The latest bi-monthly Newspoll survey of Victorian state voting intention has Labor blowing out to remarkable leads of 46 per cent to 33 per cent on the primary vote, and 60-40 on two-party preferred. The Australian reports that “roughly half the poll’s sample of 1142 people was taken before the Black Saturday fires, while the other half was taken during the aftermath of the blazes, when the Premier was regularly in the limelight and is perceived to have performed well”. John Brumby’s approval rating is up seven points to a new high of 52 per cent, while Ted Baillieu’s is down five to 37 per cent. Brumby’s lead as preferred premier is out from 49-27 to 54-22.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Newspoll: 60-40 to Labor in Victoria
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
129 Comments
wowzers
at least state based labor is doing well in one state.
Holy sh..
Probably due to the bushfire response. Brumby’s handling of the situation has been competent and dignified, and so far he hasn’t bought too much into the political debates surrounding the fires (land clearing, climate change, CFA staffing and management, etc).
I never thought much of Brumby as Opposition Leader and he’s surprised me with how well he’s come across as Premier. Perhaps the grave and serious attitude is something that only works from government, not opposition.
This a dream figure. It’s raining in Melbourne at the moment so this aberration might continue for a while.
Eventually the Victorian electors will punish the government for the consequences of the financial crisis and for the woes of modern society such as water and power costs, health and traffic congestion. They can hardly join a lynch party to Wall Street.
I’m not convinced of this but the rest of the sentence I agee with.
I think Labor will be returned in Victoria next year however. The opposition is woeful.
GB we may even pick up a seat or two, especially the hand full that went down to the wire falling to the libs
I’ld be very suprised if labor didn’t win back Ferntree gully, hastings, kilsyth, narracan and gain bayswater and possibly Morwell from the Nats
#7
FTG: Nope
Kilsyth: Nope
Bayswater: Nope
Hastings: Double Nope
Narracan: Possible
Morwell: With the right candidate, highly possible.
I think that those areas that you noped are all stimulus package receipiant rich< I know its fed but labor comes off favorable. FTG had some fires and not too far from it all, and will benefit from the the governments good response.
#9
They’re also naturally Liberal-leaning seats which only fell in the 2002 wipeout. The fact they were only marginal Labor after the 2002 rout, and came back to the Liberals despite a big Labor win in 2006, suggests they’re pretty comfortably in the Lib camp.
Narracan and Morwell are difficult to call- Labor’s problems are both short-term internal infighting and long-term decline of their blue-collar base in the Valley. If the 2006 results were mostly the former we could see a rebound in 2010. But demographics are working against them in these two seats, so it wouldn’t be surprising to see them move further away from Labor.
I concur with MDMConnell. Electoral gravity is bound to catch up with the Victorian state Labor govt at the next election, to a greater or extent. It’s the Labor side of the pendulum we ought to be focussing on, not the Coalition side. (This surprising poll notwithstanding.)
that should read “to a greater or lesser extent”
Perhaps but FTG, and Bayswater can be won with a strong local candidate. The east-Link stuff will be forgotten. on the labor side i see prahran and forest hill under threat, also Mt. waverley but I think Maxine’s elvation to cabinet has helped her profile and will be hard to beat
Does anyone see Ted Baillieu being premier after the next election? I see them picking up seats but not enough. The fact is some of the infrastructure projects will be well on the way as well as the bushfire recovery projects (that will take some time to resolve). A government seeing to be doing something is better than a carping opposition with few answers to our problems. Unlike NSW, Victorian Labor is seen to be competent and corruption free.
David,
Electoral gravy I can believe in, but Electoral Gravity?
There is absolutley no evidence that Labor is under threat unless you believe the rantings of Bolt and a few bored journalists. Liberals are on target for another smashing.
#13
I think most of those middle-distance eastern seats (Mitcham, Forest Hill, Burwood, Mt Waverley) will behave as a block- if one goes they all go. Or vice versa. They’re pretty similar types of seats. In a way we saw that with the outer eastern seats FTG, Bayswater, Kilsyth and Evelyn being lost in 2002 but recovered in 2006.
you are right MDM but because they are so close it is really where the candidate comes into play. Burwood should never have been ALP but they have Bob who is ubiquitous. It would have to be a super lib candidate to win. Forest hill with kirsty will struggle as she doesn’t do enough locally, and is hardly in the spotlight, Mt waverley always hard but with as minister Maxine has improved her profile a lot, yes mitch am will be a coin toss.
Prahran again with all the clearways stuff and a hostile local council will prove difficult but Greens do well here and help with preferences.
GG: NT, WA and soon Queensland. Don’t be oblivious to the pattern.
NT still has a Labor government. Yes, I see the pattern.
Look closer GB. I never said Brumby would lose.
Burwood is an interesting one. It doesn’t acutally seem to be that much a Liberal seat. Although it contains areas like Burwood and Glen Iris, it also contains parts of the Alamein, Jordanville and Wattle Park public housing estates, plus some marginal middle-class territory like Ashwood. Perhaps Kennett held what was a marginal seat with his personal vote alone, and now he’s gone it’s reverting to type?
20 – Ah,so David, in 18 months time the pattern must continue must it?
Burwood is largely Boorondarra with the highest average earnings per person and the highest rates- you left out Camberwell- the comission areas are being wittled away. Believe me MDM it is more blue blood than any. Won only by a Kennet backlash but held because of Burwood bob. when Bob goes the seat goes.
Labor won Burwood for the first time when Bob won it. How can that theory stand it MDMConnell?
“The fact is some of the infrastructure projects will be well on the way”
They’d better be. Under Bracks, Labor’s infrastructure record was very poor. At least Brumby looks alot more ‘can-do’ than Bracks did.
“stand it” = stand up.
#24
Kennett held it for God knows how long and I’m assuming someone like him built up a personal vote. I’m not old enough to remember before that. Possibly it covered more Lib-friendly territory? It would make sense with redistributions pushing seats away from the city. But I don’t know.
I’m well aware of how blue-blood the likes of Glen Iris are. East of Warrigal Road, though, is standard suburbia. Places like Jordanville and Box Hill South are many things but blue-rinse Liberal heartland they ain’t. On these boundaries it looks Lib-leaning, but not rock solid. A good local Labor member, as Bob appears to be, can dig in and hold it for several terms.
Doesn’t that mean it is reverting to being a Labor seat, something it never was?
What did you mean by “reverting to type”?
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/vic/2006/guide/burw.htm
Turnbull is in the danger of becoming Costello Mark2.
Costello’s credibility was fatally damaged, self inflicted over his gutless, no ticker, dilly dally to-challenge-or-not-to-challenge over Howie. While Howie was laughing “come and get me” into his face.
Costello is doing exactly o Turnbull what Howie was doing to him. Costello is laughing “come and get me” into Turnbull’s face. Turnbull must act decisively. i am not too sure what he can do, but he must act. Otherwise he is Costello Mark2.
Reverting is probably the wrong word. I meant on these boundaries, the seat was more marginal than it appeared on paper, and once Kennett left the seat’s “marginality” (if that’s a word) was reflected in the by-election and the 2002/2006 results.
David,
Labor on 60/40 and you think they are at risk? Liberals will be changing their underwear very frequently imho.
The electorate votes on issues and the Labor Government in Victoria has been decisive on a number of fronts. They haven’t shirked any controversiy and clearly enjoy the support of most electors.
Some here have experssed surprise at the surety of Brumby’s leadership during the recent Bushfires. Might pay in future to follow the substantial issues instead of “riffing” off the media.
#29
Bennelong was a Liberal seat until Howard got booted out. Seats change, and boundaries change.
31 – It required a 10% swing. That’s not marginal.
I wish I could find the report on the 2001 redistribution, which I believe made the seat more winnable for Labor, but the VEC don’t seem to have it on their site.
Burwood, as stated before, was never won by Labor, but through the 1980s it was on small margins (2-3%), and even in the 1990s it never blew out into double figures. At that time it looked marginal enough to be a seat at risk of falling to the ALP if they got enough of a swing to win government, and might have gone closer to doing so at the 1999 general election had the eastern suburbs swing been close to the state (or even city) average.
Opinions shifted very quickly in middle-class Melbourne suburbia in 1999 once the Kennett bubble of invincibility was pricked; at the Frankston East by-election I worked at a booth in the one pocket of the electorate that could have been transplanted from, say, Blackburn, and the swing there was 15% (compared to 8% in the electorate as a whole). There are plenty of other eastern-suburbs seats that didn’t shift much in 1999 but then swung massively in 2002.
I expect that Burwood is now destined to be a seat normally held by whoever holds government, as much because of the decreasing link between social class and voting behaviour over the last 20 years as because of any great demographic changes in the seat itself.
