Lessons from the Victorian Election analyse reasons for Coalition loss

 
    February 03, 2015
    Herald Sun

Denis Napthine’s Liberal Party has been accused of worrying too much about internal politics.

WITH the finger pointing in Liberal and National ranks reaching a crescendo following Saturday’s disastrous Queensland election result, political experts are still grappling with what went wrong for the Coalition in Victoria last November.   :)

Speaking at the Lessons from the Victorian Election on Friday night, a forum hosted by The Taxpayers’ Alliance, The Australian’s political journalist Christian Kerr said he thought the former Liberal Government was “utterly obsessed with internal party politics” and only lasted one term because it got the “politics wrong from the word go”.

Mr Kerr said when first elected in 2010, the then Baillieu Government was more interested in themselves than helping the people that put them there.

He questioned why the Liberal Party launched its campaign in Ballarat instead of in the sand belt suburbs, where the marginal seats were.

HAVE YOUR SAY: Why do you think the Coalition lost? Tell us below

“(It) came across as a bunch of country boys that didn’t really understand Melbourne,” he said.

Institute of Public Affairs executive director John Roskam told the forum the Liberal Government never defined Labor as its opponent from day one.

“I would have had a royal commission into the desalination plant on the Sunday,” Mr Roskam said.

“The numerous failures of the previous Labor governments have never been identified in the public’s mind.”

He said the government also failed in explaining the importance of having a balanced budget.

Former Federal Liberal Senator Helen Kroger went even further in explaining the Liberal election loss.

She described it as an “unmitigated disaster” and blamed it on the party not being able to get its policies across as well as leadership issues and the way the campaign was run.

Ms Kroger said the party was unable to make tough decisions in relation to former Frankston MP Geoff Shaw and even though the party spent more than $10 million on its campaign, the party still lost “in such spectacular style”.   :)

“Something was catastrophically wrong with our campaign if we won only one of nine marginal seats. It’s an absolute disgrace, total disgrace,” she said.

“We were going to lose this, regardless of what happened federally, although that didn’t help.”

Professor Sinclair Davidson from the School of Economics, Finance and Marketing at RMIT echoed what the other panellists had already spoken about.

“The Victorian Liberals were unable to articulate any good reason why they should hold office,” Prof Davidson said.

He gave a few examples, including the controversial ambulance pay dispute.

“The ambulance drivers campaign was an absolute disgrace. They should have adopted a hard line, no graffiti policy.”

Prof Davidson said public servants should not have been allowed to campaign against the government in their uniforms.

Young Liberals president Jess Wilson said there was a drop in volunteers campaigning last election because “the party’s beliefs were lacking, were not being pursued”.

Ms Wilson was optimistic, however, adding that she hoped the party would learn from the election loss.

The IPA is stupid—do they REALLY want every govt to have a politically motivated RC into the previous govt? Because some of the previous govts will be Liberal.

Abbott had a go, just wasted tens of millions of taxpayers’ dollars with the Commission of Audit, the RCs into Rudd & Gillard. All failed. To this add the extra tens of millions of dollars Turncoat wasted on his “enquiries” into the NBN that just told him what he wanted them to tell him.

The IPA, neocon central, is a Liberal problem not a liberal asset.

How dare they speak against the ochlocratic Collective... :D

I used to think that some time you would come up with something interesting and relevant.

I no longer think that.

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 9:38am:

I used to think that some time you would come up with something interesting and relevant. I no longer think that.

Now Georgie don't go being an ochlocratic collectivist.....  :D

Quote:

“The ambulance drivers campaign was an absolute disgrace. They should have adopted a hard line, no graffiti policy.”

This is wrong.

The Liberals should not have been making promises that they didn't intend to keep. They promised to make Victoria's ambos the best paid in the country, so it's the Liberals' fault if they then reneged on that promise.

The problem with the Liberals is they have drifted too far to the right, but still want to sell themselves as a centre-right party. The "hard line" remarks are a case in point. Unless the Liberals figure it out and stop their right-wing "hard line" rubbish, the Liberals are in for a great deal of pain in the next few years as voters swing to Labor in election after election.

Voters all around the country are waking up to the Liberals and are rejecting them. The Liberals haven't figured out why yet. As long as the Liberals keep thinking in terms of "hard line" and "not selling the message", they will fail, again and again. It's not the sales job, the voters don't like the message. They snuck into office without sufficient scrutiny of policy - what few policies they had - and now that they are revealing their policies in office, the voters are rejecting them. It's brought on the biggest case of voters' remorse this country has seen for decades.

NSW, ACT and NT are due for elections in the next year or so. NSW will swing heavily to Labor but that is understandable; the Coalition have a huge majority and Labor will regain seats they wouldn't have lost in a more normal election result. The Country Liberals in the NT are doomed. They have replaced two Chief Ministers in the past two years, and they haven't a hope of winning another term. The ACT - usually pro-Labor - will swing further to Labor.

Then there's the Federal election due in late 2016. If things do not change, the next Federal election will be a bloodbath for the Coalition and they would be lucky not to lose half their seats. By the time the next Federal election is done, the Coalition could have lost a combined 100 seats right around the country since the 2013 Federal election. They probably won't get to 100 only because the ailing Coalition WA government is not due for an election until 2017.

Swagman wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 9:31am:

How dare they speak against the ochlocratic Collective... :D

Yes of course you prefer the power to remain in the exclusive hands of your tight knit little group.  Not gonna happen mate.   

Bam wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 10:09am:

The problem with the Liberals is they have drifted too far to the right, but still want to sell themselves as a centre-right party. The "hard line" remarks are a case in point. Unless the Liberals figure it out and stop their right-wing "hard line" rubbish, the Liberals are in for a great deal of pain in the next few years as voters swing to Labor in election after election. Voters all around the country are waking up to the Liberals and are rejecting them. The Liberals haven't figured out why yet. As long as the Liberals keep thinking in terms of "hard line" and "not selling the message", they will fail, again and again. It's not the sales job, the voters don't like the message. They snuck into office without sufficient scrutiny of policy - what few policies they had - and now that they are revealing their policies in office, the voters are rejecting them. It's brought on the biggest case of voters' remorse this country has seen for decades. NSW, ACT and NT are due for elections in the next year or so. NSW will swing heavily to Labor but that is understandable; the Coalition have a huge majority and Labor will regain seats they wouldn't have lost in a more normal election result. The Country Liberals in the NT are doomed. They have replaced two Chief Ministers in the past two years, and they haven't a hope of winning another term. The ACT - usually pro-Labor - will swing further to Labor. Then there's the Federal election due in late 2016. If things do not change, the next Federal election will be a bloodbath for the Coalition and they would be lucky not to lose half their seats. By the time the next Federal election is done, the Coalition could have lost a combined 100 seats right around the country since the 2013 Federal election. They probably won't get to 100 only because the ailing Coalition WA government is not due for an election until 2017.

The WA punters will be pissed when they find out MH370 was next to buswells fleet car all along .....

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 10:58am:

Swagman wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 9:31am: How dare they speak against the ochlocratic Collective... :D Yes of course you prefer the power to remain in the exclusive hands of your tight knit little group.  Not gonna happen mate.

The "power" rests with whom the fickle Mob elects and whom pork barrells best in the fickle Mob's favour.

That is our flawed democracy which isn't democracy at all, it's ochlocracy.

Flawed, because the Majority that pays the minority of tax totally exploits the minority that pays the majority of tax and the minority can do effall about it.

The reality is that the Liberal Party represents this minority and will allways therefore struggle for majority support.

Mostly the only way the Libs can get majority support and Govt is when Labor is dysfuntionally innept which fortunately is quite frequent.  Libs don't get voted in - Labor gets voted out.

