![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Victorian Politics
Spent a thirteen hour shift (setting up, doing HTVs, scrutineer) as the only ALP worker at a small polling booth in Hawthorn yesterday. Results are very uncertain, with the strong possibility of yet another genuinely hung parliament. With no independents, a 44-44 result would mean that another election would have to be called.
It was another god-awful campaign by the Labor Party with appropriate results. Seriously, is there nobody in the Party with the appropriate mix of sociology, marketing and demographics to combine with policy and practise? The "Moving Forward" slogan in the Federal election was nonsense. And "For The Future"? What is that supposed to mean? It means nothing. They are throw away lines with no content, no theme, and no promise.
Now compare those with the Greens. "Your Vote Is Powerful". That says something. Even better, consider the Tories. "Fix The Problems. Build The Future." Abbot's negative (and utterly wrong) "stop the boats, end big new taxes, stop waste and pay off debt" at least was a statement of intent. Those are themes with substance which people can understand.
What was Labor's message in this campaign? Does anyone know? It's just embarrassing that a Party that has been a pretty good steward over the past decade and had sound policies for this election was utterly unable to capitalise on these features.
It was another god-awful campaign by the Labor Party with appropriate results. Seriously, is there nobody in the Party with the appropriate mix of sociology, marketing and demographics to combine with policy and practise? The "Moving Forward" slogan in the Federal election was nonsense. And "For The Future"? What is that supposed to mean? It means nothing. They are throw away lines with no content, no theme, and no promise.
Now compare those with the Greens. "Your Vote Is Powerful". That says something. Even better, consider the Tories. "Fix The Problems. Build The Future." Abbot's negative (and utterly wrong) "stop the boats, end big new taxes, stop waste and pay off debt" at least was a statement of intent. Those are themes with substance which people can understand.
What was Labor's message in this campaign? Does anyone know? It's just embarrassing that a Party that has been a pretty good steward over the past decade and had sound policies for this election was utterly unable to capitalise on these features.
no subject
no subject
no subject
* The ALP undersold their achievements - mainly because all the big commitments were released in the Victorian Transport Plan 6 months before the election. They had no "news" that they could use to cover up recent setbacks (like myki cost blowouts) and the were unable to escape the accusation that they were doing "too little, too late".
* The Liberals recognised the biggest problems in this space (Service "black holes", peak hour overcrowding, and safety fears) and made some gutsy promises to address these problems. These promises seem to have appealed to commuters.
* The Greens, well they were a bit "me too" in this space.
I think the Libs ran a good campaign that focused on the 'growing pains' of Melbourne - and were able to successfully present the government as tired and no longer able to keep up.
The Greens in both the federal and state campaigns have successfully built their brand as the grass roots progressive party. The ALP can fix this with internal reform.
Being an member of the local ALP branch should mean more than being a member of the Collingwood Football Club. It should be a tool for political action, not just a statement of which party you support. More importantly, the ALP should be able to to the electorate as the political wing of a social movement - a key point of difference to the more "managerial" liberals.
Branch decisions should have greater influence over the actions of the parliamentary party - they should let the annual party conference be an ugly bunfight about what the ALP is for and what its trying to achieve.
no subject
Care to nominate a few points of suggestion here?
I suspect that dressing up the VLP as progressive conservatives is out with the bath water at this point ...
no subject
No idea - I just know that if they can't do it they are in serious trouble.
They've lost the "progressive professionals" to the Greens, and demonstrated they aren't doing a very good job of appealing to the "social conservative working class aspirationals".
