Paul Lennon - past his use-by date

First, modern day Australian voters do not swing in large numbers. There has not been an Australian federal, state or territory election since World War II where an opposition has gained a double-digit swing to win government. There is nothing to indicate that Tasmanians are about to make history even if Lennon had stayed on.

Second, we know that the undecided vote in Tasmania (more than 20 per cent at the recent EMRS poll) are soft Labor voters. The opinion polls show a halving of the Labor vote since 2006, true, but nearly all of these votes have gone in to the “undecided” column and not to the Liberals or Greens.

Those undecided voters might not return to Labor at the next election but the odds are that a decent proportion will. That’s because it is these very voters, these undecided fence-sitting swingers, who are the most dis-engaged from the political discourse. These are the ones who, largely, have never heard of Leo Schofield or Richard Flanagan. Or as George Megalogenis wrote in The Australian a few years ago:

Elections are normally decided by passive voters, not partisans. These punters are given the flattering title of swinging voters. But it is code for not really caring one way or the other.

There is almost two years to go to the 2010 state election. Labor could have done without the fuss created by Paul Lennon’s departure but it should be a plus to have the much more polished and astute David Bartlett in his place. It is going to be harder for Labor to win the next election than it was the last no matter who is premier - but talk of a wholesale rout is not based on reasoned analysis.

Notwithstanding, my view is that Labor will struggle to retain its majority under Tasmania’s Hare Clark proportional representation system; but the loss of just two Labor seats will be enough to put the state into minority government.

Paul Lennon has gone and has left his mark. Despite being loathed by the “chattering class” he led the country in Aboriginal reconciliation, the recognition of rights for homosexuals, and compensation for abused state wards. In addition, economic indicators such as unemployment, productivity and business investment are the best they have been in Tasmania for decades.

But all that was not enough, and never is in politics: Lennon just couldn’t get people to like him. His political career was ended by something politicians pretend they take no notice of - opinion polls. Considering he was in public life for more than 30 years, it is truly amazing he was so ignorant of the press or how the public form opinions.

The way Lennon went about championing Gunn’s proposed pulp mill will be cited by many as the main reason the public’s mood turned against him, although I think that the mill is more a symptom than a cause.

He really was an appalling media performer and if it hadn’t been a pulp mill it would have been something else: in three decades of fronting the press he never “got” the art of media politics.

Despite being demonised by the elites, he wasn’t that bad a premier and he isn’t a bad man. At least there was never any pretence with Paul Lennon: what you saw was exactly what you got, warts and all. Unfortunately for Paul Lennon, that approach belonged to an earlier political time.

He didn’t fit the cookie-cutter mould of the smoother-than-smooth, publicity aware, 21st century political leader. He couldn’t change, he never quite got it, so is probably better gone.

At least he had the sense to know it.