I owned a business in the area for 10 years, i now work in the area 4 years+, i know this area well and I stand by my comments. Bob goes the seat goes. Lets hope he’s got a few more terms in him
Today’s Morgan 61.5/38.5 TPP http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2009/4363/
Can you supply the link to this information please?
Baillieu is a goner based on these figures bring out the next lamb to the slaughter, god you are pathetic stupid Vic Libs…
Glen,
Who they going to throw up? Terry Mulder?
#39 – going from memory. Adam Carr’s site only goes back to 1992, but the swing figure for 1992 implies a margin going into that election (which may have been redistribution-influenced) of 1.5%.
GG who cares we wont win anyway, i couldnt give a toss.
Those clowns dont deserve to be in power, neither do Labor but they’re already in power.
Labour 1999-2014…what a disgrace…those at HQ should hang their heads in shame!
In FTG Libs won by only 30 votes. The only booths that the libs won were Lysterfield, park ridge and Kewoo. i think they were all fire areas. Chalk up a Lab gain for that one.
Mudler would do worse than Baileau- I think kennet will throw his hat back in the ring after 2010
43 – I’ll give you one thing Glen, you are a realist. The Vic Libs need to get their act into gear. They require new blood badly and I’m not just saying this based on this poll. Anyone living here can see it for themselves.
Burwood was
LIB 2.2% (1988 post-redistribution)
LIB 9.3% 1992
LIB 8.6% 1996
LIB 6.8% 1999
ALP 3.6% 1999 by-election
LIB 5.8% 1999 (redistribution on state election figures)
ALP 5.1% 2002
ALP 3.6% 2006
ALP % 2006
I’ll add earlier figures when I get home
Antony,
Do you have a link to the boundaries in 1988? Even I’m surprised it was that marginal back then.
Mulder is probably the one with the biggest presence and the best performer, although admittedly he’s got alot to work with as he’s Shadow Transport.
The Libs best bet would be to do a Qld style merge and make Peter Ryan the leader…….. (only half joking!)
#44
I think there was a small fire at Lysterfield one day but if you mean they were part of the big fires, then no.
By Kewoo do you mean Karoo? I think that’s in suburban Rowville.
MDM at least Peter Ryan is a leader Ted is no leader IMHO.
He’s only ever on the TV to complain about something, he’s got no policies.
Ryan’s problem might be his age.
Glen, I’m trying to think who apart from Mulder would be leadership material.
(really scratching the head here…) Robert Clark?? Louise Asher?? Recycled Denis Napthine?
To be fair, the Libs did boot out a few old time-servers at the 2006 election so maybe a new group will come through by 2014.
The fact than any person off the street could run them better than they currently are is a joke. Those clowns are just a bunch of party hacks in it for an easy job to sit on their bums and point their fingers and yell, hardly any of them deserve to be there and there is a reason why they poll so badly because they’re a disgrace!
Glen
Posted Friday, March 6, 2009 at 4:53 pm | Permalink
Glen the numbers aren’t that much better at the federal level. But part of the problem is Victorian Costello worship. NSW libs are also in poor shape, it’s just that labor is in a bigger mess. I still don’t believe the Liberals will win Queensland, well they won’t will they, the party has gone. I still don’t believe the nationals will win Queensland.
FTG Libs won 4 out of 15 ordinary booths (excluding airport, town hall, etc), although they came pretty close in most others.
Wonder what the record is for lowest % of booths won to win the seat?
Any body know what the Green primary is in this poll?
Prahran is a a probable future 3-way marginal.
Problem for the Greens is that the natural Green-voting area around St Kilda/Windsor/Prahran is split across two seats (Prahran and Albert Park).
If the Greens were smart they’d be lobbying the VEC at the next redistribution to put Prahran and St Kilda in the same seat (probably Albert Park).
Burwood’s boundaries haven’t changed much. Three things have changed:
* loss of long-term high-profile incumbent in Kennett
* social decline of these old inner eastern suburbs – the new money has moved out to Berwick etc
* long-term rise in Labor vote in metro Melbourne
The Greens had their golden chance at the Albert Park by-election and they blew it by nominating some anonymous droob with a beard and letting themselves be baited by Labor’s campaign tactics.
A seat running from Port Melb to Prahran would have too many people in it. The area is growing, but not enough to recreate the old St Kilda seat.
Tom, the Greens are on 15% in this poll, up 2% from Nov-Dec. You can find the polls here:
http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl?url_caller=latest&state=Any&mode=file&page=Search
The federal leader of the Liberal Party has to be from Victoria in order stop Brumby.
