas: Labor down 0.86, Liberals up 0.3, Greens up 0.56.

Then just add those swings to where the parties ended up in each electorate last time. Four of the five, as expected, would split 2-2-1.

The interesting one is Denison, where Labor would finish with 2.06 quotas, the Liberals with 1.9 and the Greens with 2.04. Close, but clearly a second Greens seat, not a second Liberal.

Moral: Hare-Clark isn’t perfect. Dividing the seats among five electorates means Labor could still win more seats than the Liberals despite being outvoted.

I’m not saying that’s what will happen; I share the general disbelief that the Greens can top 25%. (Although note the poll was mostly taken before the robocall affair blew up, which you’d think would be worth an extra point or two for the Greens.)

I’m just saying that’s what the poll says, despite the Oz‘s view.

Here’s how the pundits reckon it will all play out, and what it will mean for the Federal election later this year:

The Australian

Michael Owen: Hung parliament looms as likely poll outcome

The reality of Labor now facing a possible loss of five or more seats, along with its majority status in the 47-seat House of Assembly, is testament to how former lawyer Isobel Redmond has taken the fight up to Premier Mike Rann.

Matthew Denholm: Deadlock spells dead end for decade-long run

Barring a late, wild swing back to the party that has held government for 12 years, the end is nigh for Team Bartlett.

Sydney Morning Herald

Phillip Coorey: State election results could make life difficult for Rudd

Should Labor lose power in either South Australia or Tasmania – or both – this weekend, the most immediate impact federally will be a confidence boost for Tony Abbott.

ABC

Barrie Cassidy: Liberals yet to grasp Labor’s loosened power grip

It seems as if the electorate in many places is ready to throw out Labor governments, but the conservative parties clearly haven’t yet done enough to demand government in their own right.

Haydon Manning and Geoff Anderson: When winning may be almost as painful as losing

… if Labor is returned with a paper thin majority, or with the support of independents, the problems the Premier has experienced during the campaign may simply take a new form rather than disappear.

It’s the eve of the South Australian and Tasmanian state elections, and time for the papers to engage in the time-honoured tradition of telling their readers for whom to vote.

In SA, both The Oz and Advertiser are calling for voters to look beyond Mike Rann’s… colourful personal life and vote for him over rising star Isobel Redmond:

South Australia

The Australian: Sex, spin and down to the wire in South Australia

On Saturday, South Australians should look beyond the Premier’s image and his personal problems and focus on the real challenges facing the state, before deciding to deny Labor a third term.

Advertiser: Vote on Rann’s record, not his personality

While Mr Rann may be a master of spin, and is paying the price for that, when he talks about the economy and future development he is making a valid point.

… Labor should be returned to office.

In Tassie, The Oz is also nailing its colours to Labor’s mast despite the party’s recent problems:

Tasmania

The Australian: Tasmanians need a clear result

Mr Bartlett’s performance in his 22 months as Premier, akin to a sustained sprint, makes him deserving of a mandate.

We’re still trying to get our mainland mitts on the Mercury and Advocate‘s editorials (if you’ve got’em, plus a scanner and some spare time, please send them through)

UPDATED: Here’s the Mercury, but it doesn’t actually back either party. Weak!

Mercury: Tasmania’s watershed moment

Unless there is a late rush to the Labor or the Liberals, Tasmanians face a House with no clear winner — simply because voters will be sending a strong signal that they want a new way.

Not sure what Matt and his editors at The Oz smoke these days, but to draw the conclusion that Tony Abbott will get on the winning trail federally simply because two Labor governments which are facing the inevitable consequences of longeevity of office, is simply bizarre.

The Labor government on Tasmania is facing a swing against it tomorrow because of local factors – Abbott hasn’t even been here to help out the local Liberals!  In South Australia, ditto.

All politics is local as they say – something Denholm and The Oz seem to have conveniently, and in this case absurdly forogetten,  in their continued campaign for Abbott and the conservatives.

If Abbott reads anything into Tasmania and South Australia tomorrow he too is smoking something that is doing strange things to his political head!