I agree plantagenet, but it would hopefully wipe the born to rule smirk off Abbott face, and maybe get (p)whine out of public office.

Cobber, you are absolutely right. The songs sung by the Tories pre-poll are different from those now being heard and Graham's piece is an example. If the Coalition had won we would now be hearing how much it reflected voters approval of the Abbott "government". Now they have lost, and after only one term, which is pretty much unheard of, they now say that local issues predominated.

They are as predictable as they are dreary. Here in Queensland the Tories have decided their best chance of winning next year is to keep Newman out of sight. I doubt that will save them. Quite apart from the abysmal performance of the Qld government, voters will see the election as another chance to vent their displeasure at Abbott et al. The downside will be the return of a Labor government that is simply tweedle to the Tories dum.

James, are you really suggesting you could possibly want Annastacia Palaszczuk as the premier of a state? Have you lost the drovers dog, again.

Hell if she was running a childcare centre, you'd have to get your kids out of it.

Perhaps you think one of any new Labor members could be chosen. Obviously none of the rest of the current bunch can be of much use, if they elected her leader.

Dear GrahamY,

I don't agree with the contention that Labour should have done better, it was not theirs to win or lose, rather this fell to the Coalition. Voters, particularly in Victoria, rarely vote governments out in the first term.

I think this part of your analysis comes a bit closer in my opinion;

“Much more significant were alleged cuts to education and health, as well as cuts to TAFE. Other factors cited were lack of transparency around the East-West Link and a lack of investment in public transport, damage done to the environment, discomfit over the rate of development, privatisation and unemployment.”

However when you state;

“But there is little evidence from our respondents that Abbott was a major reason. Only two people (out of 175) nominated him as the reason for voting against the state government.”

and...

“It's probable that Abbott played a part in negative perceptions on some of these issues as the problems at a federal level have damaged the Liberal brand and made it easier to paint it as the party that hates the poor.”

I think you are missing the point.

For us here in Victoria Abbott really just served to highlight the sins of the State government who have shown themselves to be utterly determined to allow their ideology to trump good governance. They perhaps disguised their agendas a with a little more finesse than Abbott, but his actions seemed to solidify recognition of what they had been about, putting those agendas ahead of fairness and the interests of the state.

Cont...

Cont...

Just as an example I have a relative who works at a management level in Parks Victoria. Of the 70 or so at that level the Libs sacked 2/3rds of them and slashed pest control budgets to the bone. A year later they ran the line that because of inadequate management of our Victorian national parks they needed to be opened up to private businesses.

But it is my conservative Christian relations who are my main bellwether. It was really only in the last few months before the election that they jumped ship away from the coalition but I knew Napthine was toast once they did. This was despite my father-in-law refusing to believe the Libs had delivered the State's first deficit since Kennett.

I have little sense from them that they will be doing anything different when the opportunity to deliver a verdict on the Abbott government in fact their derision at a recent gathering caught me a little by surprise. He would also appear to be toast.