#60
What’s the federal leader got to do with defeating Brumby?
Older Burwood margins
1988 LIB 5.6%
1985 LIB 5.6%
1982 LIB > 6%
1979 LIB > 8%
1976 LIB > 10%
Thanks Antony.
If Costello becomes Liberal leader, you will see a huge jump in the Liberal primary vote in Victoria, at state and federal level. It will be the first time since Andrew Peacock that the Liberals outpoll Labor in Victoria by a huge margin. Remember Andrew Peacock at the 1990 federal election?
Anthony! I’m curious if you have a source for those Burwood numbers for I am Interested in looking at how seats change over time?
I’m not surprised that Burwood would be considered a marginal Liberal learning seat what surprises me is after 9 years the Liberals are yet to regain the seat.
This poll is a shock for while John Brumby has been very good in his handling of the Bushfires and while there are several issues facing his Government for the most part Brumby is traveling well.
The Liberal Party are a waste of time in Victoria, they are a bit like the ALP heading into the 1996 election.
Good at opposing but at this stage they don’t seem to have a set of policies that would make them electable.
Antony, I don’ suppose you’d have a link to the report of the Vic redistribution in 2001? The VEC seems to remove this sort of stuff from its site after a couple of years….
Mexicanbeamer – I have a library of source material. I suggest you check the Victorian state library if you are trying to track material back through time. They should have copies of all the past election results and redistributon reports. I know it’s not as exciting as finding it on the web, but there is a whole world of material not available on the web.
MDMConnell – the development of the web means that as sites get redeveloped, older bits have this habit of disappearing. What exactly are you after in relation to it? I’ve got the reports and my on calculations for the boundaries.
#67
The reports and your calcs would be great. If you had anything else like the major parties’ submissions that would be fantastic.
Many thanks.
Um, I think you might try contacting the Boundaries Commission. All that stuff will be available. It shouldn’t be so old that it has gone to state archives yet.
Fair enough. Just wondering whether you had a copy of the final report and recalculated margins.
I found the Pandora archive of the ABC’s 2002 Victorian election. It’s not as complete as the versions we do today.
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/32458/20021202-0000/www.abc.net.au/public/elections/2002vic/
I have the final report but it’s a big book of maps and I’m not letting that out. If you’re after the calcuations, send me an e-mail at my blog page.
I am actually tossing up turning all my old publications into pdfs and putting them on a website. When I get time.
Thank you Anthony!
Much appreciated Antony!
Actually MDM, here’s the summary of the 2001 Victorian redistribution
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/32458/20021202-0000/www.abc.net.au/public/elections/2002vic/redistribution.htm
There’s even an ABC page of the 1999 Vic election, from when the web was young. God knows how that’s still up there.
http://www.abc.net.au/vic99/
While we’re on the subject, Antony, are you able to solve the long-standing mystery of why so much archived ABC news material, including your own work, winds up at Bananasinpyjamas.com?
BOP,
That 1999 election site is a treat for any nostalgics and well worth a read. Antony’s post about which poll you trust could be dusted off and run again today.
Indeed, it’s had me ferreting around Factiva in search of comedy classics from the vault:
And of course:
William,
If Glen gets to see these it could be injurious to his mental health.
It’s as good as DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN, and the one that had Hewson winning in 1993, which I still have somewhere.
I have it too, Adam – Herald Sun ‘Hewson in Photo Finish’, with beaming pictures of the man.
We had to get up early to secure a copy (the HS quickly withdrew city copies, so that only country regions, who got the earlier version, still had it) but it was well worth the chuckle.
At that time I was a bit of a Jeff man and couldn’t believe the results when they started coming in. I remember a rather flustered and confused looking Antony Green who thought his computer was malfunctioning!
Also watched poor old Reithy trying to put a positive spin on the disaster. At least it wasn’t his government that was going down.
And of course Bracks’ karaoke performance
“Do you see what I SEEEEEEEEE!!!”
Indeed I did. During tests with the VEC on the Thursday night, we’d realised our software could not accept the double list of booth results the VEC were sending. So we stuck a workaround in the data receipt code. On election night when all the early figures showed such unexpectedly large swings, I was very concerned something had gone wrong with the software change. I well remember asking John Brumby to get his scrutineers to phone through a swing figure for Ripon and the Ballarat electorates so I could confirm we had the correct numbers.
