Daniel Andrews stands out as game changer in election

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews. Picture: David Caird

From the moment the first booth result came in, you knew this was no ordinary election night.

Everyone knew that Daniel Andrews would be returned as Premier, but no one I spoke to — and that includes a host of people close to Labor’s campaign — thought the margin would blow out to near-record proportions. The very first booth registered a pro-government swing of 6.7 per cent. That percentage did fall during the night and may fall further after postal votes are counted. From the inner suburbs, to the inner ring, to the outer suburbs, to the regions and even to the bush, Labor’s triumph was breathtaking.

Victorians were in no doubt about the verdict they were delivering. The grim situation in which the hapless Liberals find themselves is best summed up by saying the Hawthorn set — leafy, wealthy and true blue — just ain’t looking too blue any longer.

At the closing of the count on election night, Hawthorn looked like a real chance of being yet another win for Labor. Victoria is now unquestionably Labor’s strongest state.

The federal election could well be won in Victoria alone, as at least four seats look like they could fall to Labor.

In looking at the factors in play for this Labor win, the one that stands out is the Premier himself. On the Sky News coverage, Labor stalwart Stephen Conroy referred to Andrews as a Labor legend and it is hard to argue with that conclusion. He is a brilliant politician. He always seems so measured. He never looks angry and his voice is never raised. He is not given to idle boasting or gilding the lily. There is no attempt at Churchillian oratory. He is a plain speaker accustomed to sounding like those to whom he is talking. If he is ever frustrated or furious, he never lets Victorians in on his problem.

This bloke is the best politician I have seen since Neville Wran and Bob Hawke, who were two other Labor legends.

The second factor in play was the abject failure of Opposition Leader Matthew Guy.

Some people don’t have the presence about them to have a leadership position. Charisma is an old-fashioned word, but Guy’s complete lack of it certainly hampered the Liberals’ campaign.

He could walk into a room and barely a head would turn. He may well be a really nice bloke but he should not have stood for a leadership position and his colleagues erred in choosing him.

The Liberals should choose his replacement with an eight-year plan in mind. Given his relative youth, Tim Smith would be the smart choice.

The third factor in play was the brand damage the Liberals have suffered over the messy removal of Malcolm Turnbull. Voters keep thinking of Liberal infighting and had a further reminder over the past year or so with party president Michael Kroger suing other Liberal luminaries over campaign funding. This did not form a big part of voter intention but it didn’t help an already doomed cause.

With a federal election only months away, the government would do well to shore up its Victorian seats and lost votes.