That one’s been used – damn.
In 2004, prime minister John Howard’s personal standing in the electorate had nosedived, in part thanks to the muscular new “cut-through” opposition leader. In particular, lots of voters believed he habitually lied to avoid responsibility, and that you couldn’t trust what he said.
So he reclaimed the word “trust” and turned it into “who do you trust to run the economy?” – interest rates in particular. The rest, as they say …
In 2010, can Kevin Rudd reclaim his Achilles’ heel? Running on ”waffle” doesn’t work, and nor does “this election will be about gutlessness”. Those words are unsalvageable.
But all elections are about the 2004 Howard version of “trust”, whether the word is used or not. And no matter how loathed the incumbent, they all turn on how “safe” the opposition is.
Update: it belatedly occurs that the most applicable version would be “This election will be about courage.” Something like “the courage to stand up for all Australians, against sectional interests [read big miners etc], the courage to keep us out of recession, to change your mind when the facts change …”
Hmm, a bit risky.
Peter, do you subscribe to the adage that governments lose elections rather than oppositions win them?
Maybe “gutlessness” can be morphed into “I listen to the people and admit it when I’m wrong”??
“This election is about LISTENING.”
All elections are about a safe opposition not loathing of incumbent?
Does Fraser in 1975 test that thesis? He crashed through the constitution in a way that made Whitlam seem sedate. But you might argue that ’safe/trust’ focuses on a sense of economic welfare or national security, rather than questions of process.
Graeme, Fraser was incumbent in 1975. Not being pedantic: he enjoyed the benefits of incumbency, the legitimacy of being (caretaker) PM, and of the governor general sacking the other guy!
Let me rephrase: it is about loathing of incumbent and safeness of opposition.
Are you better off than you were 3 years ago?
If its purly governments losing as opposed to oppositions winning, how do we explain what has occured in NSW and QLD over the past 10 years. These governments have hardly given the public an reason to retain them…
The thought process for changes in government generally go in three stages:
1. Has the govt been in too long or are they incompetent? If yes, go to no.2, if no there’s no change of govt.
2. Is the opposition leader and party a viable alternative? If, yes go to no.3, if no, there’s no change of govt
3. How do the respective leaders, parties and policies compare?
Then the decision is made.
Now clearly points 2 and 3 do impact on point 1, it’s not as clear cut as all that, but it’s a good guide.
In this instance, longevity is not an issue, but competence might be argued.
The alternative is not really viable, certainly at this stage.
On the policy front, it’s very mixed.
When you strip away all the shrill and hyperbole, the Rudd govt has made errors and has disappointed the public, but that is not enough to have them booted out.
My view is that the most likely result is that ALP will be returned +/- 5 seats (of the original 83) . More probability on the minus side than the plus.
My prediction:
Tony Abbott will bring back Turnbully in a senior role some time in the next 30 days, shades of Latham bringing Bomber back in the weeks before 2004.
Aristotle, this is what we keep hearing in NSW and QLD, the opposition is not “viable”. At what point does the incompetence of the existing government tip the balance towards the alternative cant possibly be any worse. I think we’ve seen the result of this in these states, and a mirror image is about to happen federally. The writing is on the wall with regards to competance of the existing government… yet this viable opposition thing needs to be defined.
Surely considering the opposition that has a good chunk of the party left that ran the country with probably less policy failures in 12 years than Rudd has incurred in 2 years, should get some kind of credit on the viability front?
If “viability” is now defined as what Rudd did in 2007, this should be used as a guide for future oppositions. Promise loads of stuff you have no intention or capability to deliver, easy.
Back to Peters point, I think the trust thing will come out here, the thing is Howard had at least some points on the board to back it up. Other than an appology, a signature and $900 bucks each, what collatoral has Rudd got to work with on the trust front?
lindswiggo,
I assume you are talkng about the state oppositions in NSW and QLD.
In NSW I don’t see that view at all. O’Farrell will win easily next year, unless for some stupid reason his party knifes him as they did with Brogden.
