Political rhythms of modern Victoria favour Labor
Associate Professor Paul Strangio
By Paul Strangio
Saturday’s election result confirms that among the Australian states Victoria moves to the beat of its own political drum. More specifically, it affords further proof that the political rhythms of modern Victoria favour the Labor Party.
The outcomes of electoral contests over an extended period emphatically illustrate this point. In the 13 federal elections since 1980, the ALP has won the two-party preferred vote in Victoria on 11 occasions. Moreover, by the time of the next state election in November 2018, Labor will have presided over Spring Street for nearly three quarters of the previous four decades. Whereas for most of last century Labor governments were exotic creatures in this state, they’re now the natural order.
Some will protest that the idea of a Labor hegemony in modern Victoria is meaningless because there’s little to distinguish the major parties: they are merely interchangeable political management teams—one side sporting red ties, the other blue. Yes, there has been convergence between Labor and Liberal, but evidence suggests that in the minds of electors they still conjure up different images. For example, voters almost invariably nominate Labor as better at managing social policy issues like health and education whereas the Liberals are regarded as more reliable at handling budget finances. Nor should we fail to observe that News Limited still discerns a difference between the parties: the Herald Sun threw everything but the veritable kitchen sink at Daniel Andrews, only to ultimately expose the waning influence of the old media in a campaign in which Labor prioritised on the ground community engagement in key electorates.
Labor is entitled to feel chuffed at its feat of regaining office in a single term and achieving a primary vote better than the ALP has recorded in the past ten consecutive state and federal elections held across Australia. Yet the lesson of the past four years in Victorian politics and, indeed, nationally ought temper its celebrations. When Ted Ballieu fell on his sword in March 2013 after little more than two years as premier, I wrote in the Age that the strongest impression created by his deposition and the simultaneous tumult in the federal arena was of ‘a politics on speed. Governments and leaders appear to be operating in a compressed time cycle in which rather than follow the more familiar trajectory of honeymoon and consolidation and eventual decay they prematurely age and precipitously unravel’.
That Ballieu’s successor, Denis Napthine, has now been despatched by voters reinforces that observation. Arguably linked to the phenomenon of a hyper-paced society, the contemporary electorate is impatient and unforgiving. Voters are quick to pass negative judgement on governments and leaders and having formed an unfavourable view are hard to dissuade otherwise. They can also exploit the ubiquitous opinion polls as a metaphorical wrack on which to torment under-performing incumbents. This all suggests Daniel Andrews, Victoria’s fourth premier in as many years, cannot expect to be granted slack from the public: Labor are on notice to deliver right from the start.
For the Coalition in Victoria there is no silver lining to the result. Despite only scraping into office four years ago, the reasonable expectation was that it would proceed to consolidate its position at the next election (especially in regional areas where Labor emerged largely unscathed from its 2010 defeat). Instead, over the course of two elections the Coalition has resembled the Grand Old Duke of York: they marched up the hill and down the other side to become the first single-term government in Victoria since 1955. That historical reference point was routinely invoked during the campaign, but its context seldom explained—that one-term Labor government was wrecked by the party’s devastating split over anti-communism and Catholicism. It’s unenviable historical company.
What went wrong? First was the Coalition’s early sluggishness under the retiring Baillieu in a state straining for services: once settled that reputation for inertia was difficult to budge. Next came the 18-month circus surrounding Liberal-turned-independent Geoff Shaw that leached the government’s authority. Third was the federal Coalition’s unpopularity. A state breakdown of national polling figures show Victoria has responded most antagonistically to the Abbott Government’s budget measures. More generally, Tony Abbott’s muscular conservatism leaves socially progressive Victoria cold.
That temperament is something Victoria’s Liberals would be prudent to remember as they regroup. The party has also been bedevilled recently by tensions between moderates and aggressive conservative elements, with some of the latter defined by their Christian mission to wind back the 2008 legalisation of abortion. A danger is that unleashed from the constraints of government those conservatives will grow more assertive in an effort to recreate the Liberals in their own ideological image. Such a development would propel the party further out of sympathy with much of the Victorian community.
The other historic note on Saturday night was that the Greens looked to have finally breached Labor’s ancient citadel in the inner city by claiming victory in the seat of Melbourne in the Legislative Assembly. This is despite their statewide vote barely shifting from 2010. The count of pre-poll ballots will ultimately determine if they have indeed prevailed, but if so with command of both the state and federal Melbourne electorates and a small army of local foot soldiers the Greens have the makings of their own inner-city fortress.
Associate Professor Paul Strangio works in the School of Social Sciences at Monash University.
A version of this article has appeared in The Age.