Branch reform at least offers a chance to recapture lost ground on the left.
no subject
One of the suggestion was tying "branches" to actual governmental positions, starting from the local council wards (shades of Jefferson!), to state seats and upwards. That's the pragmatic side of winning government. The other component however is that it attaches the very real concerns of people in the respective areas. Tying those concerns to the core political ideology is what I think would be the method to rejuvenate the Party...
no subject
"Cos abortion and a gay scene, Only meant for the rich" (Tom Robinson, 1978), didn't you know?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
But, and I think this is the same thing you're saying, I think the ALP does itself and the country a tremendous disservice by trying to emulate the Coalition's product instead of taking some pride in its own. Laura Norder being a case in point - if you've been governing for the last ten years, it might be better to challenge the assertion that our streets are getting dangerous rather than just playing "who can promise more cops?" The Coalition will always have an inherent advantage when the debate is positioned at 'tough on crime'.
(I think this is much the same thing that's happening at the federal level re. gay marriage. I don't think it can quite be described as 'poll-driven', given that polls FAVOUR gay marriage, but certainly the ALP is trying much too hard to pander to its impression of the swinging voters rather than providing some actual leadership.)
/rant
no subject
The example of crime is a good example. As you say, the Tories have a natural advantage on any "tough on crime" line. Why Labor didn't point out that crime has fallen by 20% in the last decade is bizarre as a success story and instead joined in the race to the bottom. I mean, if there was anything that could take the wind out of the Coalition's sails without engaging in negative politicking.
The economy, housing, health etc. These were things that Labor "could have", "should have" campaigned strongly on.
no subject
Also, I realised last night that I have no idea what Ted Baillieu even looks like (Andrew says he looks like a meerkat, but even he only knows this because I pointed out the ad to him).
no subject
(Unless you're around 6'7" yourself, in which case you'd see eye-to-eye with him)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
And whilst I don't welcome the increasingly likely prospect of a Liberal government, I can't say that I lament the passing of the Brumby government.
The only real difference between the Brumby and Kennet governments seems to be that Kennet had personality and the major difference between Brumby and the Cain/Kirner years is that while Cain and Kirner had Tom "failing upwards" Roper, they also had Steve "What do I have to fix this time" Crabbe, Brumby has Justin "I'd really be better coaching a country footy team" Madden and Peter "I used to be a public transport advocate until they made me transport minister" Bachellor.
For me it was the strange situation of a government that deserved to lose and an opposition that didn't deserve to win.
no subject
I'll differ strongly in your descriptions of the Kennett and Bracks/Brumby governments however. The former was very interested in fancy projects, closing schools (about 350), and sacking teachers (7,000) and other public servants (c16,000) whereas the latter have engaged in some quiet infrastructure spending in the background...
no subject
I nearly gave up buying newspapers altogether until the Age sacked Catherine Deveny earlier this year..
And we'll have to agree to disagree because all I've seen from the Bracks/Brumby government is a lot of interest in fancy projects, a lot of excuses for not building public transport infrastucture, let alone competently managing the existing infrastructure, complete aquiescence to the wishes of property developers and the so-called forestry industry.
I doubt the Liberals will do anything different but as a voter, I resent not being offered an alternative,
no subject
no subject
If you know me at all, you'll know I'm not that.
But I'd be happy if Victoria could find a government even marginally to the left or right of Dick Hamer's government.
Instead, we've a host of Henry Boltes on both sides offering circuses, but no bread.
no subject
If "Red Ted" can really fix the public transport system, replaces stamp duty and payroll tax with a better land tax, keeps up with regional infrastructure spending and starts some serious action on various civil liberties - well, heck, I might even work for his re-election.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Iggy doesn't have a ton to do with this bi-election, though. Winning or losing the seat doesn't tip the balance of power in anyone's favour, and it will remain a minority government. I suspect the Liberals and Conservatives are really trying to use this as a bellwether to see what they think might happen if a nation-wide election is called or the government falls on a non-confidence motion.
In fact, this article suggests the same. It's a run-up to when the February budget motion might get defeated. And if you read the whole part where somebody thinks Fantino is a plum pick to win just because he's an Italian running in a very Italian riding, you know a bit of my headache right now.
no subject
no subject
All of this is academic however, as it now looks likely that the result will be 45-43. Should make for some interesting times.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject