This Coalition's not for turning

IF A week is a long time in politics, try 11 years.

Baggage accumulates and voter concern turns into disillusionment, then into resentment and ultimately into anger.

If there are not enough police on the streets after 11 years in office, why should the public believe an incumbent government would, or could, fix that problem in the next four years? The same goes for transport, health, education and the economy.

In fact, it applies to every area of service delivery. If a government saw a problem and agreed to fix it, why hasn't it been fixed after 11 years? What happened on Saturday shows that after a decade, the public takes matters into their own hands. They will give a government credit for past achievements, but are mainly motivated by what comes next.

On the question of service delivery, the Brumby government had some successes, but there were more disasters. Trains that never seemed to run on time, a ticketing system that didn't issue too many tickets, ambulances that were late and hospitals that were over-stretched.

If the hallmarks of the Howard government's electoral success were its management of the Australian economy, its stewardship of our borders and a generous but controlled immigration process, then delivering services better than the Coalition has kept state Labor governments in office. The Brumby government's abject failure in relation to service delivery meant the time for change argument resonated with voters.

For the Coalition, Ted Baillieu's leadership was decisive, assisted by an excellent performance put in by his deputy, National Party leader Peter Ryan.

The Brumby government had one breakthrough policy with its promise to introduce a boot camp for Year 9 students, but the Coalition had three or four policy winners including major stamp duty relief, security on train stations after dark and a much upgraded public transport system.

Baillieu, state president David Kemp and state director Tony Nutt made the right call in deciding to put the Greens last on the Liberal how-to-vote cards. This decision was a major influence in the result on Saturday night. The extremist policies of the Greens, whether they be in relation to energy, land use, taxes, relations with Israel and our traditional allies, are all anathema to the Liberal Party.

On the question of whether it is better to have a Labor government or a Labor-Green government, the answer is a no-brainer. In deciding between these two evils it is better to have a Labor government. The Greens in a Labor/Greens alliance, pull government to the far Left as we are now seeing in Canberra.

So if Baillieu is not successful following Saturday's election and the choice was between a Labor government or a Labor government relying on four Greens for its majority, the former would be preferable. The decision made by Baillieu, Kemp and Nutt was also highly principled, in that it showed the Liberal Party will not compromise on our values by seeking to win government through getting into bed with extremists, whether they be the Greens or One Nation.

The decision also consolidated the membership and supporter base of the Coalition parties, something which was at risk of fracturing. It was this principled decision that provided the point of difference between the Baillieu Coalition and the Brumby government. It demonstrated to the electorate we had principles and beliefs.

We had standards we were not prepared to compromise. It won us respect in the electorate for our strength and undoubtedly won us votes.

The federal executive of the Liberal Party would do well to reconsider its decision to preference Adam Bandt in Melbourne at the next federal election.

Helen Kroger is a Victorian Liberal senator