But I do remain troubled by the gap between my admiration for the man himself and my distaste for the machinations of his party.

For example, some people here and elsewhere have cited the reforms to the Victorian Upper House as part of the Bracks legacy. Apart from the fact that those reforms were part of the deal forged by the three independents that gave Bracks government in 1999, Labor has been vindictive in its propaganda against the Upper House Greens elected in 2006 as a result. Why? Because they have dared to dissent from the ALP on quite principled grounds. A key example of the ALP’s response is its (unbranded) so-called ‘Gotcha’ campaign.

Yet, despite the stupidity of such campaigns, I must concede that a Bracks Labor government is infinitely preferable to the only other likely alternative. Therein lies the rub, not only at a state but also at a federal level – Labor can rely on the fact that it is relatively (much) better than the Libs, rather than taking a stand on the merits of particular issues. At a federal level (on the basis of the polls), few people want Howard returned, and so we cop the expansion of uranium mining. If Labor is electorally threatened, it responds with the kind of propaganda seen in the Gotcha campaign, rather than arguing the case or contemplating reasoned change to its policies. That’s the big worry for me, and leads me to caution voters against according the party itself with the credit of individually outstanding members. Admire Steve Bracks by all means, but don’t let Labor off the hook.

Beyond these concerns, I will remember Steve Bracks above all for his seemingly impossible but famous victory over Kennett at the 1999 state election. I was studying at the time, and remember bemoaning Kennett in a conversation with the electricity meter-man. Wouldn’t it be fantastic if…but these hopes were dismissed as impossible dreams. Yet, for Bracks, and to the benefit of all Victorians, those dreams were not impossible at all. I wish him well.

Craig Mc suggests that Victoria is running a deficit.

Well, it did in 2005/2006. It’s position is still rather good, but my point was that this is as good as it gets, and you have to make do with reduced GST and stamp duty revenues when the wheel turns. This is when we should be retiring debt, although I admit the debt levels as a % of total revenue are shrinking.

Craig, might I suggest you identify where this new dam is going to be built, and where the water to fill it is going to come from? Youâ??re indulging in the â??rain-follows-the-ploughâ?? fantasy of the 19th century.

Well a dam on the Mitchell seems to be getting a run in a major daily, and as it points out – a lot of water has run through it into Bass Strait just recently – possibly through peoples’ rain-water tanks as it washed them into the sea.

It would mean turning it from a national park into a national aquatic park, but that’s OK – it’s not like anyone except the greens and Thwaites were pretending it was a real one anyway.

The only thing I’m wrong about is the timing of the relevant by-election. It occurred not “early” in Steve Bracks’ premiership, but right at the start.

It was, of course, the Mitcham by-election that gave Bracksy (with the support of the three independents) his first minority Government. This was a “must-win” election and Labor could not form Government without taking the seat.

Green preferences were vital.

The Green candidate (whose name escapes me at the moment, but I can get it) put his requirements quite simply: He made it known that he’d be directing preferences to whichever party promised to build the longest tunnel and save the mighty Mullum-Mullum.

Labor’s candidate, Tony Robinson, promised a 2.5Km tunnel and this, as it turned out, was the successful bid.

Bracksy had promised that the freeway would be just that: A freeway, not a tollway, and he stuck with this during the campaign. He was evidently acutely aware of the public’s dissatisfaction with the Kennett tollways.

During the campaign Labor had “costed” the tunnel at $100 million (within the State’s capacity to pay), but the costing was dodgy, being done without any soil or core sampling.

Now, any Engineer can tell you that you can’t estimate the cost of a tunnel without knowing what, exactly, you’re going to be tunnelling through, and the costs estimate turned out to be quite wrong: Out by a factor of 3.5 (with the tunnel eventually costing $350 million).

The State could not afford this and the Commonwealth refused to come to the rescue.

Hence the tolls.

So, Stephen, I reckon the Greens ought to have the courage to claim credit where credit’s due: They saved the mighty Mullum-Mullum (a somewhat less than pristine creek, less than 1m wide, and arising in a 36″ diameter stormwater drain) for the benefit of future generations at a cost of a mere $350 million.

Not exactly saving the Franklin, now is it?

Perhaps you’ll tell me where, in all this, I’m wrong.

Evan might be thinking of the Mitcham by-election, which happened not only before Bracks was premier, but before he led the party. Or he might be thinking of Frankston East – the thing that made Bracks premier. Or maybe he means Burwood which is a long way from Eastlink and Mullum Mullum. Or there was Aston, which was federal.

None of these involved preference deals with the Greens over the issue. In the first three the Greens were so keen to see the back of Kennett that no preference deals were required. In Aston Labor refused our requests (including public transport upgrades which would have prevented the current mess) so the Greens did not recommend preferences in favour of Labor.

Sorry, but that isn’t quite right.

According to the ABS Government Financial Estimates, Australia 2006-2007 (ABS Code 5501.0.55.001), published by the ABS 8.11.06 (these bring the latest AMS figures I could find), Victoria is actually running a surplus of about $186 Million.

I don’t mind people bagging a Government for what it’s done or failed to do, but criticising it on the basis of dodgy assumptions is a bit much.

More water for Melbourne either involves local resources (rainwater tanks), transforming non-potable water (recycling, desalination), or diverting water currently used for other purposes to Melbourne. The government has chosen options 2 (a desalination plant) and 3 (a pipeline from the Goulburn River).

And while I don’t like water restrictions, the Liberal Party has not been prepared to propose price signals to reduce water consumption anywhere.

As for Robert’s contention that “Urban water policy, while hardly perfect, has been OK”, well that’s crap – the ALP has fiddled while Victoria dried out. The Thompson dam was built to drought-proof Melbourne for forty years and that forty years expired on Bracks’ watch. Water restrictions are not a solution, they’re a stop-gap. The ALP have a responsibility to harness water resources with a new dam.

It’ll be interesting to see if the government can stop frittering away its fiscal position on recurrent expenditure long enough to invest the required capital in a dam (isn’t it great we’re running deficits in a boom time?). It’ll also be interesting to see if Brumby is as stupidly tied to the greens as Thwaites was over this issue.

Most State Department people in my experience were pretty damn sharp, but I imagine internships are not necessarily distributed on the basis of ability….

I’ll state that not only did three of the worst people I’ve ever worked with in my industry came from the one state department, but also from a single branch of six within that department.

I’ll admit that other areas were better served than that one. They must be.

This was done in the early days of his Premiership to win a by-election vital to his Government’s survival and to â??saveâ?? the mighty Mullum Mullum creek, a foetid little mini-Yarra with itâ??s headwaters in a stormwater drain in Nunawading somewhere.

Itâ??s a mistake that at least trebled the cost of the freeway and one the residents of the outer east in Melbourne will be paying for for some considerable time to come.

Apart from that, I reckon he did a pretty good job as Premier.

He was civil and compassionate, prepared to stand-up to Howard and certainly a great deal less of an a**ehole than his immediate predecessor.

I was looking at footage of the son Nick last night on the news. He’s 20. That means Bracks became Premier when the son was 12 and more or less missed his whole adolescence (and probably half his childhood as well). If Bracks’ other kids are younger, then he may simply have made the decision to be around for them a bit more.

I was struck by the expression on his face during his press conference when he mentioned the 2010 election. By 2010 he will be 56, not particularly old in the scheme of things but certainly an age by which many politicians have retired one way or the other. When Don Dunstan resigned amid growing scandal from the SA premiership in 1979, looking ancient, sick and beaten, he was a year younger than Bracks is now.

The other thing is of course that everyone always wants to know ‘the story’, but big life changes, when made voluntarily, usually happen for a whole parcel of reasons, some of them quite different from each other but impossible to disentangle from the bundle one by one.