Victoria State Election
November 28th, 2010 at 10:41 am by David FarrarVictoria went to the polls yesterday. It has had Labor rule for 11 years and earlier this year were looking likely to be re-elected.
At this stage it looks like the Coalition (and it was the first election since 1999 when they were together as a Coalition) has won power with 45 out of 88 seats. Labor has 37 seats and is likely to end up with 43. It is still very possible there is a hung Parliament at 44 each.
The Coalition got 44.8% of the primary vote and Labor 36.9%. Greens did well at 10.6% but not as well as expected, and failed to win a seat. Labor attacked the Greens aggressively.
This may be the third election in a row where there has been a hung Parliament – Tasmania had one also, as did the Federal election.
November 28th, 2010 at 10:48 am
And there is one in NSW early next year where the result for the Coalition will be more decisive and finally Queensland in 2012 where the State Labour Government is massively unpopular. Victoria swung to Labour in the Federal Election which, if it had not, there would be an Abbott Government. Tony Abbott will come up with a brilliant sound-bite regarding this result. But the polls are improving for Federal Labour at the moment.
Vote:November 28th, 2010 at 10:55 am
Those outer suburban electorates get really pissed when they sit there waiting for government services which never eventuate. All those promised rail lines and hospitals, more and more traffic whilst employment gets more and more inaccessible. You are looking at swings of 10%+ in the outer east and north. Same thing in Western Sydney last federal election- and wait for the NSW election.
Of course the political class don’t live in the urban periphery- they live in the wealthy inner and middle suburbs and send their kids to private schools and have private health insurance. Don’t expect much to change as result of this election.
Vote:November 28th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Labor attacked the Greens aggressive
As did the Coalition, Preferencing Labour over the Greens in an effort to stop the Greens taking any seats.
Vote:November 28th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Yes, the big story out of this is the complete failure of the greens. The green-aligned MSM were predicting greens to win 20% of the vote a few weeks ago and take at least 4 seats. Even Bob Brown came out and said that they weren’t there to keep the bastards honest but to replace them. Face meet egg.
Vote:November 28th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
I just drove past the Bentleigh office of Rob Hudson. It felt like it was boarded up..
Vote:November 28th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Australia appears to be in no Man’s land when ever it goes to the polls. There doesn’t seem to be dominant leader over there, unlike in NZ where we are lucky to have John Phillip Key, who is still developing his own qualities in the job.
Vote:November 28th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
I’m hoping for the 44-44 tie. Then the Liberals and Labor have no choice but to go into coalition with each other.
Vote:November 28th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
In a surprise move, Bentleigh Postals and pre-polls are going to be counted today (usually it would wait till Sunday)
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/victoria-facing-constitutional-crisis-with-hung-parliament-likely/story-fn5kmqy2-1225962099246
I just had lunch in Center Rd, Bentleigh – it’s a great little spot, and was quite upbeat today, despite the rain. Will be interesting to see what happens.
Vote:November 28th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
@Nicholas O’Kane: I should have said that the winning side supplies the Government, and the losing side the Speaker. How they would decide which is which, though, I have no idea.
Vote:November 28th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
@Mr Gronk – based 2 party preferred vote?
@TCrwdb – The success of the Greens was predicated on the Libs preferencing them ahead of Labour. If they had done that, some seats that Labour currently hold would be Green held, and I think (although not certain) it would have made no difference to how many seats the Libs hold.
The reason the Libs did this is, to my mind, twofold:
1. The Greens are worse than Labour. Previous logic was that making things hard for Labour was worthwhile, even if it meant supporting the Greens. New logic is that bad is bad – so never support the Greens.
2. The Greens never give anything back to the Libs. This is a clear message that says “we’ll help you out – but we want something back”. That might mean that the Greens preference Lib in some specific seats – but not certain how the Greens would ever agree to that.
It will be interesting to see what the Libs do with preferences in NSW.
Vote:November 28th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
2PP seems reasonable to me. I’m told there’s no precedent for a tied Assembly with no cross-benchers, but I can’t imagine John Brumby being enough of a glutton for punishment to force another election, nor Ted Baillieu meekly accepting another Labor government.
Vote:November 28th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
@Nicholas O’Kane @3.44pm Why would you hope for a grand coalition between the Libs and Labor? The Bracks/Brumby experiment has been an abject and utter failure. The only way forward for the Democratic People’s Republic of Victoriastan is for Baillieu to win outright (even by 1-2 seats) and start winding back the lunacy that Bracks and Brumby foisted on their long-suffering subjects. Fix or throw away Myki. Close the Desal project and build a fucking dam. Stop relying on billions in fines from speed cameras and start actually policing the mean and violent streets of Melbourne.
Any thought or talk of a grand coalition is defeatism and appeasement at its worst.
Vote:November 28th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
And meanwhile, in a repeat of the hubris and list of sorry excuses rolled out by the Liarbore party in New Zealand a couple of years ago, a blind, deaf and stupid John Brumby claims the massive swing against his government is “just wear and tear”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/victoria-facing-constitutional-crisis-with-hung-parliament-likely/story-fn5kmqy2-1225962099246
What a fool. The man has no shame. Then again, he is a Labor state premier.
Vote:November 28th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
^ isn’t that always the case.
I reckon polling companies should factor in a ‘green coefficient’ into their polling calculation. I.e. lazy Green voters who are happy to tell anyone who’s listening how to save the world, but somehow never make it to a polling booth.
We all know at least one of ‘em.
Vote:November 28th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
It is called the “Brady Effect” in the US. Where people tell pollsters they are green but don’t quite get there when they vote.
Vote: