Victorian Election 2010

I've been pondering what might happen in the upcoming Victorian election... and have come up with a view of electoral matters for Victoria, and as it happens, the country.  

Egad, possibly the world.

Brumby vs Baillieu (image source news.com.au link)

I postulate that Victoria is where NSW was (electorally speaking) four years ago.  

In NSW, Labor should have lost the last election in 2007 (I can't even remember who was Premier back then... there has been so many up here lately).  

Somehow, the Liberals managed to lose.  Four years later, Labor is stinkier than you can imagine and everyone basically hates them.  People are jumping off the sinking ship left right and centre.  They all know they are going to be creamed in March 2011 - and I think there is some quirk in their super scheme that means it is better to retire/resign than it is to get defeated (disclaimer: I could be well wrong about this).  

Interestingly, there is talk of an alliance of independents (think popular Mayors, etc) running on a ticket (of sorts) that may well make life hard for Barry O'Farrell and the Libs.  

The Libs may well find themselves tarnished with the general brush of "usual politician and associated evils" when compared to free thinking independents (especially after the whole Three Amigos thing in August/September).  This may lead to some seats the Libs were expecting to win  going "west" to independent candidates.  

All that aside, it's most likely that Barry will be Premier of NSW next March.

How does this relate to Victoria?

I think if the Brumbster manages to win, Victorians (and possibly JB himself) will look back (in 2014) and wish he hadn't.  This will be bad generally for democracy (as it has been in NSW this past four years).  

Let's face it... Labor up here is stinkier than a dead catfish sitting on the footpath on a hot Summer day.  But they would be less stinky if they had have lost the last election.  

As a result, it is likely that the Libs will stay in power for longer... possibly longer than they should... because people will be hesitant to go back to the stinky catfish.  They will remember the foul odours of rotting catfish that filled the air at the end of the catfish's last term in office and won't want a repeat of it - even if they are a completely new team with new ideas new people new everything.

Same same for Victoria.  If Labor wins, they will likely become more unelectable (after they finally lose in 2014) which means that the Liberals will stay in for too long... and so the process starts.

To put it in another example... Keating should really have lost in 1993.  Instead, Hewson snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and gave Keating three more years.  After which we were stuck with 11 years of John Howard.  I think a eight or nine year governmental cycle is better for everyone.  After all, change is good.  New ideas are good.  Experiments are good.  

But here's the rub.  If the last lot were so bad by the time they get booted out, then people will be reluctant to go back (even after 12 years).  Hence, no change, no new ideas, no experiments.

Now of course, I could be all wrong about this.  Barry and/or Ted could win their respective elections and turn out to be awful, booted out after one term and people wishing they had never tried on a different pair of pants.  Or Kristina/John could retain office and, like an old pair of jeans, become the most comfortable pants people have ever worn.

Who really knows?  But it's good to have a discussion, yes?  Your comments would be most welcome!