Daniel Andrews Responsible For Bourke Street Slaughter

WE’LL SAY it plainly: culpability for yesterday’s tragedy in the Melbourne CBD — a recidivist criminal with a history of armed violence going on a rampage in a car, killing four people and injuring dozens — rests squarely with Daniel Andrews; after two years in office, presiding over ballooning rates of violent crime that are the logical consequence of a lax and cavalier attitude to punishing criminals, his government has blood on its hands.

By now, everyone in Australia knows about the sickening incident that occurred in the Melbourne CBD yesterday afternoon; it is a tragic outrage and — the resolve of decent people permitting — ought to represent a line in the sand when it comes to butt-covering and “smart answers” to bat responsibility away from Daniel Andrews and his loathsome, incompetent state government.

I want to begin by extending condolences to the families who have lost loved ones — and wishes for a full recovery to those who have been seriously injured — in a mass slaughter event that could have been avoided if platitudes like “jail is a last resort” and misplaced concerns about the rights of criminals were dispensed with.

In addition to two adults who lost their lives, as 26-year-old Dimitrious Gargasoulas allegedly drove at pedestrians in Bourke Street to murder and maim as many people as possible, a 10-year-old child has been killed. A fourth victim has also died, although at the time of writing details are unavailable.

The alleged offender is said to have a history of mental illness and a long history of violent behaviour, and it is very nice that social workers and other do-gooders saw to it that he wasn’t deprived of his liberty.

Who took the rights and welfare of the public — including an innocent child — into account?

There are certain obligations the state — irrespective of which theory of political ideology one subscribes to — must discharge on behalf of its citizens; paramount among these is to preserve order and to uphold the rule of law: for without order under the rule of law, the freedom of ordinary folk to safely go about their lives, with confidence they will not be attacked or robbed or murdered, is impossible to guarantee.

In this instance, the inability of Police to at first detain, and later shoot (or otherwise thwart) the alleged offender, is a failure of governance for which responsibility can and must be sheeted home to Premier Daniel Andrews, his government, and any public official who had direct oversight of a sequence of events that permitted Gargasoulas to be free to commit the atrocity that took place in Melbourne yesterday.

Police Media commented that Gargasoulas had “repeatedly become known to (them) in recent weeks,” and references to a shooting incident last month involving Gargasoulas were also made, in a segment aired by Melbourne radio station 3AW late yesterday afternoon; on that basis alone, the guy should have been in gaol where he could pose no further risk to public safety.

It has also emerged that at 2am yesterday morning, Gargasoulas allegedly stabbed his brother in the chest and head at a house in the inner city suburb of Windsor; homicide investigators were called to that incident.

Another detail that filtered out last night, thanks to the efforts of journalists, is that Gargasoulas has a long history of violent behaviour.

So just how is it that he was free, at 1.45pm yesterday, to commence doing burnouts at the intersection of Flinders Street and Swanston Street before driving down the Bourke Street Mall, mowing people down as they scrambled for cover, and proceeding across Elizabeth Street before finally being rammed by Police several blocks further up Bourke Street?

Seasoned former journalist Senator Derryn Hinch — as plugged in as ever to what goes on in Melbourne — tweeted last night that his sources had told him that Police had seven opportunities to ram the car before it embarked on its deadly rampage down Bourke Street, but were denied permission to do so. By whom?

And whilst this is a perennial question of any victim of crime — especially those who have had a friend or family member killed by a known violent offender on bail or parole — on precisely what grounds did psychologists, social workers or other “experts” who found that Gargasoulas was no risk to public safety arrive at that conclusion?

This horrific episode throws up hard questions. The Victorian public will be lucky if it ever receives straight answers to them.

As indelicate as it may be to say so, the government of Victoria has blood on its hands: the Premier, his ministers, and whoever was in operational command yesterday are very heavily culpable.

