The resignation of Victorian Opposition leader Robert Doyle has produced widespread suggestions that Jeff Kennett should return to politics. While Kennett could scarcely do worse than Doyle, there’s not much reason to suppose he would do a great deal better.
The core of Kennett’s political appeal in the 1990s was the claim that, thanks to Labor’s mismanagement, Victoria was in a state of crisis that could only be remedied by the radical free-market reforms he advocated. Voters bought this story in two successive elections, but had tired of it by 1999, when he was narrowly defeated. Although some claimed at the time that voters had merely intended to “send the government a message”, a string of Labor victories in by-elections suggested the opposite message – once the possibility of getting rid of Kennett became a reality, voters embraced it with enthusiasm.
Kennett’s biggest problem though, is that everything the Bracks government has done can be seen as preparation against a possible Kennett comeback. On the one hand, they’ve been obsessed with avoiding anything that would smack of fiscal irresponsibility. Official debt levels have been held down through expedients like Public-Private Partnerships (the apparent benefits are bogus, but Kennett can scarcely argue this, having been a pioneer of the PPP mania). On the other hand, they’ve restored a lot of the cuts to schools, hospitals and so on made under Kennett. As a result, Bracks can easily run a scare campaign against Kennett, but not vice versa
It’s hard to see Kennett winning in the election due in about six months, though presumably there will be some clawback from the 2002 disaster. In the longer run, anything can happen. But if he comes back, I’d say this implies a commitment to stick out a full parliamentary term as leader, and it’s not obvious that he’d be willing to do this.
As for Doyle, he will only be remembered, if at all, for his irresponsible campaigns in favour of speeding (more precisely, against any effective measures to curb speeding). His departure from politics is long overdue.
More on the souffle question from Rank and Vile
UpdateSo much for that idea
John Quiggin 
There are various dimensions to this one being the obvious glee which Peter Costello displayed when commenting on the possibilty of a Kennett return.
Kennett’s influence cant be dismissed lightly particularly if, as you imply, Bracks walks in his shadow.
Personally I think Kennett would be foolish to return to State politics.
Is this Jeff Kennett who is attempting to rebuild his career as Führer of the Victorian Liberal Partei and being so fulsomely supported by Reichsführer Howard in his march towards a putsch in some way related to the Jeff Kennett who a few years back in a conversation described Howard in terms that would be banned in these comments?
I think we should be told.
JQ,
Im going to have to disagree on this one.
My main issue is that I think Bracks is seen down here as a do-nothing, ineffective leader. Yes, he may have cauterised the fiscal irresponsibility legacy, but he hasnt been seen to do much of anything else.
While Boofhead was a radical in practice, and this brought him undone, in opposition (and nowadays) he came across as quite pragmatic (except for his serial foot-in-mouth disease in the 1980s).
With his work on depression, and Hawthorn Prez (we are actually in the top 8!) I think the electorate may buy a ‘spun’ Kennett.
Remember, we Victorians were swept off our feet with circii and Grand Prix the first time round, Kennett could easily do it again.
It is, though I don’t think Nazi analogies strengthen the argument.
I’m not clear why Howard is supporting this idea – probably because he thinks it won’t fly anyway.
I think J Ho just wants to win a State election for a change, and knew that Doyle was not the man.
However, do not be surprised if J Ho is privately lobbying furiously to undermine the Boofhead bid, given the succour it would provide to Cossie.
Jeez, Im starting to write like a Crikey journo!
Oh, no. Jeffed again.
we South Australians were not so enamoured…
Now we have Clipsal: all the inconvenience of a Grand Prix with none of the glamour. sigh.
If Führer Jeff is being backed by the Reichsführer Howard, you can be sure Darth Rove and Chimpy McBu$Hitler will be providing tactical advice during the next (s)election campaign.
The only thing that can save us is The Age; Leunig will draw some cartoons, preferably poignent ones, pointing out Jeff’s connection to the Joos and how sad the world is.
That’s such a perfect rendition of an identikit comment from Tim Blair’s site that it’s impossible to detect whether its author is one of the morons who hang out there or a satirical genius.
Kennett was a dynamic factor in Victorian state politics in the 1990s.
