An early favourite for worst election analysis #vicvotes
James Campbell, a former Liberal staffer who now writes for the Sunday Herald Sun, has burst from the gates with an early contender for the most wantonly misguided post-mortem of the Victorian election.
He starts early with this whopper:
If the Government goes down it will be the party’s worst defeat since 1955.
This is the kind of irredeemable bullshit for which this blog was named. It is not even Labor’s worst defeat since 1995. If they lose at all, it will be a 2 seat majority. I understand he is playing funny buggers with primary vote comparisons, but this is a preferential voting system and a Parliamentary democracy and the only meaningful measures are seats and 2PP.
Campbell compounds the furphy with:
It will be even worse than the 1992 debacle when Jeff Kennett flogged Labor mercilessly.
Ah, no. Not at all true. Not even close.
He then gets more intricate in his inexactitude:
Everything went wrong for Labor yesterday, including – critically – the weather, which depressed the turnout and may prove the difference in a host of seats in the east and southeast suburbs.
He is correct that the weather was bad, but the margins in the east and southeast are not close enough to suggest the weather was a decisive factor in any of them, with the possible exception of Bentleigh. And a single seat, Mr Campbell, is not a “host”.
But Campbell outdoes himself with this self-evident bollocks.
Insiders say Labor’s campaign was run almost entirely by staff in the Premier’s office and state secretary Nick Reece.
Who else was supposed to run the campaign? A small suburban catering firm? A random collection of strangers?
This is preceded by this cherry atop the turd-pie:
The election has exposed the folly of the decision by Labor to sack its previous State Secretary Stephen Newnham and replace him with an untried staffer from the Premier’s office.
No doubt Newnham had his shortcomings, but his constant warnings about his party’s complacency have been vindicated.
I am scrambling to find the adjectives to do justice to this nonsense. At the outset, this is the transparent product of the self-serving intervention of Newnham himself, for the simple reason that there is no-one, alive or dead, who would attempt to make this argument apart from the sacked state secretary or someone married to him. Left, right, or left right out, there is no-one with any involvement with the Labor Party or this campaign who believes Stephen Newnham would have run a better campaign than Nick Reece. Full stop, end of story.