If the late polls are proved correct, tomorrow’s state election in Victoria will join the Wentworth and Wagga Wagga byelections on a lengthening roll call of electoral disasters suffered by the Coalition on Scott Morrison’s watch.
After a campaign in which published polling has been thin on the ground, results overnight from YouGov Galaxy in the Herald Sun and uComms/ReachTEL in The Age both suggested Labor was most likely to be returned with an increased majority.
This was despite the at-best chequered record of Daniel Andrews’ government, and a campaign in which everything appeared to go horribly right for an opposition that had long staked its claim on law and order.
The notion that events were playing out decisively to the Coalition’s favour was encouraged last week by two Liberal eminences — Michael Kroger, who told the Financial Review last week that Labor was in so much trouble in the suburbs that Daniel Andrews would struggle to retain his seat of Mulgrave, and Jeff Kennett, who invoked his expertise as an authority on electoral upsets, notwithstanding his past record of failure at spotting them before they actually happen.
It now seems Kroger and Kennett were engaged either in bluff, or a strategic effort to encourage potential donors to open their cheque books.
Polls, betting markets and insider chatter have combined to give the impression that it’s actually Labor’s adversaries, on both the right and the left, who go into the election on the defensive.
The Liberals are reportedly growing pessimistic about gaining the “sandbelt” seats (Bentleigh, Mordialloc, Carrum and Frankston) that so often mean the difference between victory and defeat in Victorian elections, and both they and the Nationals are under pressure in the regions.
Labor is pitching resources at the western Victorian seat of Ripon, held by the Liberals on a margin of less than 1%, and hopes rapid urban development in Pakenham can deliver it Bass, an otherwise semi-rural seat south-east of Melbourne that the Liberals have held since it was created in 2002.
The Nationals will need strong preference flows from a crowded field of right-of-centre contenders to hold off Labor in the Latrobe Valley seat of Morwell, where troubled incumbent Russell Northe quit the Nationals in August to sit as an independent.
It has also been a nervous campaign for the Greens, who have been on the back foot over sexual misconduct controversies and myriad social media indiscretions.
Three of the party’s five upper house seats appear under threat from the disciplined micro-party preference networks, while in the lower house it walks a fine line between hoping for two more seats and fearing for the three it already has.
A poll earlier in the campaign suggested Labor would retain Richmond, despite the Liberals’ efforts to boost the Greens by not fielding a candidate, and Labor is increasingly hopeful of recovering Melbourne after its defeat there in 2014.
However, the transient young populations of inner-city areas are notoriously difficult to poll, and the Greens could equally find themselves surprised on the upside or the downside.
If the latter, Labor could yet emerge in the politically dangerous position of relying on Greens support to stay in power.
Overall though, Labor goes into the election facing as many opportunities as challenges, while the Coalition needs a number of boil-over results to have a chance of forming even a minority government.
Darryn Lyons is seriously poised to take Geelong from Labor, and has received very little attention by pundits. His pink campaign is absolutely everywhere and he retains enormous popularity despite being sacked as the Mayor not even two years ago. Watch out for a clueless and chaotic presence in the next parliament.
“This was despite the at-best chequered record of Daniel Andrews’ government”
I think you mean to say “at worst chequered record of Daniel Andrews’ government”.
Even the Herald Sun editorial, as biased a source as one could hope to find, had to say that the achievements of the Andrews government are such it would normally have to endorse re-election (before screaming RED SHIRTS RED SHIRTS IGNORE THE LOBSTER VOTE GUY).
There is no real worse view than “chequered” of the Andrews government record when even the Liberal Party house organ can’t manage to call it a bad government.
But thanks for playing.
William, I find myself saying this each election, but please stick to the polling reporting – you are good at that. Your forays into political punditry are not good.
Wow, look at that, Victoria didn’t agree with that “at-best chequered” comment. Go figure.
Crikey’s non-Victorian squad should be barred from punditry on Victorian state politics in the future until they’ve proven they know more about the state than what appears in Herald Sun headlines and Peter Dutton statements.
My God. What are is the poor voter to do?
PV can vote Labor. Over the last 4 years, they’ve (finally) picked up the LET’S SPEND ON INFRASTURCTURE ball. PV is grateful for that, but resents:
* the massive expense of taxpayer’s money on shutting down the East-West tunnel project
* the lack of coherent forward planning (leave it to Transurban and Metro Trains to come up with expensive unsolicited proposals, and the Rail Futures Institute to propose the articulate Melbourne Rail Plan 2019-2050
* the dodgy response to the Red Shirts challenge
* Richard Wynne’s planning performance
* Dan Andrews’ dodgy performance over the firies and his support for excessive union wages on construction sites
Or PV can vote Coalition. That would teach the arrogant Labor bastards a lesson. But they’ve only been able to ineffectively (and Abbottly) ‘oppose’ any useful Labor proposal, and we resent:
* the Libs’ deceitful, last-minute, imposition of the East-West tunnel
* Matthew Guy’s past dodgy town planning performance
* Matthew Guy’s suspicious relationship with various ethically-challenged elites
* Matthew Guy’s utter inability to comprehend Victoria’s desperate public transport needs
* Mathew Guy’s glib, moonfaced, verbal presentation.