I also had to hose down people extrapolating the early swing into Melbourne seats and predicting Labor would win. The country swing to Labor was 7.5%, regional cities 5% and Melbourne 2.5%. For those with a knowledge of Victorian history, a wierd result as for the first time in its history, Labor achieved office on a non-metropolitan swing and without gaining a seat in the eastern suburbs.
Along with the 1991 NSW election, my first on camera, the 1999 Victorian election was the most surprising result I’d worked on.
Remember, it was also the day Carlton beat Essendon by 1 point in the prelim final. Two narrow upsets on the same day.
Pity any poor Liberal-voting Essendon supporters!
I remember the Essendon President telling the story of how he had an operation that day and missed everything. As he tells it, when he woke up on Sunday and was told both the Bombers and Kennett had gone down, he thought it was a joke: not because of his faith in his team but because he never thought Kennett would lose.
Without checking (because my maps are buried in a cupboard somewhere), Antony, I think Labor won its first ever Victorian election in 1952 mainly by winning regional seats, including extremely improbable ones like Mildura. The Melbourne seats in those days were heavily polarised between safe Labor and safe Liberal, with only a few marginals like Essendon and Oakleigh.
Well in those days there were still lots of agricultural workers (shearers etc.) and other working class people who voted Labor in rural areas. There was also an issue of malapportionment in Victoria with Victoria`s last Country Party government in 1950.
It was Labor in Queensland that introduced rural weighting to replace one vote one value in 1949.
As you’d no doubt know Adam, they were helped by the vicious in-fighting between the Country Party and the two different Liberal Parties that contested the 1952 election. And Victoria was massively malapportioned in those days. It was the first majority government elected in Victoria for half a century, and after the election, the Liberals combined with Labor to get rid of the malapportionment and destroy the power of the Country Party to bring down governments at will. Victorian politics from 1935 to 1955 was unique.
Then the DLP split occured, Labor was smashed in 1955 and sanity didn’t return until after Federal intervention in 1970. I’m a bit heavily influenced by Costar and Hughes’ book “Labor to Office”, and Hughes had the 1952 maps showing Labor winning seats in the country, but also smashing the Liberal in Melbourne. After Labor lost office in 1955, Labor didn’t win another country seat, or a seat east of the Yarra until 1979. Even then, Labor only crept back into the regional cities in 1979 and 1982. Nothing like the success achieved in 1999.
After the 1999 election, I compared Labor’s result with the 1988 election adjusted for the redistribution ahead of the to the boundaries used in 1992. All the Liberal gains between 1988 and 1999 were in Melbourne’s east, all Labor’s gains outside of Melbourne. It was a radical reversal of 40 years of Victorian political history. I list all the seat differences here
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/32458/20021202-0000/www.abc.net.au/public/elections/2002vic/summary.htm
Albert Park is East of the Yarra. “1950-present ALP” http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/albertparkdistrictprofile.html
Dandenong is too “1969-present ALP” http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/dandenongdistrictprofile.html
As is Morwell “1970-2006 ALP” http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/morwelldistrictprofile.html
And although it is technically not East of the Yarra (unless you count the bay as part of the Yarra) Carrum “1976-1996 ALP”
And if you count win as meaning winning an election not just taking a new seat or a seat held by an opponent prior to the election then Oakleigh “1950-1961 ALP” http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/oakleighdistrictprofile.html
And those are just the seats that are with us now and there have been several redistributions between 1955 and today with seat coming and going.
MDM Connell:
Pity any poor Liberal-voting Essendon supporters!
I can assure you that this Carlton-supporting Labor partisan was equivalently ecstatic on 18 September 1999 and as surprised as just about everyone else. I’m not long home from to-night’s NAB Cup semi-final.
I recall a report that a supporter at the Labor function at Williamstown on election night 1999, offered the Bracks couple a bottle of wine early in the evening. This fellow asked that it not be drunk until Labor was in Government. Terry Bracks expressed the hope that the wine was good enough to be likely to improve with a long period of cellaring!
Albert Park and Morwell are easy to deal with. Both were heavy industry seats, as was Geelong North, the only other seat Labor held outside of Melbourne in the 1960s and 1970s.
There’s an old classification for Melbourne’s east between the eastern suburbs and the sandbelt, which is the run down the south-west. Even in 1992, Labor held some of those seats, like Clayton and Dandenong, in the patch of industry in the south-west. But none in the eastern suburbs. The only seat Labor won in the eastern suburbs in 1999 was Mitcham, previously gained at a by-election.