For all his reputation for being a “gormless pillock” (one of the more memorable legends on an anti-Kennett placard), Kennett knew three important things:
1. A Federal Labor government to blame and confront.
2. Recent memory of the extreme incompetence with which the Victorian State ALP government coped with financial deregulation during the 1980s.
3. A majority in the Legislative Council.
Were Kennett to become premier (a less than likely prospect) he is extremely unlikely to enjoy any of these advantages:
1. A Coalition federal govt for the foreseeable future.
2. Nothing left to privatise or deregulate and a limited scope for further circuses.
3. Most important: changes in the Victorian Constitution have made it virtually impossible for a major party to claim control of the Legislative Council.
Unless Kennett wishes simply to mind the shop (a function admirably performed by Steve Bracks) or to bash his head against a brick wall, Kennett would be better advised to stay in political retirement.
OK, enough on the Fuhrer/Chimpy McBush stuff, please. Even in satire, I don’t feel like dealing with another TB comments thread.
Katz,
Good point about the Leg Council.
However, my memory might be a bit hazy, but I recall Kennett being fairly chummy and co-operative with Keating.
What did he confront/blame the Feds about/for?
Just atmospherics.
He called Keating’s administration a pack of Roundhead, puritan, elitists, or words to that effect.
In fact, looking back, Kennett showed Tories how to appeal to “the Battlers”. He won seats that didn’t know what a Liberal looked like until Kennett turned up.
I think your statement about why Jeff got in should be qualified a bit. I think at the time almost anyone could have got in as long as they didn’t promise mismanagment (and is it really just a “claim” that governement finances in Victoria were completely mismanaged — or is it something more like an “almost undoubtable truth”). Even if some versus radical free market reform wasn’t promised, it seems more than likely he would have got it.
In addition, part of the reason Kennet lost was because basically due to a vote buying campaign by Labor, where, as I’m sure you’re well aware, a useless and rather expensive train line was promised to link up a number of places where marginals seats are. Thus it wasn’t really just voters wanting to get rid of Kennet, it was a smart campaign by Labor who evidentally knew how to appeal to the corrupt nature of the Australian public. Evidentally, such tactics were well learned by Howard and co., who then built their own useless train line to buy votes where needed.
Guys,
The Liberals know that in six months it would be impossible for a new leader to build a profile. It is that simple. Kennett is enough of a realist to know that he has little chance of winning – the task is just too large unless Bracks stuffs up. My guess is that they will find him a marginal Labor seat to run in – if he wins the seat it will be because the election has been won. If he doesn’t, at least he will have done something to revive the party there and, after a decent interval, he will probably get a nice post somewhere, if he wants it.
Jeffs moment of look- me, me, me- is over.
Word is, he is about to announce that he is a non-starter.
He just loves any little bit of publicity and will do anything to get it.
I think Jeff is a bit old. The difficulty for the Liberals in Victoria is that Steve Bracks has, overall, provided quite good government. He has a reasonably strong bunch of ministers backing him.
Wouldn’t there be an element of time inconsistency in Jeff having another go now? I’d be surprised if he does.
That ends that.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200605/s1631446.htm
He has announced – Ted Baillieu will be running. Oh, well – back to a boring life.
Just announced, Jeff won’t stand.
Chris C – Hawthorn’s temporary success seems unlikely to attract the 94 percent of Victorians who support other teams to the Jeff cause.
John, alas your link is not to Daily Flute which is unfortunately taking a sabbatical but to my ‘Rank and Vile’.
Flute has been very kind in hosting my blog which I am very grateful and that is why there might have been some confusion.
Anyway, I think Jeff did the right thing in not going for it. I hope he could get involved in getting the FIFA World Cup to Australia!
Jeff never left the building – Bracks simply slipped into the suits and kept the corporatist policies going.
There is no way Kennett was going to stand. He is 58 years old. I’m sure that on reflection he thought of a lot more attractive things to do between the ages of 58 and 62 than be Opoosition leader in Victoria.
And give Doyle some credit where it is due. Not many political leaders would front a press conference announcing their resignation with both their ex-wife and their girlfriend.
It was never a goer. Kennett had nothing to gain and has seen sense if he wasn’t just mucking about from the start. I was thinking Bob Hawke should make a comeback, but then he is 76 so that makes it a bit tricky! Best PM in my lifetime by such a streak it’s not funny.
