THE reason why the state election has failed to garner much excitment in the electorate is obvious: little appears to be at stake. Perhaps that's a cynical view - party apparatchiks could point to dozens of announcements that would no doubt distinguish their side of politics from the other. The Liberal Party promises 1600 new police over four years. But wait! Labor promises 1700 new police over five years. Mmm, how to decide? Or this one from the marginal Bendigo electorates: Labor promises a new $528 million hospital. The Liberals believe a new hospital would cost $630 million. What's a voter to do?
Predominantly, the job of a state government is to deliver services. More and more, the federal tier of government encroaches into state territory in areas such as health and education and, mostly, any ideology remaining in politics is argued out in Canberra. With a few exceptions, the political talent in state parliament is uninspiring. That Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu could essentially hide his Treasury spokesman Kim Wells during the campaign is an eyebrow-raising indictment of his frontbench.
Voters expect services to be delivered efficiently, cost-effectively and without much fuss, so they can get on with living in what is a pleasant and prosperous state.
The Sunday Age is tempted to argue that the state Labor government, 11 years old, has had its chance to improve service delivery, and it's time to give the other mob a go. Fifteen years in power - which is what they would get if they won on Saturday - is a long time in a democracy, and there is a nagging feeling that refreshment is no bad thing. A few new ideas, such as an independent public transport authority, for instance, might help. Even if the Liberals introduced half of what they have promised to increase transparency, it would be an improvement. And yes, Victorians would like to know the ''annual security payment'' the government will be obliged to pay to the desalination plant's operators whether or not it buys a drop of desalinated water.
After 11 years, a government is bound to have gathered baggage. Premier John Brumby admits ''we haven't been perfect'', which he uses as a throw-away line before outlining his plans for the future. Transport infrastructure has been badly managed. We are yet to be convinced that the $5.7 billion for the desalination plant is money well spent. There remains a whiff of scandal around the government's relationship with the development industry. It is appalling it took so long to acknowledge the need for an independent anti-corruption commission.
So, why not throw them out? Well, because Labor offers a competent managerial government. Victoria is no New South Wales, where voters seem agitated to punish a government lurching from crisis to crisis. And although Labor often tries to hide its progressive credentials - nervous, as it is, over the eagerness of the populist press to declare just about anything ''a disgrace'' - the government has racked up a few reforms that lead the nation. It has revitalised a dispirited state education system. It has spent millions improving a health system straining with an ageing population and mounting demands. It decriminalised abortion. The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is proving itself a useful instrument to rein in the excesses of government. And the economy is strong, which ultimately is what matters most to Victorians trying to get and keep jobs and to raise families.
And for some reason the conservatives have failed to grasp the opportunity to present a coherent and costed set of policies that would distinguish them from Labor. There is anger out there on specific issues in specific electorates - and the Coalition may well fall across the line. There is still a week to go to offer new policies. Yet, on the big questions - the direction in health, education, energy supply - what precisely would it do? Is it seriously concerned about climate change? Mr Baillieu barely mentions it. ''Zero tolerance'' for crime? Are they kidding?
Yet, if the Coalition wins the election, we would suggest not much would substantially change. Transport would still be a problem and the health needs would continue to grow. Sanity on law and order issues would prevail. So, without meaning to be pompous, The Sunday Age will endorse neither party. If we were put up against a wall, we would say, maybe Labor, but it will need to change its ways in a fourth term - drop the hubris, risk letting the sunshine in. The prospects of that are slim indeed.