The Liberal party's problem recently is their sales pitch.  They can't sell their message because the 'salesmen' are innept.

The problem is the Lib policies, not the selling thereof.

Swagman wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 11:38am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 10:58am: Swagman wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 9:31am: How dare they speak against the ochlocratic Collective... :D Yes of course you prefer the power to remain in the exclusive hands of your tight knit little group.  Not gonna happen mate.    The "power" rests with whom the fickle Mob elects and whom pork barrells best in the fickle Mob's favour. That is our flawed democracy which isn't democracy at all, it's ochlocracy. Flawed, because the Majority that pays the minority of tax totally exploits the minority that pays the majority of tax and the minority can do effall about it. The reality is that the Liberal Party represents this minority and will allways therefore struggle for majority support. Mostly the only way the Libs can get majority support and Govt is when Labor is dysfuntionally innept which fortunately is quite frequent.  Libs don't get voted in - Labor gets voted out. The Liberal party's problem recently is their sales pitch.  They can't sell their message because the 'salesmen' are innept.

Now dont you take that vituperative tone with me Mister!!!!

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 11:43am:

The problem is the Lib policies, not the selling thereof.

.....tell that to the grandkids when they are choking on 50% marginal tax rates to pay you and and a large percentage of the population's aged care bills in 20 years time

Swagman wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 12:04pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 11:43am: The problem is the Lib policies, not the selling thereof. .....tell that to the grandkids when they are choking on 50% marginal tax rates to pay you and and a large percentage of the population's aged care bills in 20 years time

Still no idea, I see.

Why do you keep on with this BS?

Swagman wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 12:04pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 11:43am: The problem is the Lib policies, not the selling thereof. .....tell that to the grandkids when they are choking on 50% marginal tax rates to pay you and and a large percentage of the population's aged care bills in 20 years time

the only thing Ginas grandkids will be choking on  is too much of our money.

Kat wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 12:25pm:

Swagman wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 12:04pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 11:43am: The problem is the Lib policies, not the selling thereof. .....tell that to the grandkids when they are choking on 50% marginal tax rates to pay you and and a large percentage of the population's aged care bills in 20 years time Still no idea, I see. Why do you keep on with this BS?

Ahh Kat old petal, old bean, you really need to see an optometrist about that right eye of yours.  You might get one that bulk bills too.

Favouring your left one all these years has made it damned difficult to see the truth.... http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g422/pudel44/Smiley_blind.gif

Could the "selling of public assets" be the core problem.

In almost all cases of the government selling public assets, the people have had to pay more for the same service.  The funds raised by those sales seems to just disappear.

The public have had enough. They see every "sale" as
1) The government taking the easy option over debt.
2) The cost of the service will rise.

The public have had enough. Enough of the government donors getting first dibs on public assets at low prices, then making the people pay through the nose for basic services.

Privatising electricity infrastructure will make electricity more expensive and less reliable. This is the  overwhelming view, which history has proven.

Reading the OP it looks like they blamed anyone and everyone except for the elephant in the room at the time.

Swagman wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 9:31am:

How dare they speak against the ochlocratic Collective...

One day I will look that word up.

Well maybe not doubt that it matters much.

Swagman wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 12:04pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 11:43am: The problem is the Lib policies, not the selling thereof. .....tell that to the grandkids when they are choking on 50% marginal tax rates to pay you and and a large percentage of the population's aged care bills in 20 years time

50%? Good, many people need a tax cut. 70% is just criminal.

Swagman wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 12:04pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 11:43am: The problem is the Lib policies, not the selling thereof. .....tell that to the grandkids when they are choking on 50% marginal tax rates to pay you and and a large percentage of the population's aged care bills in 20 years time

It is the LIB policies that will bring that about.

Time to remove the last of Howard’s profligate spending from the Budget, and remove a couple tax cuts.

