Great analysis.

I think it is important that the Greens are included more in polling to identify the issues that may be attracting support from those shifting their votes from the major parties.

I agree with many that the Greens are hardly fit to be a major party.

But by understanding why they get support, the major parties can address rising concerns, but in way fitting of a govt or opposition striving for the best policy mix.

An interesting analysis. I have voted Labor both federally and state through thick and thin always, I feel now though the influence generated by the alliance with the Greens will see me walk. The catalyst for that journey will be acquiescing to the not so hidden priority of Gay agenda the Greens have wrought. I will not go there!

Erm... has there been one single instance in the last decade where a change of governamnt HASN'T occurred by default?

That is; due to disillusionment with the incumbents rather than a significant perceptaion that the opposition would be better.

It is always the case, isn't it?

Whereas I agree with the basics displayed in the article by Graham, I think he is in error with the comment
"There is also a message for Julia Gillard. While I don't think the Labor brand is "toxic" it's certainly not in great shape".

Firstly, we obvious are looking at Labor from two different viewpoints. Federally, the leaders at the last election were unworthy in every way. Gillard, because of her dishonesty, lack of principles and lack of loyalty and Abbot for his naivety, stupidity and lack of appeal.

With a different Coalition leader, Gillard would be swept from power at the first opportunity. Had the Independents had someone like Turnbull to align with at the time of the recent negotiations it would have been over. That was the biggest mistake the Coalition has ever made. They stuck with an inept, feckless leader who won leadership on a single emotional issue and they have been stuck with him ever since. Abbott will never take the Coalition to power. It is the fact that he is there at all which makes the 'who is the best leader' vote so low and getting lower. He has no appeal, rightly so.

In the meantime, the incompetence of Gillard and her influencial body of supporters in Melbourne have already been recognised and she will rue the day she threw her lot in with the likes of Shorten, a right wing opportunist and Arbib, perhaps the most insignificant politician in Australia in any jurisdiction, as time will show. Her total disregard and lack of compassion for the people of Palestine clearly identifies the unhealthy influences that call the tune in our foreign policies.

NSW and Queensland to go and not long to wait for as in the case of Victoria, they also will soon be the legacy of a power hungry, ambitious, dishonest and incompetent politician who sold her principles for the top job, well above her capabilities and who, as a result, will never be respected by Australians.

Her time is nigh.

Ludwig, Federal Labor won in 2007 because people wanted it to win. The only other change of government was to the Liberals in WA. That was similar to this one, except WA Labor was even more on the nose and the Libs there were in disarray. Remember how they pulled Colin Barnett back at the last moment?

Rexw Malcolm Turnbull wouldn't have got anywhere near as close as Tony Abbott did. You're ignoring the fact that Abbott's about-turn on the ETS did for Rudd because Rudd backed-down on the "greatest moral challenge". I'm also not sure that Turnbull could have held a line on asylum seekers that would have kept blue collar conservatives happy.

Rexw, you are missing the fact that quite a large percentage of people, particularly Liberal voters, would not vote for any party lead by Turnbull.

The fact that he appeals to so many Labor voters should tell you something. That is, he is very close to a clone of Rudd, & would be just as disastrous as Rudd was.

One thing Labor people can no longer do, is pick good, or even reasonable, leaders for themselves, or anyone else. Come to think of it, there is nothing new in that. I'm not surprised many Labor people would like Turnbull as their leader.

Then again the other lot have picked Fraser, McMahon & Turnbull, so no cupie doll for them either.

I imagine (I hope) there very least we can expect the same in NSW.
The liberal Party under Barry o Farrel is an absolute joke and has not a single redeeming quality- except that it's not NSW state Labor;

Ideally I would preference the Greens (in fact, I will preference them and then Liberals this election) knowing that at least they at least actually do stand stauncher against privatization and developer donations (unlike Barry who couldn't quite bring himself to even speak against it when asked); not to mention personally invested in the concept of improving our shocking transport (as opposed to Labor who seem to preoccupy themselves mostly with ways to scam road users)

The Labor party is so disgusting, so corrupt, and has done such an incredibly bad job there is simply no way anyone with a brain could honestly look at any other party, ANY, and say they could possibly do worse (those that disagree please do provide an example (with a source), as I'm sure we're all riveted).

