Comments on: Congratulations to Steve Bracks

By: Graham Young

Graham Young — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:08:32 +0000

Thanks Andrew. Don’t you think there is too much emphasis on the leader – particularly by the people controlling the campaigns?
As long as a leader can competently dramatise the issues of the campaign, I don’t think who they are matters too much. But there is a risk in being too novel about how you do this. Arriving by water at a press conference in your budgy smugglers is probably not the way to build the right profile.

By: Andrew Elder

Andrew Elder — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:23:44 +0000

“The Liberals did OK, considering the last four years. The election result shows that changing leaders doesn’t win elections. I suspect Robert Doyle would have done just as well as Ted Baillieu, which is not a criticism of Baillieu. It is a recognition that it takes more than 6 months for a new leader to be able to make any impression on the electorate, at least when you run a conventional campaign.”
I think this is wrong on both counts.
The Victorian Libs were headed to oblivion with Doyle. Baillieu’s gains were so small because he had to make up lost ground, which is hard to measure except in polling terms but no less real for that.
Baillieu ran an unconventional campaign and presented himself as an interesting alternative to the overly cautious incumbent. Changing leaders happened too late in the piece but a change was definitely necessary.
The Democrats won’t come back until we are on the cusp of a change of goverment.

By: MrLefty

MrLefty — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:01:13 +0000

Test – my last comment decrying the imposter above didn’t get through.

By: MrLefty

MrLefty — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:00:19 +0000

Those above comments from a person claiming to be me, and linking to my blog, are from an imposter. This is obvious if you look closely at the blog he’s linking to – not actually my blog, but a spam blog that takes what’s on my blog and twists it.
I reckon that’s fairly dishonest and fraudulent, and am not surprised that such a person is out there advocating for Fundamentalists First.
Anyway, I’d ask that Graham either amend his name to remove the confusion (“MrLefty’s creepy stalker” springs to mind).
And Fundies First “centrist”? You must be joking. Fundies First are the political wing of Assemblies of God – hardline religious right-wingers. “Centrist”! My god.

By: MrLefty

MrLefty — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:16:25 +0000

I’m sorry Graham, I respect your opinion, but you are wrong.
The Democrats are dead.
I’d like to point you to the Morgan Senate Poll taken before the 2004 Federal Election, showing the Democrat support level at 6%. The Poll you mention shows them at 5.5%.
Actual result achieved 2.09%.
A more likely party is Family First who are seen as more centrist than the Greens.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:19:36 +0000

The Democrats are finished, Natasha departing was the nail in the bio-organic coffin. Their biggest problem was that their following was always around the cult of the individual leader…Chipp, Haines, Kernot, Natasha. The advantage the Greens have in the current environment is branding “Greens” and the fact there is certainly no cult of personality around Bob Brown.

By: Graham Young

Graham Young — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 09:47:32 +0000

It augurs well for the next Federal election. The Dems obviously didn’t do very well in the state election, but then they weren’t really trying.
The most recent polls have a recovery in the Dems vote to around 5% at a federal level. This election shows that the Greens have probably topped out. If the Dems can maintain 5% and score a reasonable flow of preferences they are competitive at the moment with the Greens.
The Greens demonstrated in this election that they haven’t worked out how to harvest the protest votes that are undoubtedly around. They were doing well in Melbourne according to the polls, but didn’t have the answers to Labor’s campaign against them. I think part of the reason for this is that they see themselves as a budding major party, rather an eternal minor one.
The same attitude led to the Dems downfall under Stott Despoja. The Dems have been forced to give up on these fantasies, so as a result have a chance to reposition themselves, which they gradually appear to be doing.

By: MrLefty

MrLefty — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 09:39:59 +0000

“It augurs well for the Australian Democrats”
huh ? They only got 0.77% of the vote !

By: Kevin

Kevin — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:19:47 +0000

I have been snickering all day about the over the top comments from the Greens who seem to think this election has somehow changed the political paradigm in Australia.
The ONLY reason that they have ANY seats is that the Government basically gave the seats to them by introducing proportional representation, an idiotic system guaranteed to elect all sorts of general losers and generally destroy sensible policy development (remember my favourite Tasmanian who for 15 years in the Senate held Australia to ransom despite representing less than 1/2 of 1% of Australians).

By: Karooson

Karooson — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:36:52 +0000

There is only one more thing left is for the day of the next federal elction,for the majority of Aussies to say to John Howard mate you have sold us out to the elite,so you will have to go