Steve Bracks joins John Cain as the only Labor Premier of Victoria to win three successive elections. As we predicted the Greens did well in a number of inner city seats, but not well enough to win any. Overall their vote was similar to last election, so hardly a resounding success. It augurs well for the Australian Democrats in the next Federal election because it demonstrates that the Greens have not consolidated their position as a party of protest.
The Liberals did OK, considering the last four years. The election result shows that changing leaders doesn’t win elections. I suspect Robert Doyle would have done just as well as Ted Baillieu, which is not a criticism of Baillieu. It is a recognition that it takes more than 6 months for a new leader to be able to make any impression on the electorate, at least when you run a conventional campaign.
Bracks should have lost more seats, although he didn’t deserve to lose the election. The Opposition wasn’t able to take any from him because they couldn’t find a reason for voters to switch allegiance. While water was the leading issue it was a waste of time campaigning on it because voters didn’t think that either side had the answer to lack of rainfall. The only Liberal wins look to be in the region of the Scoresby Freeway, where the issue of tolls, over which politicians do have some power, swung votes.
The National Party did better than expected by the pundits. Undoubtedly one reason for this was that unlike the Liberals they weren’t positioning themselves as an alternative government. As an effective party of protest they merited voters’ attention. They also weren’t making the sorts of grand promises that the Liberals were, so presented as a small target.
The other thing that the election shows is the benefits of incumbency, particularly at a state level. With state governments mostly responsible for service delivery it takes a real crisis to shake them loose, or an incompetent campaign. Once the Libs under Kennett let the ALP back in they were destined to be in the wilderness for quite some time.
There’s a lesson there for the all-conquering Bracks as well.
November 26, 2006 | Graham
Congratulations to Steve Bracks
12 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I wonder if the Nats in other states and federally will have learnt any lessons from the strategies of their Victorian counterparts?
Comment by matt byrne — November 26, 2006 @ 8:09 pm
“It augurs well for the Australian Democrats in the next Federal election because it demonstrates that the Greens have not consolidated their position as a party of protest.”
I don’t see how you can support this, The Greens did do quite badly, but I don’t see why the Democrats would take heart from that, they won’t get extra votes out of it. What are your thoughts on the triumphant resurgence of the DLP?
Comment by Benno — November 27, 2006 @ 7:20 am
There is only one more thing left is for the day of the next federal elction,for the majority of Aussies to say to John Howard mate you have sold us out to the elite,so you will have to go
Comment by Karooson — November 27, 2006 @ 11:36 am
I have been snickering all day about the over the top comments from the Greens who seem to think this election has somehow changed the political paradigm in Australia.
The ONLY reason that they have ANY seats is that the Government basically gave the seats to them by introducing proportional representation, an idiotic system guaranteed to elect all sorts of general losers and generally destroy sensible policy development (remember my favourite Tasmanian who for 15 years in the Senate held Australia to ransom despite representing less than 1/2 of 1% of Australians).
Comment by Kevin — November 27, 2006 @ 12:19 pm
“It augurs well for the Australian Democrats”
huh ? They only got 0.77% of the vote !
Comment by MrLefty — November 28, 2006 @ 9:39 am
It augurs well for the next Federal election. The Dems obviously didn’t do very well in the state election, but then they weren’t really trying.
The most recent polls have a recovery in the Dems vote to around 5% at a federal level. This election shows that the Greens have probably topped out. If the Dems can maintain 5% and score a reasonable flow of preferences they are competitive at the moment with the Greens.
The Greens demonstrated in this election that they haven’t worked out how to harvest the protest votes that are undoubtedly around. They were doing well in Melbourne according to the polls, but didn’t have the answers to Labor’s campaign against them. I think part of the reason for this is that they see themselves as a budding major party, rather an eternal minor one.
The same attitude led to the Dems downfall under Stott Despoja. The Dems have been forced to give up on these fantasies, so as a result have a chance to reposition themselves, which they gradually appear to be doing.
Comment by Graham Young — November 28, 2006 @ 9:47 am
The Democrats are finished, Natasha departing was the nail in the bio-organic coffin. Their biggest problem was that their following was always around the cult of the individual leader…Chipp, Haines, Kernot, Natasha. The advantage the Greens have in the current environment is branding “Greens” and the fact there is certainly no cult of personality around Bob Brown.
Comment by Matt — November 28, 2006 @ 10:19 am
I’m sorry Graham, I respect your opinion, but you are wrong.
The Democrats are dead.
I’d like to point you to the Morgan Senate Poll taken before the 2004 Federal Election, showing the Democrat support level at 6%. The Poll you mention shows them at 5.5%.
Actual result achieved 2.09%.
A more likely party is Family First who are seen as more centrist than the Greens.
Comment by MrLefty — November 28, 2006 @ 1:16 pm
Those above comments from a person claiming to be me, and linking to my blog, are from an imposter. This is obvious if you look closely at the blog he’s linking to – not actually my blog, but a spam blog that takes what’s on my blog and twists it.
I reckon that’s fairly dishonest and fraudulent, and am not surprised that such a person is out there advocating for Fundamentalists First.
Anyway, I’d ask that Graham either amend his name to remove the confusion (“MrLefty’s creepy stalker” springs to mind).
And Fundies First “centrist”? You must be joking. Fundies First are the political wing of Assemblies of God – hardline religious right-wingers. “Centrist”! My god.
Comment by MrLefty — November 28, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
Test – my last comment decrying the imposter above didn’t get through.
Comment by MrLefty — November 28, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
“The Liberals did OK, considering the last four years. The election result shows that changing leaders doesn’t win elections. I suspect Robert Doyle would have done just as well as Ted Baillieu, which is not a criticism of Baillieu. It is a recognition that it takes more than 6 months for a new leader to be able to make any impression on the electorate, at least when you run a conventional campaign.”
I think this is wrong on both counts.
The Victorian Libs were headed to oblivion with Doyle. Baillieu’s gains were so small because he had to make up lost ground, which is hard to measure except in polling terms but no less real for that.
Baillieu ran an unconventional campaign and presented himself as an interesting alternative to the overly cautious incumbent. Changing leaders happened too late in the piece but a change was definitely necessary.
The Democrats won’t come back until we are on the cusp of a change of goverment.
Comment by Andrew Elder — November 29, 2006 @ 9:23 am
Thanks Andrew. Don’t you think there is too much emphasis on the leader – particularly by the people controlling the campaigns?
As long as a leader can competently dramatise the issues of the campaign, I don’t think who they are matters too much. But there is a risk in being too novel about how you do this. Arriving by water at a press conference in your budgy smugglers is probably not the way to build the right profile.
Comment by Graham Young — November 29, 2006 @ 1:08 pm