Bring back John Brogden and I'll even forget he's a racist douche from his "mail order bride" comment if he'll take the leadership!
At this point NSW really needs all the help it can get.

I think that the Victorian election result
exemplifies what is wrong with a "winner takes all"
electoral system dominated by two political
parties with very little to distinguish them in
terms of ideology and policy. A 6% swing to the
Liberals has resulted in them gaining a majority of one seat,
while the one in ten voters who gave the Greens
their first preference remain unrepresented in parliament.

Victoria needs to adopt some kind of proportionally representative
electoral system, such as those that exist in Tasmania and
the ACT. The current situation is far from democratic,
and results in the electorate being saddled with a government
that most electors didn't vote for.

Talisman, no thank you.

The last thing we need, in our parliament is a home for the ratbag fringe.

It's bad enough that we have a load of deadheads, but at least they are basically silent deadheads, not a noisy rabble, forcing their stupidity on the majority.

talisman, if all the Green voters would move to one electorate, then they could have their own member of parliament - just shows how disorganized they are doesn't it (ha ha, sorry hard to resist such logic) it would also let us watch how they experiment shutting down power, roads, transport (except bicycles), gas, petrol so they can set an example to the rest of us how holy they can be .. and we'd all care sooooo much (!)

those who do not vote ALP or green, are evidently happy with the result .. so over 50% of the population are happy .. that's democracy. if 10.6% are unhappy, who cares? Seriously .. that's democratic isn't it?

I suspect though that most Green voters expect their party to be able to play kingmaker and piggy in the middle which is way out of proportion to their actual representation in the electorate.

I doubt the greens will enjoy the position they hold now ever again, the frivolous little adventure in protest voting is kicking us all in the pants, it was fun, but now we have extremists in the senate and it's not so funny anymore

hasbeen, I completely agree with you about Turnbull, most Liberal voters despise him, as much as they despise Mal Frazer or many other Liberal people. I think many ALP voters think the rest of Australia is as rusted on as they appear to be, and Liberal voters to me do not seem to be that way, they don't all subscribe to class politics, ALP/ABC style.

Graham,

I do have to add one further comment.

I would go so far as stating that it is not a matter of policy as you are emphasising in your response, that is in the case of Abbott, the ETS and for Turnbull, holding the line for asylum seekers. These matters are important, yes, but in this era of 'presidential-style' electoral environments, rightly or wrongly, it is the appeal of a candidate first and policies the electorate can live with, second.

I know that is not what is expected or understood but now the oft-quoted mantra that "we have the best policies" counts for little. The "most acceptable policies" or the "most achievable policies" are more realistic phrases. If you are somewhere in the middle of the road they will be acceptable. No extremes required.

I put it to you that the public are far more likely to judge people on how they are viewed representing Australia in an international environment. Characteristics such as sincerity, professionalism, credibility, integrity and honesty are more likely to extract a favourable response from a voter following a news broadcast than anything one could say about a 'boat people' policy, remembered for a minute or two as opposed to a general good feeling that "he / she looked good up there with those other leaders. Makes one feel proud". It is a fact.

It is just not possible to respect or feel proud of either current leader

Even the local member is becoming less important, almost a passenger, such is the party system. He / she is just making up the number, destined to become voiceless backbenchers only.
The public's need to respect and admire a leader is the most important comfort factor, therefore voting factor and this pre-requisite has become mandatory over the past 4 years.

It is that premiss that motivates my comments on this subject.

Final example. OBAMA
Appealing, unknown (seemed honest), different, polished with rhetoric to burn, fast on his feet, an element of excitement.
Result.
Unacceptable in 2 years. Finished in one term. Reason? Credibility, integrity and honesty.