From the 1960s, as industry spread out through the south-east suburbs, Labor gained seats like Dandenong and Clayton. In 1976, Labor held Knox, Dandenong and Carrum east of the Yarra, plus Albert Park if you insist.
In 1979 Labor gained 6 seats east of the Yarra, and another 10 in 1982. They lost every seat in the eastern suburbs in 1992, though they did retain a small band of south-east seats such as Clayton, Dandenong etc.
Sorry, i’ve used south-west a couple of time in that last post when I mean south-east.
The Interesting thing about Victorian politics in the 1930s is the then Liberal Government won the 1935 election but needed Country Party support to continue with its second term only to have the Country Party go to the ALP and offer a coalition which they accepted.
The motive for this move was the Country party under Albert Dunstain felt rural areas had been unfairly treated during the Liberal Government (United Australian Party) first term which started in 1932.
The Liberal Government of Sir Stanley Argle was very conservative with its tight budgeting in response to the Great Depression, Ironically Albert Dunstain himself was seen as very conservative in how he managed budgets.
Henry Bolte never trusted the Country Party, one thing that could be learn from Argle is he remained in Parliament until his death including being a part of the war cabinet.
In 2 Treasury place there is an old photo of Dunstain and Argle serving in that cabinet while I’m sure the two men had a low opinion of each other but at least they were willing to put Victoria first, I’m sure a few modern pollies should take note.
The Eastern and the Southern suburbs of Melbourne! I may have first heard this term from Antony himself or some other political commentator but they are known as the Claybelt (Eastern) and the Sandbelt (Southern)
Melbourne has a City started out spreading East until post second world war when it started moving south for example Dandenong was rural up til the 1960/70.
#91
Interesting re Terry Bracks’ remark. I’ve read some books that suggested Labor did feel that the election campaign was turning and they might get much closer than expected. Maybe they’re just rewriting history with 20-20 hindsight.
I’ve always been reticent about using ‘claybelt’ because I wasn’t sure anyone used it outside of political science circles.
I spoke with someone very highly placed within the Labor campaign on the Sunday morning – he was obviously shell shocked. Said he had spent days accustoming himself to the fact that, although the campaign had run according to plan, they weren’t going to win and now the sudden realisation that victory was possible had him completely flummoxed.
I know in my electorate there were a number of promises made by Labor which simply wouldn’t have been made if there’d been the slightest thought that they might win…a sentiment expressed to me several times when various ALP advisers tried to wiggle out of them.
I didn’t let them, though.
#98
That was the biggest millstone around Bracks’ neck. He made all these promises- especially on road/rail infrastructure- which he never expected to have to implement because he never really believed he’d win. Suddenly he was in office and had to begin backtracking on all of it. That and the fact he was determined to be as ‘inclusive and consultative’ (read: indecisive and timid) meant not much got done on his watch.
I’m far more impressed by Brumby than Bracks.
I agree with you reasoning as to why these seats were held by the ALP but I was just pointing out that them being held by the ALP made your statement about the ALP not winning any such seats wrong.
I always thought “eastern suburbs” was between the Yarra and the SE Freeway, with the freeway defining the East from the South East. Makes sense since the freeway makes a fairly clear divide between middle-class areas around Waverley and Knox and the more industrial Clayton/Dandenong.
In that context Labor didn’t win in the ‘east’ 1992-99* since the only seats they held were south of the freeway.
* except Mitcham after by-election of course
On the 1999 election: I spent the election working on Joseph O’Reilly’s campaign in Prahran. Like all candidates, he thought he would win, but didn’t think that Labor statewide had a hope. His expectation was that he would become an opposition frontbencher, with a chance of a ministry in 2003. Instead, he didn’t make much dent on the Liberal majority in Prahran, since there was little swing in metro Melbourne, and had to watch Labor come to office without him on the back of huge swings in the regional seats. Very galling.
Hmm. Just looking up the Mitcham by-election, and what do I find…
http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/monmag/issue1-98/mitcham.html
What was this all about? Did Kennett want to just have a new member from the same party as the retiring member appointed to the seat like in the upper house, regardless of margin?
Never heard of Kennett proposing that. The idea of getting rid of by-elections does pop up from time to time- usually by a party about to face one!
My view is that by-elections should be held only when the vacancy is remotely the MPs own fault. So if an MP just storms off in a huff because they didn’t want to serve out a full term, or resigns in disgrace, then bring on a by-election. But if the MP dies or becomes seriously ill, or suffers some personal tragedy that leads them to step down, the seat should just be filled without a by-election. Why punish the governing party for actions beyond their control?
As a Melbourne I use the South Eastern freeway or the neighboring Princess Hwy to divide the Eastern from the Southern just as the Yarra is used to divide the Eastern from the Nothern and the Maribyong River divides the Northern from the Western suburbs.
I for one saw Bracks beating Kennett therefore I will never quite understand why the ALP did not see it for they clearly out campaigned the Liberals right though out 1999
Mexicanbeemer, you are talking about Labor out-campaigning what is generally considered the most self-indulgent campaign ever run by an incumbent government. Remember how Kennett banned anyone else but him speaking to the media? The Herald-Sun did the stunning front page with nine Liberal MPs all with bandaids over their mouths. The ABC was even banned from having a state Liberal on our election night panel because they might call the Liberal return before the great Leader claimed victory.
The ban meant Liberal Ministers couldn’t debate Labor frontbenchers in the media. Labor got endless free kicks as a result.
Then there was Kennett warning voters in Geelong/Ballarat/Bendigo that government departments would be moved elsewhere if Labor MPs were elected.
Kennett ran his Jeffed.com website trying to appeal to younger voters, and the election saw older rural voters desert. The remark about Melbourne being the heart of Victoria, and another reference to ‘the toaenails’ came back to haunt regional Liberals.
Kennett kept campaigning in Dandenong as Liberal polling gave them hope. I presume Labor’s polling said the same thing, as late in the last week frontbenchers were door knocking around Dandenong.
In hindsight, the view was the Kennett made a mistake in running a ‘bandwagon’ campaign, urging everyone to join the winning team. You can see why everyone has been obsessed about being an underdog ever since.
“Kennett ran his Jeffed.com website”
IIRC “Jeffed.com” was the anti-Kennett site set up by Stephen Mayne.
Kennett’s was just “Jeff.com”.
In a way the campaign was a flop, but in other ways Kennett pointed the way for other politicians- e.g. by going on light-hearted FM breakfast radio instead of just serious AM talkback.
There was also the infamous interview on Jon Faine’s show where he refused to answer any more questions and said he’d just sit there and sip his tea. This was a couple of days out from the election. The arrogance is “wot done him in”.
There was also the odious brat Angus Kennett swanning about in the media as though he was the Crown Prince of Monaco.
Adam,
Now, now let’s not bring his family into it. Everyone knows that insanity is hereditary because you get it from your kids.
Another element was the achievement of a triple A rating well before the election.
Victorians had been told when Kennett was elected that they faced an overwhelming financial crisis and that they had to expect pain and suffering on a cosmic scale to get out of this.
Achieving a Triple A rating about four years after this pronouncement suggested that the crisis hadn’t been as big as originally portrayed and that maybe the pain and suffering didn’t have to be quite as severe.
Then Kennett compounded the mistake by NOT increasing spending.
People will endure government inflicted pain and suffering for a long time without complaint, if they believe that it is justified and that there is light at the end of the tunnel.
Kennett’s actions suggested that the p&s hadn’t been justified and that, even when there was light at the end of the tunnel, he would continue the p&s on ideological grounds.
Only ultra Libs believe that governments shouldn’t spend money on public services, so once he made it plain that the cuts were ideological rather than necessary, he was gone for all money.
As for not predicting it beforehand…can I remind people of the awful mindset that existed in the Kennett days? Speaking out against his policies definitely cost me personally, and set my career back considerably (hasn’t recovered, won’t recover – worth it) – I’m not alone in this. I well remember phone calls from a public servant, alerting me to a local issue, which ended with “I’ll be at the public meeting tonight, but don’t attempt to talk to me, it’s more than my job’s worth”.
In this climate of fear, I don’t think people dared confess to anyone they were voting Labor until they were actually in the booth and realised Jeff wasn’t in there with them.
Kennett actually did increase spending but he did a really poor job of it on two levels.
1) With the structure of casemix while the Health budget was growing it was done in a way that saw the money being spent on administration and dur the the narrow approach of the Hospital management the funding was narrowly spent.
2) Kennett totally failed to sell this.
In saying that I still think the tipping point for the Kennett Government was the 1997/8 budget when the ALP were still a long way behind and what Kennett needed to do was start to turn his attention to his social platform.
