Victorian election

willedoo

Well-Known Member
#1
I don't know anything about Victorian state politics, but I saw some Federal Libs saying it was all about state issues, ie: nothing to see here, move along.
So was the result all due to state politics, or is it a bad sign for the Libs in the upcoming federal election?
 

octave

Well-Known Member
#2
So was the result all due to state politics, or is it a bad sign for the Libs in the upcoming federal election?
I believe that the magnitude of the swing against the LNP would suggest that there are serious problems ahead for the federal government. I suspect the problem for the liberal party is the internal battle between moderates and the more extreme conservatives.

Locally, I suspect that people reacted against a scare campaign. I saw numerous interviews where opposition politicians would crowbar "crime out of control" into almost every sentence. When confronted with the actual crime statistics showing a reduction in crime they would just keep repeating the claims. Interestingly they did very poorly in the seats that were targeted with this scare campaign. It may just be wishful thinking on my part but I am hoping that people are wising up and are rejecting manipulation by fear.

Putting religion back in schools? Whilst this may be a vote winner with some people I believe it is not something that resonates with middle Australia.

Late in the campaign, the opposition announced that it would close the medically supervised safe injecting room in Richmond. My understanding is that this facility has saved lives. I could, of course, have been swayed by evidence, however, none was presented.

Federally the government has for some time been having an internal fight between the centre-right and the far right. I read a column by a conservative commentator who thought that if Dutton or Abbott had been PM then the Libs may have won in Victoria, this I believe is nonsense.

A little over a year ago more the 60% of Australians rejected the conservative agenda and voted for allowing same-sex marriage. Many of these voters must have been LNP voters. If the LNP does not learn from this and realize that there is not much of an appetite to move further to the right then they will become irrelevant.

And for a little sample of some of the talent up for election here is a great interview (reminds me of Clarke and Dawe)


Frankston candidate flounders on power station plans | Sky News Australia
 
#3
I was listening to Triple-M this morning (Aussie time; this Sunday evening on my drive into London - UK time) and apart from the well-composed assesment of @octave, many listeners who were long-lifetime LNP voters called in and explained that they had changed for an additional two reasons than those above:
1) Andrews seems to do what he says he will do... and is tendering today for some ring road linkk..

2) They were sick of the liberal party being essentially a Sydney run party and taking a Sydney attitude to everything.. They were miles out of step with Victoria and people were saying they didn't want the draconian laws introduced in Sydney re pubs etc (I am not sure what they are) as well as all the other stuff that seems to have at least throttled Sydney a little over the years.. I may have that out of context... but it was an interesting viewpoint.
 

coljones

Well-Known Member
#4
I was listening to Triple-M this morning (Aussie time; this Sunday evening on my drive into London - UK time) and apart from the well-composed assesment of @octave, many listeners who were long-lifetime LNP voters called in and explained that they had changed for an additional two reasons than those above:
1) Andrews seems to do what he says he will do... and is tendering today for some ring road linkk..

2) They were sick of the liberal party being essentially a Sydney run party and taking a Sydney attitude to everything.. They were miles out of step with Victoria and people were saying they didn't want the draconian laws introduced in Sydney re pubs etc (I am not sure what they are) as well as all the other stuff that seems to have at least throttled Sydney a little over the years.. I may have that out of context... but it was an interesting viewpoint.
the Victorian Liberals are suffering from the Qld disease - It is someone else's fault and we are plotting against them.
The NSW issue is an attempt to wind back some of the excesses of the Bob Carr Labor Party which insisted that the local pub should have 24 hour trading and become a casino - without consideration of or agreement by the nearby residents - vomit on your street smash, up your car, scream your booze fuelled demons to the moon at 4am - sure, why not. The nanny staters in NSW want some of this rubbish rolled back.
The Liberal Party is NSW run? They have to be joking, the liberal party seems to be run by right wing idealogues and nutters everywhere other than NSW (we do however have that cuddly Tony Abbott)
 