On Daniel Andrews’ watch in Victoria, we are witnessing in real time an attempt by an elected government to use the High Court — arguably in an abuse of process — to avoid an inquiry into allegations that boil down to a question of whether its actions in sequestering parliamentary resources for electoral gain amounts to official misconduct: it isn’t a good look, and whilst it isn’t directly relevant to yesterday’s events, it forms part of the backdrop I will sketch out.

The insidious slither of the PC agenda of the Left — this time into penalties, sentences, and what we might term “incarceration practices” — sees more humane and considerate treatment of criminals than their victims; the mantra of jail being last resort is applied ever more widely, and it seems there is no end to dangerous criminals being released into the community whilst awaiting trial or in short order after serving a token sentence.

There seems no end, too, to the odious practice of finding grounds for special consideration for these vermin to use to extract watered-down penalties: Gargasoulas has been widely reported to be mentally ill; the reaction of the bleeding heart do-gooder regime is to say “there, there…we can’t lock you up if you’re sick.”

Meanwhile, this special treatment is repaid all too often, on undeserved and unjustified bail or parole releases, with wanton violence and/or murder — in this case, both — and Andrews’ government, elected at about the time a wave of public anger over criminals on release committing fresh crimes was forcing change, has failed to deliver on the expectations and outcomes demanded of it.

Whether it is APEX thugs terrorising Melbourne, or gangs of Sudanese youth perpetrating a rising number of home invasions, carjackings, and assaults against the person, or the drug-fuelled violence that is the consequence of a methamphetamine epidemic and rampant availability of other illicit drugs, what was once the safest state in Australia now ranks among the most dangerous.

Speaking of the Sudanese, most of their number are decent people; but in Daniel Andrews’ Victoria, it is verboten to identify the scum in their midst terrorising old ladies in their homes and perpetrating violence against ordinary decent folk as Sudanese: to do so is fatuously said to be “racist.”

Liberal leader Matthew Guy is little better, and I’m told he has privately had screaming matches with Liberals who have called the Sudanese gangs out as “Sudanese” on the basis they are “off message.” This apparently bipartisan approach to failing to call law and order problems for what they are is delusional. Those who are in on the act, to use the vernacular, have their heads up their arses.

And then there’s the small matter of the even smaller sentences that are actually served by those dangerous criminals who end up in jail at all.

The point is that having governed Victoria for almost 14 of the last 18 years, the ALP is heavily and disproportionately responsible for the law and order regime in force in this state.

Having now served in office for almost two-thirds of the four-year term to which it was elected in November 2014, the Andrews government does not have the dubious luxury of blaming the opposition or attempting to deny there is a crime problem in Victoria that is spiralling out of control.

The only parties to what happened in Melbourne yesterday who are blameless are those frontline Police who were simply obeying orders; these tireless law enforcement officers deserve respect for what they do. Notwithstanding the very real issues at play here and the tragic manifestation of them we saw yesterday, the Victorian community owes these people a debt of gratitude.

If it is true, as Hinch reported, that Police were forbidden to capitalise on seven opportunities to ram Gargasoulas’ car off the road before he went on his slaughter spree, then whoever gave the orders not to intervene should be dismissed.

Andrews, for his part, has spent two years explaining away the rocketing crime rate with unconvincing rhetoric and creative interpretations of official statistics for no better reason than cynical politicking, but there is a deadly flaw in doing so. The position of the Andrews government is that crime is well under control, and that Victorians have never been safer. Yesterday’s events prove they are not. The fact that Gargasoulas’ background contains all the elements of foreseeable risk compounds the fault of the state government.

In other words, you can’t have it both ways. If the principle of responsible government means anything at all to Daniel Andrews, his first order of business on Monday must be to sack Police minister Lisa Neville. His second should be to tender his own resignation. If former NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell can be forced to resign over an undeclared gift of a bottle of wine, then four deaths and dozens of people hurt, in an incident that could have been avoided through rigorous policy and governance, makes O’Farrell’s misdemeanours pale by comparison.

I would be unsurprised if, in due course, the survivors and the families of the deceased launched a class action against the state of Victoria for compensation; the liability to the Victorian taxpayer could run into the tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. The realist in me says they would be entitled to the money. The cynic says they will never see it. So morally bankrupt is the Andrews government that even if a judicial inquiry led to an obligation to pay, the government would probably fight that all the way to the High Court too.

In practice, the senseless slaughter and the circumstances that led to it will take years to unpick. The trauma will similarly last for years.

But the buck stops with the government, where law enforcement is concerned.

Mentally ill or not, or premeditated in his actions or not, the alleged offender Gargasoulas’ history is a veritable road map to an individual who should never have been released into the community: but he was, and with tragic consequences.

Nothing is going to bring back the dead, and nothing is going to ever make it quite right for those who were hurt — or, come to think of it, for many of those who were bystanders and simply witnessed the dreadful actions that were committed in central Melbourne at lunchtime yesterday.

But Daniel Andrews must be held responsible for what happened in Melbourne yesterday; it is the failed policies and maladministration of his government that led directly to the tragic events that took place on Bourke Street, and responsibility demands that consequences follow.

A shred of decency would see Daniel Andrews dismiss his minister, and resign himself shortly thereafter. But Andrews, like the government he leads, has no sense of public decency whatsoever, which means all care will be taken to protect the rights of the alleged offender — and the victims, in all likelihood, will be given the shaft.


Nightmare On Spring Street: Greens in Parliament Spell Trouble

THE INSIDIOUS PRESENCE of at least seven Communist Party Greens MPs in state Parliament — five in the upper House and, with their win in Prahran late today, two in the lower House — means Victoria is set for a Nightmare On Spring Street for the next four years; with an agenda based on economic vandalism, the extortionate price of Green support for Labor’s new government will merely exacerbate what already looms as a rough ride ahead.

It beggars belief — in the not-so-distant shadow of the wreckage of the disastrous coalition between Labor and the Greens federally under Julia Gillard — that the Greens, whose odious contributions to policy included the economy-retarding carbon tax and an asylum seeker policy directly responsible for more than a thousand drownings at sea, would find their way back into the sunshine so quickly.

Yet it has happened: as the votes from Victoria’s state election ten days ago continue to be counted, we already know that the Greens have won five of the 40 upper House seats, which — added to the 13 taken by Labor — put the government close enough to half the House for the Greens’ insidious demands to be entertained; the lower House seat of Melbourne was won on the night, of course, but now the Greens have won the inner-city electorate of Prahran, in Melbourne’s leafy south-east. Their win is an obscenity.

There are some who read this column who will accuse me of being a sore loser; after all, this column stoutly backed the Napthine government for re-election — with good reason — and we already know that a pretty good government has been displaced by the most heavily union-dominated regime elected to office anywhere in Australia in decades.

The omens are not encouraging; already — just six days after polling day — the militant, violent CFMEU was throwing its weight around, shutting down work on a construction site at an ALDI supermarket development for no better reason than it felt it could. There were no issues around safety or the adequate payment of site workers. If anything, despite whatever crude justifications were offered up by the union, the shutdown (which continues, at time of publication) looks and feels like what it is: a warning shot across the bows of the business and construction sectors.

But now Victoria has the Greens to contend with in excessive numbers as well, and people who don’t support the Greens and who enjoy living in Victoria (and especially in Melbourne) have good reason to be apprehensive.

In an echo of the 2010 election that saw federal Labor jump into bed with the Greens, based on votes cast on 29 November almost 90% of the electorate voted for someone other than a Greens candidate. But if that precedent is any guide, the Greens will wield an influence in Victoria that far transcends the piddling portion of the statewide vote it secured.

Urgently needed road infrastructure projects are unlikely to secure Greens support to pass the upper House; with their fixation on public transport and obsessive war on car travel — even in the face of incontrovertible evidence that people can’t and won’t be forced off the road by their doctrinaire prescriptions — Victorians can look forward to more thoroughfares having car lanes removed or narrowed, more (mostly empty) lanes for cyclists, more unjustifiably lowered speed limits, and more apartments built in urban areas without the provision of off-street parking: forcing more cars to park along the congested, narrowed streets the Greens are determined to clog to a standstill.

The Greens might not have their beloved carbon tax any more, or the suite of so-called “clean energy” measures that went with it.

But in a position to make the difference between Labor legislation passing Parliament and being scuttled, the prospect of “emissions charges” or other euphemisms for state-based carbon taxes being levied on everything from gas and electricity bills and petrol to vehicle registration fees and anything else deemed to contribute to climate change is real.

There will be no dams, no preventative burning off of scrub to reduce the risk of a repeat of the 2009 bushfire catastrophe, and no escape from a slew of invasive and illiberal social engineering measures designed to restrict the right of Victorians to go about their business freely at all.

Already, the Greens are claiming a “mandate” for the scrapping of the Napthine government’s East-West Link road project; yes, Daniel Andrews’ Labor Party won government on exactly this promise, although until today there were hints that at least part of the road system would nevertheless be built.

The strengthened presence of the Greens will put an end to that. Inner Melbourne will simply grind to a gridlocked halt.

But the really alarming thing that is likely to derive from a pivotal Greens presence in state Parliament will come in areas of social policy; already the party’s former federal leader, Bob Brown, is claiming the Greens’ showing at the state election (and their increased representation) “paves the way” for “equal marriage (sic)” — which is a nonsense, given the Marriage Act is a federal law — but the signal that the Greens’ version of Nirvana is set to be attempted in Victoria is unmistakable.

Get set for an avalanche of affirmative action and anti-discrimination legislation, making it illegal to be anything other than an oppressed minority in Victoria, to quickly become the asking price for the passage of government bills through the upper House.

And it goes without saying that the chances of the Greens at least exploring avenues to restrict the activities of the fourth estate — just as they tried to do in cahoots with Gillard and her noxious Communications minister, the malignant Stephen Conroy, federally — are of a very high probability indeed.

As an aside, the Prahran electorate is a diverse beast, capturing within the same boundary grungy, edgy areas like Prahran and St Kilda and archly conservative, genteel pockets of primly upright propriety such as Toorak and South Yarra. The idea of the latter being represented by a band of militant Lefties much more attuned to the former of these disparate contingents is ridiculous.

And to me, the Greens’ “win” in Prahran (dispatching a capable and respected moderate Liberal voice in Clem Newton-Brown to the wilderness) is an absolute obscenity, with the victorious candidate coming from third place to overtake the ALP — and ultimately beat Newton-Brown, who pulled in 45% of the primary vote — on preferences with less than a quarter of the vote to his name.

I digress in saying so, but it is simply the latest illustration of what is wrong with preferential voting — and the fact 40,000 people in Prahran now have a state MP that less than a quarter of them voted for is an outrage.

There might be an element of my tongue being firmly in my cheek in posting comment on this, but only a little; the malicious little band of Greens set to descend on Spring Street when Parliament resumes is enough to worry anyone actually bothered about realistic policy outcomes and sound governance.

What are they concerned about? Taxing energy consumption into unaffordability, abandoning traditional defence structures, throwing open Australia’s borders to all and sundry, destroying traditional family and social values, firing torpedoes at the business community, and destroying jobs — at least the ones that create any kind of wealth, that is.

And they don’t care at all for niceties such as prudent economic management, the concept of free enterprise, or any notion whatsoever of personal responsibility.

No, it’s better — to the Greens — to addle as wide a cross-section of the community as possible with welfare and handouts, and to tax the rest into oblivion to fund it: after all, it’s hard to control anyone if they’re allowed to remain able to fend for themselves.

This insidious agenda was the logical end point of the Greens’ influence on the Gillard government: a reality Australia is paying for now, mired in a deepening debt problem and with rocketing expenditure on welfare and benefits, and a shrivelling capacity to pay for it all.

Sooner or later, Victoria’s new Greens MPs will find a way to impose a localised version of this lunacy at a state level.

Get set for the Nightmare On Spring Street. The next state election — and an opportunity to end the madness that will soon commence — is 1,449 days away.


A Few Words On The Jill Meagher case

By now, readers will know of the horrific ordeal of Melbourne woman Jillian Meagher, who disappeared a week ago; her body recovered from a shallow grave this morning, and a suspect charged with her rape and murder. It is chilling, it is a tragedy, and it is an opportunity for the community.

I’m not going to say much, and I urge readers to be restrained in their comments (or at the very least, mindful that the matter is now before the Courts, and thus it is imperative that none of us say anything that might prejudice the fairness of the trial).

Like many people in Melbourne — and across the country — I’m aghast at what happened to Jill Meagher; a woman who went out with colleagues for drinks, and never made it home.

It’s a salutory reminder that none of us are as safe as we would like to be, and a reminder too that for whatever good there is in the world, evil exists too.

And sometimes, evil is a force too strong to be reckoned with.

I didn’t know Jill Meagher, but people I have worked with did; as an ABC employee in Melbourne and thus a fellow media industry person, our “circles” if you like overlapped. And so this episode lands fairly close to home; not that that makes any difference.

Social media have assisted Police to identify and incarcerate a suspect quickly and efficiently; it is now to be hoped that the impending trial proceeds expeditiously and smoothly, and that justice is done — and seen to be done.

It is on this point specifically that I urge caution upon my readers; not just in terms of any comments that may be posted here, but in their conversations and communications elsewhere.

Whatever the end result of the judicial process may be, it is unwise to canvass or to speculate upon it; indeed, the only “change” likely to be effected by doing so is to compromise the prosecution case and/or lead to its abandonment — and I don’t think anyone would wish that.

So let us all be very circumspect; there will be a time and a place for recriminations and for opinions.

Yet later, when the time is appropriate, these events may be the catalyst for a community discussion or debate about standards: what degree of punishment is appropriate as a reflection of community standards and expectations, and how the judicial sentencing process might be reformed to better serve those standards.

I must reiterate, for clarity: I am not prejudging anything here, although many will, and some will interpret my remarks as a call for a reintroduction of the death penalty (which, admittedly, I certainly believe appropriate in cases of aggravated rape and murder generally).

But I make the point from the perspective that so often, people complain about the leniency of sentences and the inadequacy of penalties; there are lobby groups built around such sentiments, with violence against children an obvious example that springs to mind.

So whilst there is a lot of anger and grief and a desire for vengeance around this issue — and understandably, if not rightly so — I would call on all readers just to wait.

For now.

And in the fullness of time, the one positive that might come from this week’s tragic events in Melbourne may well be that Meagher’s legacy is to spark a reform of penalties and sentencing in criminal matters, initiated by her peers, to better reflect the expectations of the community at large.

In the meantime, my condolences and thoughts are with Jill’s husband, Tom, and their family; her ABC colleagues and friends, and to all of those around her who, by all accounts, have lost a very special friend.

And to the rest of you, my message is simple: look after each other, and yourselves.

And remember the difference between safety and mortality is sometimes a matter of seconds, or inches, let alone a question of degrees.

John Elliott As Deputy Lord Mayor Of Melbourne…One Word: Why?

I like John Elliott; from his days as a corporate high flyer in the 80s and 90s to his presidency of the Carlton Football Club — and from the highs to the lows — I have always had a lot of time for him. But his new ambition to be Deputy Lord Mayor of Melbourne isn’t just wrong, it’s ridiculous.

Today brought the news that Elliott will stand in next month’s local council elections in Melbourne, on a ticket headed by opinion pollster and serial mayoral candidate Gary Morgan, and my immediate reaction is to ask “why?”

The move makes no sense for a number of reasons; moreover, it is impossible to imagine Elliott being fulfilled as a result — even if he and Morgan were to win.

And that is a very, very remote possibility.

Like him or hate him, Gary Morgan polarises people; it goes with the turf whenever intellect, energy and ego intersects. I don’t mind Gary Morgan, either, but he’s stood as Lord Mayor in Melbourne previously, and lost.

Why should 2012 be any different?

Elliott’s entry, on Morgan’s ticket, is at first glimpse clever; it adds substance and a recognition factor to the ticket that would otherwise struggle to stand out in what is always a crowded field.

Yet the historical portents point to Elliott as deputy being a bad decision for all concerned.

John Elliott is used to being in charge; the man who once built a $100 million fortune on the back of a small jam making company he singlehandedly built into an Australian corporate giant is a man accustomed to the final say, and to getting his own way.

He ran that giant — Elders IXL, and later Foster’s Brewing Group — from the top, as he did during his 19-year tenure as President at the Carlton Football Club.

His tenure at both ended badly, but good or bad, Elliott was indisputably in charge at both until the end.

His record as a deputy (or more accurately, a player of second fiddle) can really only be judged on the period during the 1980s in which he was also the federal President of the Liberal Party; whilst nominally the head of the Liberal organisation, the role of President very much takes a back seat behind that of the parliamentary leader.

Early during his time as President, he was a constant thorn in the side of then-leader John Howard during the latter’s first unhappy stint in that role.

Later in his presidency of the Liberals, Elliott was instrumental in Howard’s removal and the reinstatement of “his man” Andrew Peacock, under whom he felt the Liberals would better reflect his own political and business-related objectives.

Elliott was also tipped as a future Prime Minister during this period; indeed, he was the first in a long line of figures (from both sides of Parliament) to attempt to be parachuted concurrently into Parliament and the Prime Ministership (or Premiership) at once.

The point is that Elliott, perhaps nobody’s fool, has never taken second prize as a triumph; not in business, not in sport, and not in politics. It has always been win outright or bust: and I suspect it will be the same in his candidature alongside Morgan.

Still, the ticket does have some things going for it — mostly emanating from the office of the incumbent.

Robert Doyle is an affable and likeable character; indeed, on one level, his apparently limitless energy is an ideal prerequisite for the high office of Lord Mayor of Melbourne.

Yet his four years in the job have seen little happen of substance in Melbourne, and what has changed on his watch has been misguided.

For example, Doyle was elected on a solemn pledge to reopen Swanston Street to vehicular traffic; whilst the idea of a second pedestrian mall in the Melbourne CBD is appealing, Swanston Street could have gone a long way toward relieving the traffic gridlock that is slowly strangling Melbourne.

Instead, once elected, Doyle adroitly reneged on the promise.

Similarly, the creeping infestation of so-called “super stops” on tram lines in and around the city centre has continued to spread; not only do these halve the available carriageway for vehicular traffic, but they encourage taxis, couriers, and anyone else dropping off or picking up in the CBD to double park along whole streets, rendering traffic visibility negligible and creating hazards in turn for both road traffic and pedestrians.

For a conservative Liberal of Robert Doyle’s vigour, it has been simultaneously a surprise and a disappointment to have watched him spend four years effectively implementing the Greens’ policies in the City of Melbourne.

And as someone who has lived in Melbourne for nearly 15 years and absolutely loves the place — believe me, Melbourne is in my DNA, I love it so much — it is difficult to think of a single resounding instance of Cr Doyle’s administration changing anything of great note for the better in Melbourne since 2008.

So this may help Morgan and Elliott; certainly, Elliott thinks Doyle has had his time, and must now move on. But if the Doyle record is of use to Morgan and Elliott, then it is of equal use to the several other tickets lining up to contest the election as well.

And this brings me back to Elliott and Morgan.

Were Elliott to head the ticket, with Gary Morgan as his deputy, I’d reckon the duo’s odds of winning would rocket. Elliott is a polarising figure too, of course — people literally love or hate him — but he has traded for years on his own brand of “controversial” as a larger-than-life figure in this town, and of the pair, I’d rate him as the ticket’s main electoral drawcard.

But on another level again, politics is still politics — and Elliott, a former bankrupt found guilty of allowing a company to trade insolvent, now standing on a ticket talking of running Melbourne “like a business,” provides some of his opponents who may choose to be less than ethical ample scope to get into the gutter if they wish to.

(And I’m not talking about Robert Doyle).

What do people think? Could Elliott play second-stringer as a huge fish in a tiny pool?

Melbourne By-Election: Too Close To Call, But The Messages Are Mixed

With the Victorian Electoral Commission posting final figures for the night — on about 60% of all votes counted — Labor leads Communist Greens candidate Cathy Oke by about 200 votes after preferences. Tomorrow the count will proceed, but the trends are already clear.

Today’s by-election in the state seat of Melbourne — caused by the resignation from Parliament of controversial former Labor minister Bronwyn Pike — has as expected gone down to the wire; it will likely be some days before a definite result is known.

At the close of counting, Dr Oke has a reasonable lead on primary votes over the ALP candidate, Jennifer Kanis, and is ahead by 37.75% of the vote to 32.41% (or about 1300 votes) which gives Ms Kanis a slender 50.4% lead, after preferences, based on the nominal distribution from the votes counted by the Commission this evening.

Twitter colleague (and usually dead-eye accurate source of information) @ghostwhovotes is reporting that when postal votes are added, the Labor vote after preferences increases to 51.38%, so whilst that would put Kanis in a good position, it’s still a trifle early (at 11.30pm) to call the result.

Much has been written about this by-election in recent weeks and days, and a lot of silly interpretations of what its result would mean have been made; interesting, that, given technically there still isn’t a result to interpret.

Still, there are a few observations I would make, and these are generally out of step with some of the wild pronouncements that have been made in the mainstream press.

This is a bad result for Daniel Andrews and the Victorian ALP; 18 months after the state election that ended Labor’s stint in government, its vote has gone backwards quite sharply in an electorate it should have easily retained.

There has been a lot made of the fact the Liberal Party did not contest this by-election; accusations of cowardice have been levelled at that party for not standing a candidate on the basis it had too much to lose on account of the supposed inaction and poor performance of the state government under Premier Ted Baillieu.

This ignores the fact that the Liberals under Ted Baillieu have generally chosen not to contest vacant Labor electorates at by-elections; I think this has been a mistake, especially in Albert Park a few years ago, in Niddrie earlier this year and in Melbourne today.

Even so, looking at the votes cast today and those recorded at the state election in November 2010, it’s easy to see the Liberal vote didn’t “go” anywhere, per se; Labor and the Greens aside, the other 14 candidates pulled in about 30% of the total vote between them, and that figure — in round terms — is what the Liberals got at the last election.

And whilst Labor has suffered a swing against it based on the 2010 result, the primary vote movement has largely been a direct transfer of votes from the ALP to the Greens, and not enough — it seems — to have cost it the seat.

Indeed, the likely result looks very similar to the state election result in Melbourne from 2006, when the Liberals both stood a candidate and directed preferences to the Greens.

And so, this is a bad result for Andrews and the state ALP. Why? Very simply, having run as hard as he has for as long as he has on the theme of what might be termed the general uselessness of the Baillieu government — aided, it must be said, by the commentary and coverage of virtually every media outlet in Melbourne — Andrews and his party have gone backwards in what traditionally is a heartland electorate.

If the germs of a move back to Labor existed, they would have been visible today; as a rule, the heartland always returns to the fold of a beaten party before the marginals do, and as it stands, Labor has suffered a swing of just over 5% against it in Melbourne and will struggle to retain the seat.

And despite Andrews’ exhortations to voters in Melbourne, there is no “message” being sent to Ted Baillieu on this occasion.

It suggests Andrews has a lot of work to do; many of the issues he has been most vocal about — transport, infrastructure, public service levels — are more keenly felt in the Melbourne electorate than elsewhere in the state. Obviously, that message has not resonated. And the Melbourne electorate, today, has dealt Andrews a significant setback.

It’s been a good result, conversely, for the Greens, and whilst Dr Oke may not have won the electorate — this time — it is clear that the Greens continue to encroach into traditional Labor areas, leaching support and votes, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

I don’t think the contest between the Greens and Labor for support and votes has much to do with the federal government, and it certainly has nothing to do with the Liberals not standing today.

Rather, I believe what we are witnessing is the early stages of a fundamental realignment of the mainstream Left in Australian politics, which may well end with the emergence of a new major force representing so-called progressive policies along the lines of the Social Democratic parties in Europe and the Democrats in the USA. Time will tell.

In any case, Oke has done just as well today in receiving preferences as the Greens did in 2006, when Liberal candidates were preferencing them, which is a hint that the whole Libs not running/not directing preferences concept did not cost the Greens seats in 2010.

Clearly, nobody will ever definitively know what the result may have been had the Liberals run a candidate. But as it stands, the flow of preferences has been roughly 60% to the ALP and 40% to the Greens, which is about what might be expected — accounting for the leakage of preferences — had there been a Liberal candidate directing Labor be placed ahead of the Greens on how-to-vote cards.

I am told that Oke is earmarked by the Greens as someone with a bright political future; someone who will be the face of the Greens in Victoria for many years to come. Whilst I disagree with her party and her politics completely — on every level — she has done herself no disservice today, and her performance builds on the general momentum the Greens have been creating in inner Melbourne for several years.

Today’s result is a good one for Julia Gillard, but not for the obvious reasons; clearly, Labor winning the seat means she and her government cannot be made scapegoats for yet another electoral disaster, but by the same token Gillard has studiously avoided campaigning in Melbourne, and Andrews has studiously avoided enlisting her to do so.

Today’s result — warts and all — reflects squarely on Daniel Andrews, and if I were him I’d be looking for ways, urgently, to lift my game — and fast. This result is a loud wake up call to Victorian Labor; whether it listens or not is another matter altogether.

And of Ted Baillieu?

It’s hard to say whether this is good or bad for Baillieu; if Labor wins, his strategy to deny the Greens entry to Parliament at all costs appears vindicated; if the Greens win, the breathing room for the Coalition on the floor of Parliament becomes that little bit clearer. Either way, Baillieu wins, but here’s another reason the Liberals should contest every by-election that occurs on its watch from this point forward.

Had the Greens won today, Baillieu would confront a dilemma at the next state election: preference Labor in a seat like Melbourne and risk handing the ALP the gain of a seat at a tight election; preference the Greens and make a mockery of the “principled” anti-Greens stand made prior to the 2010 election.

If the Greens are to win lower house seats — in Victoria or anywhere else — it’s essential that they do so with a Liberal candidate on the ballot paper, even if the Liberal directs preferences away from the Greens.

To do otherwise would be to risk a repeat of the sort of scare campaign used against the Coalition over preferences and One Nation 15 years ago; it was badly handled then and it hurt the conservatives; this is precisely the type of scenario that could do so again.

The only alternative would be to pick a handful of seats — say, Melbourne, Northcote, Brunswick and Richmond — and never contest them, or to run “Independent Liberals” in these seats. Another possibility would be to run National Party candidates in these seats as “Coalition candidates.”

However, these options would simply disenfranchise voters in these areas wanting to vote Liberal, to say nothing of breeding resentment in local party branches that could intensify into a major internal brawl the Liberal Party didn’t need.

It’s obvious Labor — setting all the problems with its federal wing aside — has its fair share of problems to deal with at present; today’s vote underlines this, although it is not readily clear as to how the ALP can deal with these, let alone resolve them.

Where it goes from here, however — in Victoria at least — is a matter for another post, and another day.