Or PV (especially the young, idealists) will be thinking The Greens must be an option. An expansion of THEIR vote will give the bastards a fright. Except that they:
* will never be a government
* have not been able to ensure the ethics or maturity of some (most?) of their candidates
* have not been able to demonstrate that they have coherent proposals for all of those more complex government functions beyond the idealist ‘feel-good’ ones for which they’re famous.
The PV can vote above the line. And get the hell out of the voting centre. Except that they’ll lose all control over their vote, and may as well have voted informally.
Or PV can vote BELOW the line. Except that:
* they’ll be in the damn voting booth all afternoon, and they’re not even wide enough for your elbows
* the list of candidates is so expansive and the ballot paper itself so unwieldy that they’ll inevitably ph..k it up.
Or PV can just get over with painlessly and let the bastards know how they feel… with a penis vote.
* it’ll make no difference anyway, to the standard of government for the next 4 years
* the development of the informal vote has to commence SOMEWHERE/SOMETIME
* those who voted above the line have thrown their vote away anyway (without the message an informal vote would have sent)
* unless the political establishment as currently extant gets a robust message at the polls, we’ll all have sentenced ourselves to yet another cycle of the contemporary farce that passes as the political management (on our behalf) of Victoria.
My God. What IS the PV to do?
Pity the PV – federally as well.
Look at the choice, Mr Shouty & his pack of brain-dead bigots, knuckledraggers and creeps or bumBoil Shlernt with his ethically empty head, controlled by the men-without-navels in the bowels of SussexSt, beholden to the same money class as Mr Shouty.
The P.V will do what they always do. Weigh up the options and chose the best of a bad lot.
Well, now (Sunday after Saturday) we know. the poor voter wasn’t so impoverished of thought after all
No suggestion that PV would not be able to think (although perhaps an implication that many would only be able to think along the same tired old paradigms… as indeed it turned out to be). More the suggestion that PV would be faced with a challenge if they sought to do anything meaningful with their vote. Sure enough, they gravitated to the side that was expected to win. Everyone loves to be a grinner. They’ll skulk back soon enough, should the Libs ever get their act together.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the media “covering the Victorian election”, on the ABC yesterday we saw The Dum. Five “panelists”, all women, and of the parties “represented”, there was the “right-handed” Baird, once-upon-a-time Liberal Sally Capp and Vic/Federal Liberal VP Karina Okotel campaigning on how great their side is?
Hi! Klewie…you are sooooo right! I turned this program OFF after a few minutes…just an ABC ‘free’ advertisement for the LNP. It certainly is ‘their’ ABC!
DISGRACEFUL!!
gumshoe…re voting for the upper house. I listened to Antony Green on ABC radio a couple of days ago, and he said that voting for at least five candidates BELOW the line was a VALID VOTE, but it had to be at least that number. After that a voter could vote for as many, or no more candidates, as they wished. So…there is NO need to fill out the whole ballot paper below the line. Voters just need to stop voting above the line, and choose their own preferences below the line. I’m pretty sure that is correct, but open to suggestions otherwise.
Today we had that little Timmy Wilson doing his own “black-dog lore and ordure whistling”?
And Baird telling us that “some commentators are prediciting a minority (Labor/Greens) government”? Which “commentators” would that be? They wouldn’t be the usual dog-whistling Murdoch mischievous medicated Muppet commentators (trying to herd the flock their right way) would they?
What’s with the ‘all women’ comment? Really.
Really? When we’re striving for equality, imagine an all male panel – what that would generate.
Too many people seem to think that revenge is another word for equality – that reversing roles is the end game?
We don’t have to imagine an all male panel – they’re all too frequent.
I grew up all of my life with it. Men’s voices were the only voices on television I heard.
Thankfully things are starting to change, and you seem upset my that – which is understandable.
……. My point exactly. Thank you.
It has nothing to do with revenge – but a plea for equality of voice.
It would have never occurred to me to describe a panel as ‘all women’ – the fact that you specifically did, implies that you think there is something inherently wrong or abnormal about that.
I really do understand your upset – but there is no going back, and you might need to get used to it and learn the word compassion.
Revenge is equality. What do you think #Mee Too is? Men are being put in jail. Men are now before the courts. Men are paying out millions in fines. Men are named are being published in newspapers and the media. The bastards. down with men. That is equality. They are now not to get any sex.
I think you need a good counsellor to deal with your anger issues.
Women are not to blame for the conduct of men, nor is the ‘me too movement’ an hysterical women’s movement.
It’s about women finally being able to feel free feel to talk about their experiences without shame and guilt.
It’s why I offered you the word compassion rather than aggression.
You’ve taken too many red pills even for a Farther Rite and you know that leads to Incel.
On tuther hand, if it is or is not another near-death experience, perhaps Mr Shouty might feel impelled to go early?