Last edited:

red750

Well-Known Member
#5
Daniel Andrews does have some runs on the board. He has already removed 27 railway level crossings, some by the unpopular "skyrail" method. Five of these alone in my area, and plans to have a total of 50 removed by 2022. This has been a boon to drivers. Melbourne has a Western/Metropolitan Ring Road which runs from Sunshine to Greensborough (marked in red on the map below). It has also had the Eastern Freeway, shown in purple, for more than 30 years. Neither are tolled. Eastlink (blue) extended the Eastern freeway to the Mornington Peninsula, and is tolled. Tenders are being called for a link between the Ring Road and Eastern Freeway. What upset most Eastern Suburbs residents was that Andrews paid over a $billion to buy out of a signed contact to build a tunnel from the city end of the Eastern Freeway to the Tullamarine Freeway (Citylink) and later to the Ring Road. The Eastern Freeway is a carpark at most times.

He is also building a railway tunnel From North Melbourne to South Yarra (already started), running under Swanston St, with 5 new stations. Further plans involve a circle rail link around the suburbs, as now all travellers hove to go into the city to change trains as all lines radiate from the city. For example, if you want to travel from Clayton to Glen Waverley, you have to go in as far as Richmond to change trains, or go by bus. This new line will include a station at Melbourne Airport.

That's why he is called Dan the Builder, and Action Dan. But he has lost control of terror attacks, smash and grabs, house breaking, etc.

WRR.JPG metro rail project.jpg melbourne-suburban-rail-loop-map-data.jpg

Skyrail.
skyrail.jpg
 
Last edited:

octave

Well-Known Member
#6
smash and grabs, house breaking, etc.
When you say "lost control of" I assume you are suggesting a massive increase in these crimes. I think one reason people turned against the Libs is this is the narrative they pushed but were unable to substantiate with facts. Of course, any criminal activity is of concern but to exaggerate and use fear for political ends is (I hope) becoming unacceptable. Also, does anyone really believe that a change in government would cause a large shift in the amount of crime being committed? Clearly, the electors in the sandbelt seats, where the fear campaign was used saw through it. The notion that in Melbourne people are "afraid to go out at night" was clearly rejected by the electors.
 

red750

Well-Known Member
#7
One is one too many. People are genuinely scared. But not going out at night means the thugs win. Many people I know are fed up with the lenient treatment being handed out. Slap on the wrist with a wet lettuce leaf. Social media is full of complaints. Many shop keepers are giving up and getting out after being robbed 3 or 4 times, often by the same gangs. And how many of those caught plead "I have a mental illness."?
 

octave

Well-Known Member
#8
People are genuinely scared.
Are they, I am sure some are but when I go out at night the cafes and bars seem busy. I am assuming that you do not believe the official stats. If there is such alarm out there and if the blame belongs to this government then why the landslide? People I think are starting to become more discerning when presented with scare stories.
 

red750

Well-Known Member
#9
How high do your stats have to be before it's a problem? 20 Bourke St Malls? 15 Pellegrini's? 200 jewellery store smash and grabs?
 

octave

Well-Known Member
#10
Of course, ANY crime is bad but the notion that crime is out of control is hysterical nonsense. The idea the Melbournians are afraid to go out at night is simply not true. You may be afraid to go out but I am not and I can assure that Melbourne is pretty busy at night. I am not saying there is no crime, every city regardless of who governs it has crime. The assertion that I question is the crime is out of control in Melbourne as opposed to any other city and certainly, the statistics suggest a fall in crimes although sexual assaults are up.

https://www.news.com.au/news/national/statistics-paint-clearer-picture-of-crime-scene-in-victoria/news-
story/db37465d0eb16e03760be826da8d8e18


Using fear is an age-old political tactic. I clearly remember when I lived in Sydney in the 80s a campaign advert that showed an elderly lady nervously peeping through the blinds and the sound of police sirens and flashing lights etc. There was also a voice-over about elderly people afraid in their own homes. It is an old tactic.

I work 2 days a week in Footscray and after work in the early evening I walk about 1 km to my car, my wife comes from her job in another suburb on the train and walks to the car, either we are foolhardy or extremely brave or perhaps just rational. lol sometimes we even meet at the African restaurant in Seddon (pretty scary eh?)

This is not to say that I am unsympathetic to people who find themselves a victim of a crime or that we should not looking for better ways of further reducing crime.

What we do know for sure is that either people's concerns over crime have been exaggerated or they did not believe the choice of government would change the situation or they thought other issues were more important.

Bottom line is this, the party that consistently pushes the crime out of control scenario lost and lost in a big way. If significant numbers of Melbournians are terrified then they did not show it at the ballot box
 

red750

Well-Known Member
#11
A Doveton milk bar worker was hit over the head with a metal pole by two masked men who then stole cigarettes and a cash register. Not to worry. Only another statistic.
 

red750

Well-Known Member
#12
The "Matthew Guy is the Liberals 'cuts' guy" ad campaign by Labor obviously had an impact, as did the disarray in the federal Liberal party. Andrews only conceded very late in the campaign that he is going to borrow big to pay for all his promises, to be paid by our grandchildren and their grandchildren. The budget is in surplus may have been technically correct, but hang on to your hats.
 

willedoo

Well-Known Member
#13
I think debt is not such a bad thing if it's sustainable. I suppose it depends on how much, and for how long to pay it back. Without government debt, we wouldn't get much improvement in society and infrastructure.

It's a bit like us. Without the buy now, pay back for most of your life plan, we'd all be living in bark huts. No brick homes with tiled roofs, no back yard swimming pools, no flash cars. The fine line is whether it's sustainable or irresponsible.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if we had dirt roads and lived within our means, but most people want a modern, easy lifestyle that requires more money than this country has.
 

octave

Well-Known Member
#14
I think debt is not such a bad thing if it's sustainable. I suppose it depends on how much, and for how long to pay it back. Without government debt, we wouldn't get much improvement in society and infrastructure.

It's a bit like us. Without the buy now, pay back for most of your life plan, we'd all be living in bark huts. No brick homes with tiled roofs, no back yard swimming pools, no flash cars. The fine line is whether it's sustainable or irresponsible.
Exactly
Without ever going into debt could we ever build an airport a motorway or build railway lines. To take an example getting rid of rail crossings is expensive but they are also a drag on the economy, this applies to other infrastructure as well. I went into debt to buy my first home, I could have just paid rent out of my wage and initially been in a better financial state, however, years later I have no debt and do not have to pay rent to anyone. It is about having an appropriate debt to earnings ratio. I make use of the infrastructure that past governments borrowed for and paid back.
 
#15
This whole "the next generation pays for it" is a bit of a furphy of an argument. The reality is that services and infrastructure costs - the question is will the benefit derived for future generations warrant the cost that will be borne by future generations. It does depend on a lot of things such as the objectives of society - which will in effect to define what benefit means... If society is ready of a massive public transport infrastructure upgrade to get people out of their cars except when they really need them (the big chrissie shop, for a bad example), then spending gazillions on a road network at the expense of the public transport network is not a good investment for future generations. If, however, society is still wedded to the car, then the opposite would be true.

Of course, what is "right" or "good" or "beneficial to society" today may not be the same tomorrow. Say, the car is king (which seems to be the case in Aus today - albeit less so then when I was a young'n). Say we had a leader that foresaw the only way to reduce pollution levels and congestion on roads (or in other words get people to and from their destination and back in the most optimal cost/time/environmentally friendly way) was to expand the conventional public transport system (although further electrify the rail network) and augment with people-carrying drones. Say it was all to be publicly funded. The cost of this investment would be enormous and the tab picked up by future generations. However, it is the very future generations that derive the benefit from this investment as well as say other secondary benefits (e.g. a more competitive economy = improced balance of trade/payments; maybe a better PT system would attract more tourists, etc. etc.)... When we say the future generation picks up the tab, it means the government will be repaying the debt (usually in the form of bonds) for many years - this is nothing more than a mortgage...