Kennett achieved a miracle, ie, brought Victoria back from absolute penury inflicted by one of the most incompetent governments ever seen.
The people of Victoria voted in another twit (although surely it cannot be possible for Bracks to be as hopeless as John Cain & Joan Kirner?) Why would Kennett bail Victoria out a second time? They deserve to rust.
See, Kennett took my advice, I told you he was no fool
Reality check for SATP
Victoria doesn’t need the souffle.
Victoria’s rate of population growth since 2000 has been lower only than Qld and WA.
The latter states are notoriously empty and are greedy recipients of major transfer payments from the more important states, including Victoria.
Of course Qld etc will eventually outgrow Victoria. The mystery is why it is taking so long.
Katz: I may not know what a university even looks like, but I do know squandering when I see it. I also know a precarious financial situation when I see it. Victoria is not in the trouble the NT government has got itself into, but neither does Victoria have the federal government to bail it out.
Victoria is currently the only rust area in the south-east (that part of Oz which excepts WA & NT)
Why is it taking so long for Qld to outgrow Vic? You don’t think an absolutely talent-free government has anything to do with it? (talent-free parliament actually, I certainly don’t wish to imply there is any extra talent amongst the non-government parties)
So what does “squandering” look like SATP?
I do want to know what “squandering” looks like. Really.
Hard to think back to “squandering” by the ALP in the 1980’s, under a man whose major vice was his risk-aversion about money,
Yes Trico went down, but on reflection it was for a small amount compared to the losses that the other banks would ultimately reveal. And the State Bank’s acquisition of Trico started under the libs, and the ALP was stuck with buying more to stop it from collapsing.
Pyramid went down without government intervention because it wasn’t a bank and wasn’t guaranteed. The Cain government put legislation to the Legislative Council to compell a higher level of fiducary responsibility for building societies, but the libs knocked it back.
Yes it was a government that made some mistakes. But they were exaggerated. And it did get caught by the recession, which it did not cause.
So the verdict on the Cain goverment is a lot more nuanced than the “guilty party” slogans which are still thrown around to smear it.
SATP?
Ah, Standard Ambient Temperature and Pressure
Simple fact of the matter is, Steve Bracks is widely considered a competent and steady leader, supported by some key Ministers that have the trust of the public. All of his major cockups have been fiscally rightwing ones, ie PPPs, tolls. Why would the traditionally conservative voting public want to change for exactly the same ideology?
What’ll be far more interesting is when democracy rules for the first time in the upper house.
“What’ll be far more interesting is when democracy rules for the first time in the upper house.”
The upper house is already democratically elected. There’s no gerrymander.
And it’s not as though Labor is using its upper house majority to push through anything unpopular. Bracks is so reticent to do anything, he won’t even legislate to do things that are popular.
Presumably what you mean is that with proportonal representation, the Greens might get a member or two elected and Labor will lose its majority. That might it make it more interesting, if you find grandstanding by Green politicians to be interesting, but more democratic?
“The upper house is already democratically elected. There’s no gerrymander.”
Oh? How on earth do the nationals get so many seats, when the greens et al get none?
Grandstanding by any minor party is part of the cost of multi-party democracy. I think I’ll find them less tiresome and annoying than the noisome National party!
“How on earth do the nationals get so many seats, when the greens et al get none?”
The elecorates for the upper house are each an amalgamation of four lower house electorates. They all have about the same number of voters, so no gerrymander. Because the Nationals vote is concentrated in country electorates, the Nationals have been successful in getting some upper house MPS elected (but not that many, only 4 out of 44). Because the Greens vote is spread all over the state, they haven’t.
Thanks Spiros, my question was rhetorical, I’m very aware of how inadequate the old system was.
Spiros,
It is easy to gerrymander, even with equal numbers of people in each seat. Have a look, for example, at Texas, indeed the whole US,where the politicians get to do the districting. The very origin of gerrymander was where a US politician named (Elbridge) Gerry who made a seat that looked like a salamander to gain advantage. The US is more sophisticated now – seats (districts) can be of any shape – doughnuts, mandlebrot sets etc. etc. etc. Some great examples on wikipedia.
Unlikely to happen here, though – neutral seat setters do it. Anything short of full PR, though, will get some effects like this. Problem with full PR, though, is that everyone represents everyone and you may have no ‘local’ member to look out for your local community interests.