Based on past history, state and federal governments run their course after an extended period and most people do want a change to the status quo no matter what it might bring. New faces, new people, may bring a new future. It may be good or it might be bad. The voters are willing to give it a chance. Labor in Victoria has had a good run, left a program of works some of which (where contracts have been signed, and permits given) will continue under the new government.

According to an interview that John Howard gave recently on Lateline,
Federal and State politics of different persuasions can work productively. It will be interesting to see what the future will bing in the state of Victoria.

rexw,I have to agree.Obama was just a another puppet like Bush.Gillard will do as she is told by large corp interests.Abbott will do likewise.It is time for a new political movement.Both the major parties do not serve the people

People living in forested areas may not be to pleased with Mr Balieu.
He says he will implement all recommendations from the bush fire commission. That was to buy out people living in dangerous places.

<< Ludwig, Federal Labor won in 2007 because people wanted it to win. >>

Yes Graham. But they wanted to see Labor win because they wanted to see the back of Howard. If Howard hadn’t been well and truly on the nose, even a fresh-faced highly articulate leader like Rudd would have been battling to win.

I think all parties that win elections do so by default, or largely so. I don’t think that we’ve ever seen a situation at Federal or State level where voters have struggled to choose between what they perceive as two really good options, have we?

Ludwig, politics is always a question of alternatives, but that doesn't mean that people aren't often motivated positively by the other party. People wanted to dump Howard in 2004, but Latham was a bridge too far. Beazley also didn't have it in the end. But they thought that Rudd did.

Rexw, you should read more of my stuff, then you would know that leadership is only one component. I wouldn't have crafted a successful campaign for the Coalition in Queensland in 1995 if it was the most important. No-one voted for Borbidge because they liked him more than Goss. We made the election about something other than leadership.

In the end, voters worry about their own personal circumstances more than any high flown promises from leaders. In politics charisma is over-rated. It fills the media narrative, but when individuals get to choose it rarely informs what they do.

"We made the election about something other than leadership."

But that was a long time ago. My comment is that in those 15 years a great many things have changed the main difference being the way the major parties run their campaigns in 2010. They choose to use the leader, as I said, rightly or wrongly.

I have counselled against this practice particularly in the times when I though Labor had some merit, before right wing interference and poor candidates. In the recent Federal election, I have been part of campaigns in small (3-5,000) electorates which when polled before voting, 50% stated that they were voting for the leader by name, not the local candidate, 12% not even knowing his name.
Surely this confirms the importance that the electorate gives to the leaders, not the member, not the policy and certainly not the reality of what NEEDS to be done to get the country back on its feet. That same electorate, just two weeks ago stated emphatically that they had "had enough of Gillard's fine words" which I gather meant policy turnarounds / lies.

All this since the Federal election. Incredible really.

The more exposure some people receive the worse they are viewed.

One should never write off the people and their ability to assess character weakness, gut feelings, even more important when the second most important selection criteria after the hip pocket is the credibility of the leader, almost to the exclusion of anything else, in my humble opinion.

Blame the press. They decide who gets the coverage. They also have their own agenda as we also saw last weekend.

So it was on that basis, copied in two other electorates of somewhat higher numbers that I felt that my feelings were confirmed that we have fallen into the trap of seeing 'people' and all that we expect from them, as the yardstick for support with the following qualities uppermost; sincerity, credibility, honesty and loyalty to principles. Quoted almost word by word!

It is not difficult to see how the leaders fail so badly when measured against those standards.

Come on rexw, how could current elections be about the leaders, when Labor went with the least attractive, [as a leader], person they could have found under any log?

Has anyone ever heard a worse public speaker than our Julia, unless it's Abbott. No, on second thoughts he is not as bad as that.

Who cares who the local bloke, or bird is, they are only there to fill the seats for TV question time.

Then you say don't write off the people's ability to access character. Fair go mate, they voted foe Rudd for heavens sake. If that doesn't prove most of them have no idea, or perhaps don't care, I can't imagine what could.

Please tell us where you got those glasses. A pair of them might even make our old Toyota look good again.