I agree with @willedoo - if it is sustainable (and derives benefit), then it is a good thing.. .BTW, debt and budget surplus are different things - debt is how much you owe (e.g. a mortgage). Surplus (or defecit) is the difference in what you earn for the year and what costs you pay. Of course, the higher the debt, the higher your outgoings will be.. but if you budget responsibly, you can still be in surplus.

BTW - heard on Triple-M this evening (Aus time) that Victorians pay the highest for transport (inc petrol, insurance, public transport, etc)....
 

willedoo

Well-Known Member
#16
Some good points made there. In a utopian society, we could all have a block in the country with a vege garden, goats to milk etc..
The reality is that the world's population is growing and most will be concentrated in cities. The main concern of any government will be how to manage the cities and their growth. It throws up a lot of challenges in planning, infrastructure, and how it will be paid for.

My feeling is that within twenty years, governments will be forced to accept that we need to be a lot smarter about things.
 

red750

Well-Known Member
#17
Movement of goods from factory or port to warehouse to store relies on trucks. Haven't seen too many pallets or shipping containers on the trams lately. Freight trains don't run in the metropolitan area, not even parcel vans any more. Trucks need roads, but not through narrow residential streets past schools, etc. or through the CBD.

Jerry, as you are possibly aware, many Aussies commute further to work each day than many English travel on their annual vacation. Melbourne's metropolitan area now stretches from Pakenham almost to Melton. Sydney is no better, but we are talking about Victoria.
 
#18
You can't eliminate the need for roads, but I would wager that there are many road trips that could easily be carried out over an efficient, well designed public transport system. Just count the number of single person cars driving on the main arterial roads during peak hour - would allow for far much better flow for he necessary commercial transport by road, where rail would not work... And the same for non-peak hour... those doctors trips, small shopping trips, visits to the zoo or whatever would dramatically decongest the roads if there was a safe, efficient, reliable an clean PT alternative. The problem is we see the car as our key to independence, probably mainly due to the fact that we see the need to go anywhere at anytime - and probably to the freedom of choice we like to exercise...

My contention wasn't to eliminate roads for the above reasons, but also because there are times when it is nice to go for a drive nor can one have PT to go absolutely everywhere one would want to go when they would want to go. And there are people who simply don't like travelling with others; they prize their personal space...

In any case, I was trying to illustrate while Andrews gets things done based on what is wanted today, a great leader would be thinking about what is needed tomorrow if the next and future generations are paying for it (and i was using PT as a *possible* example).

BTW - the UK - long commutes are common place in the UK.. There is a bloke in this office that has a 100 mile each way commute (by train); There are plenty of people who commute from Kent, Essex, Berkshire, Bedfordshire, Hertshire East and West Sussex on a daily basis - anything up to about 60 miles (95km) each way is not uncommon - just look at the peak hour trains... seats long ago taken and very little standing room for my 12 mile (19km) each way commute. This place is no different to Aus - younger families move out for a better lifestyle than they can afford in - problem is, out here can be a long way away... And if you went by road, it will be long - in duration at least
 

Bruce

Well-Known Member
#19
There was more than one editorial saying, with the benefit of hindsight, about how many usual liberal voters were repelled by the right wing conservatives ( climate-change deniers, religious nutters, homophobes etc) who seem to be running the liberals right now.
I guess that democracy was at work, but I would like much more democracy than we have now. For example, a big majority of voters do not agree with religions being tax-free businesses. ( does this include islmaic religious places too?) There would have been room on the gay-marriage plebiscite to fit in this question, as well as some others.
 
Top Bottom