Then increase NewStart from some of those savings.

Get rid of the FTAs, run out FTTH.

Grandkids will have a grand start to life.

Swagman wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 12:04pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 11:43am: The problem is the Lib policies, not the selling thereof. .....tell that to the grandkids when they are choking on 50% marginal tax rates to pay you and and a large percentage of the population's aged care bills in 20 years time

Oh dear. But your quite happy to destroy your grandkids earth rather then adjust your fossil fuel burning habits.  Again, as usual you and the business community make up any argument to advance your own self interests.  Why is it that for every issue confronting this country You and the business community's solution for reform always starts with giving you some advantage or putting $$$$ in your pockets. 

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 12:38pm:

Could the "selling of public assets" be the core problem. In almost all cases of the government selling public assets, the people have had to pay more for the same service.  The funds raised by those sales seems to just disappear. The public have had enough. They see every "sale" as 1) The government taking the easy option over debt. 2) The cost of the service will rise. The public have had enough. Enough of the government donors getting first dibs on public assets at low prices, then making the people pay through the nose for basic services. Privatising electricity infrastructure will make electricity more expensive and less reliable. This is the  overwhelming view, which history has proven.

Dont forget the revenue stream we lose as a result of selling these assets, which eventually puts more pressure on us to pay more in tax to make up the shortfall in addition to the higher prices we have to contend with.  The politicians know this is happening but they're selling these assets to their mates. In canberra the Belconnen Mall was a real $$$$ spinner to the govt.  When Hawke got in power in the 80s he immediately put it up for tender and his mate Frank Lowy (of westfield fame) bought it.  The first thing Lowy did was raise rents. Many of the small businesses revolted but it was no use and ultimately many lost everything and those who stayed passed on the increased rents to their customers.  Since then the govt loost all the revenue from Belconnen Mall. At every turn we lost as a consequence of the sale of the Belconnen mall.  Time this theft stopped and these white collar thieves repaid the proceeds of their crime. 

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 12:47pm:

Swagman wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 9:31am: How dare they speak against the ochlocratic Collective... One day I will look that word up. Well maybe not doubt that it matters much.

As one of the tyrants I suppose it wouldn't matter much....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy

Quote:

Ochlocracy (Greek: ὀχλοκρατία, okhlokratía; Latin: ochlocratia) or mob rule is the rule of government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of legitimate authorities. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning "the fickle crowd", from which the English term "mob" was originally derived in the 1680s. Ochlocracy ("rule of the general populace") is democracy ("rule of the people") spoiled by demagoguery, "tyranny of the majority", and the rule of passion over reason, just as oligarchy ("rule of a few") is aristocracy ("rule of the best") spoiled by corruption, and tyranny is monarchy spoiled by lack of virtue. Ochlocracy is synonymous in meaning and usage to the modern, informal term "mobocracy", which emerged from a much more recent colloquial etymology

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 3:07pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 12:38pm: Could the "selling of public assets" be the core problem. In almost all cases of the government selling public assets, the people have had to pay more for the same service.  The funds raised by those sales seems to just disappear. The public have had enough. They see every "sale" as 1) The government taking the easy option over debt. 2) The cost of the service will rise. The public have had enough. Enough of the government donors getting first dibs on public assets at low prices, then making the people pay through the nose for basic services. Privatising electricity infrastructure will make electricity more expensive and less reliable. This is the  overwhelming view, which history has proven. Dont forget the revenue stream we lose as a result of selling these assets, which eventually puts more pressure on us to pay more in tax to make up the shortfall in addition to the higher prices we have to contend with.  The politicians know this is happening but they're selling these assets to their mates. In canberra the Belconnen Mall was a real $$$$ spinner to the govt.  When Hawke got in power in the 80s he immediately put it up for tender and his mate Frank Lowy (of westfield fame) bought it.  The first thing Lowy did was raise rents. Many of the small businesses revolted but it was no use and ultimately many lost everything and those who stayed passed on the increased rents to their customers.  Since then the govt loost all the revenue from Belconnen Mall. At every turn we lost as a consequence of the sale of the Belconnen mall.  Time this theft stopped and these white collar thieves repaid the proceeds of their crime.

J. Lambie ripped it up B. Joyce on Q&A last night on just this issue...  :)

It's the old 'Golden Goose' fairy-tale brought to life.

In the story, the guy who owned the goose would then sell the eggs
the goose laid, for a steady stream of cash.

But he got greedy and wanted all the eggs at once so killed the goose
and cut it open to get the eggs out. Of course there were none.

So, no more golden eggs, hello poverty.

Selling public assets is EXACTLY the same thing.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 3:07pm:

Dont forget the revenue stream we lose as a result of selling these assets, which eventually puts more pressure on us to pay more in tax to make up the shortfall in addition to the higher prices we have to contend with

Which is a load of crap otherwise no businesses would ever be sold.

Swagman wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 5:59pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 3:07pm: Dont forget the revenue stream we lose as a result of selling these assets, which eventually puts more pressure on us to pay more in tax to make up the shortfall in addition to the higher prices we have to contend with Which is a load of crap otherwise no businesses would ever be sold.

You need to be clearer. Are you saying that when the libs sell a govt asset like Telstra thereafter the govt doesnt lose the money Telstra was paying into consolidated revenue every year from the money it made each year?

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 7:35pm:

Swagman wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 5:59pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 3:07pm: Dont forget the revenue stream we lose as a result of selling these assets, which eventually puts more pressure on us to pay more in tax to make up the shortfall in addition to the higher prices we have to contend with Which is a load of crap otherwise no businesses would ever be sold. You need to be clearer. Are you saying that when the libs sell a govt asset like Telstra thereafter the govt doesnt lose the money Telstra was paying into consolidated revenue every year from the money it made each year?

Or the billions of dollars in interest payments that flow out of consolidated revenue to pay for Government debt?

Swagman wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 8:45pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 7:35pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 5:59pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 3:07pm: Dont forget the revenue stream we lose as a result of selling these assets, which eventually puts more pressure on us to pay more in tax to make up the shortfall in addition to the higher prices we have to contend with Which is a load of crap otherwise no businesses would ever be sold. You need to be clearer. Are you saying that when the libs sell a govt asset like Telstra thereafter the govt doesnt lose the money Telstra was paying into consolidated revenue every year from the money it made each year? Or the billions of dollars in interest payments that flow out of consolidated revenue to pay for Government debt?

Whats that got to do with anything.  Are you going to answer the question or not.  It is a simple question, your just being asked to answer it directly and honestly. 

Just print money. Do away with businesses. This is progress.

Swagman wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 5:59pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 3:07pm: Dont forget the revenue stream we lose as a result of selling these assets, which eventually puts more pressure on us to pay more in tax to make up the shortfall in addition to the higher prices we have to contend with Which is a load of crap otherwise no businesses would ever be sold.

Not many businesses would be structured like these government owned assets where they pay an income stream to government in exchange for doing nothing.

Private business change hands for a number of reasons not all good ones.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 6:16am:

Just print money. Do away with businesses. This is progress.

I think that I am glad that I mostly have no idea what you are on about.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 4^th, 2015 at 3:52pm:

Not many businesses would be structured like these government owned assets where they pay an income stream to government in exchange for doing nothing.

You've just made a damned fine definition of the minority that pay the majority of tax....

Swagman wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2015 at 5:59pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2015 at 3:07pm: Dont forget the revenue stream we lose as a result of selling these assets, which eventually puts more pressure on us to pay more in tax to make up the shortfall in addition to the higher prices we have to contend with Which is a load of crap otherwise no businesses would ever be sold.

Privatisation has always resulted in cheaper prices for the consumer, oh wait , it hasn't .