It was at this time that I felt he handed the ALP the 99 election for his failure to start to shift his Government showed him to be a narrow Government at a time when the economy was starting to pick up speed.
Again, an indication of why there was a rural backlash – Kennett always went for the ‘one size fits all’ approach and did so with casemix.
Country hospitals simply didn’t have the ‘economies of scale’ city hospitals did and it was disastrous for them.
Considering the government’s continuing problems, especially on transport and water, this poll is a disaster for the Libs. Paul Austin sums things up pretty well in today’s Age:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/baillieus-libs-arent-the-alternative-20090311-8v8l.html
I like Ted Baillieu but it’s hard to see him as premier. Louise Asher is their only hope IMO.
#115
Transport is a big problem here but the government’s spin-sters have done a good job of lumping as much of the blame as possible on Connex.
Things like the water pipeline will probably cost Labor the seat of Seymour, but since it’s claimed to benefit Bendigo, Ballarat, etc it will shore up their position in other marginals.
Asher is 53 and has been in Parliament for 17 years and has made no impact at all. I don’t know who the Libs’ great white hope is, but it’s not her. Given what’s happening in other states, I think it would be rash to predict what might happen in Victoria in late 2010. The government’s high current polling is mainly due to Brumby’s strong response to the bushfires and shouldn’t be seen as a final verdict on Brumby v Baillieu just yet.
Asher has made no impact largely because it’s difficult enough for a state opposition leader to be heard, let alone shadow ministers. She also seems to have been content to remain a shadow minister rather than push to become leader. I picked her because she’s talented, articulate and has more charisma than anyone else. She’s not dull. I’ve heard her being interviewed and she’s as good a politician as they’ve got. She’s also tough, which Baillieu isn’t (or doesn’t come across so).
Only half the Newspoll sample was surveyed after the fires, so it must have been exceptionally in favour of the ALP if it is the reason for 60-40 overall. Newspoll should publish a before/after breakdown to give us a better idea.
triton,
Louise Asher has never laid a glove on Labor. She was Shadow Treasurer and Shadow Finance in the previous Parliament. She is not now! What does that tell you about her talents.
GG, in the previous parliament she was up against Brumby, who was apparently such a good treasurer that business leaders lament that he’s not still there (I read a report in The Age to that effect sometime). Yes, she’d be up against him again, but leader is a different sort of role. They have to get noticed, and she would be – certainly more than softly-spoken nice guy Baillieu.
triton,
So your argument is that she got cleaned up by Brumby last time they directly opposed each other, so therefore she would do better the second time around just because?
Hmm, the Libs problem is that under Kennett they bred a generation of “flower pots”. Remember how Kennett said no Liberal MLA was to speak during the 1999 election. Too many of the Libs think the ban still applies.
There are no short term solutions. They need a cleanout of their pre 2000 candidates and start again.
I don’t think supporters of Vic Labor should get complacent. Everyone said the WA Libs were hopeless too, and they won. When voters are ready to throw a government out, they will do so. I don’t think the voters want to throw Brumby out, but we are entering unchartered territory with the Great Recession, and by the end of next year who knows where we will be?
Shadow treasurer was a tough gig because Brumby had the state’s finances in such good shape. I don’t know what anyone could have done. Now that Brumby is premier he’s responsible for everything that goes wrong.
I didn’t say that Asher was their saviour, only that she’s their only hope for the next election.
#121
That was what 1999 was supposed to be about. Something like 7 senior ministers retired at that election- it was part of the reason for Kennett running such a one-man campaign (apart from his ego, of course). The likes of Napthine, Asher, Robert Clark, Robert Dean, Doyle and Ted himself were supposed to be the next generation. It’s not that the Libs haven’t regenerated, it’s that the new blood they did introduce didn’t quite cut it. To be fair, the benign economic times and general satisfaction with Labor probably meant anyone would struggle in Opposition.
Also, being wiped out in 2002 didn’t help matters. Any potential up-and-comers that weren’t in an ultra safe seat got the boot.
Dear me
should of course be
accountants get chartered, territory gets charted.
William when are we getting a “review” button like they have at Wikipedia?
I thought O’brien was meant to be a tallent, why else put him in the safest seat. What a banker.
Michael Kroger- Premier of Victoria- 2014-2022
He’s our last hope.
#126
Who’s O’Brien?
Bree (127),
I think it very unlikely that Michael Kroger would join the Labor Party.