I’m not in QLD and its a long way from the next election, but there’s little doubt the unviability of that oppostion last year was a big reason for its loss.
As for the federal ooposition being seen as viable because of its record in govt, none of the senior ministers are there. Howard, Costello, Downer, Minchin.
Abbott, Hockey and Bishop were not senior ministers, they were perceived as light weights and the little they have done in opposition has not changed that perception.
Ah Peter, you reason like a lawyer. Fraser was no incumbent; at most he was caretaker, and he suffered from illegitimacy from day one. But Whitlam was soon remembered, as the campaign reached the pointy end, as the untrusted incumbent.
I don’t mean to be cute. Obviously ‘75 was highly unusual. But it does challenge your thesis: Fraser played a reckless hand but came up roses.
It reminds me most of Keating’s “leadership” campaign of 1996, to be honest. It’s the campaign you run when you don’t have anything better to run with.
It’s desperation stuff and will only resonate at all with the hardest core of “true believers”. Rudd’s definitely going to be a one-termer if this is all the ALP can come up with.
Aristotle,
That doesnt answer the question though as to how incomptent does a government have to be before the electorate feels the alternative cant be any worse??
Your right in NSW the government will change, but its only because the incompetence thing has gotten to breaking point. Realistically its been entirly evident to all and sundry for the last 8 years.
QLD is no different. Everyone whinges about the incompetence that we’ve seen for the last 10 years, but when it comes round to election time we expect to oppositon to perform magic tricks or somthing. Its like we expect an oppositon to perform at spectaularly higher levels than we hold incompetent incumbents to account.
Yet we saw somthing different in 2007, a relitivly successful long term government was booted out on the back of one issue. It seems rather bizarre when compared to whats happend in NSW and QLD for the past 20 years.
Regarding the light weights in the opposition you refer to, I’d argue that at least their light weight experience was gained as part of successful government. You never know they might actually know somthing about successful policy implementation, wouldnt that be a change. The majority of the current governments ministers have hardly been shining stars in comparison. Once again I’ll refer to my first point, would the alternative be any worse than what we have?
I guess im just seeing some inconsitancies here when we try to say that its always governments that lose as opposed to oppositions that win.
Pat Hills (at top): I would instead say governments wear out their welcome, and then if oppositions don’t stuff it up they win.
Graeme (three up): allow me to put it with more nuance and understatement Professor Lawyer: having the governor-general sack the incumbent and install you in their stead does bestow a degree of legitimacy that oppositions can’t usually enjoy.
Can’t argue with that?
If Abbott did bring back Turnbull, he would bring economic credibility to the Shadow Treasury position (which is sorely lacking under Hockey). I doubt, however, that Turnbull would serve so closely under Abbott.
Peter, I will (and not just because we law-types are trained to argue needlessly!)
You have slipped from ’safe’ to ‘legitimate’, when you could argue Fraser only had to be seen as less unsafe than Whitlam and his recklessness was about process not first order issues of competence. (Or you could just borrow the legal jargon and say 1975 was ’sui generis’, out on its own, barely even an exception to your rule.)
Fraser’s government suffered from perceptions of illegitimacy not legitimacy. These poisoned Kerr’s office (hence his plans to resign in 75 and 77 if Labor won). Far from gaining kudos at being ‘caretaker’, Fraser lost ground in the early opinion polls. His commission (to hurry through supply then order an election) lent him no gravitas.
Yet… Fraser’s recklessness was seen to have paid off in the sense that he outsmarted Whitlam and won the fight over when the election would be. ‘Legitimacy’ might include an opposition leader crashing through, affirming his ’strong man’ image – a legitimacy borne of raw political robustness. But I doubt that’s your meaning. It’d be the opposite of any normal idea of a ’safe’ opposition.
Funnily enough there is a whiff of Fraser’s tactics in Abbott’s bellicose approach and incessant ‘incompetent’ refrain to tearing down Rudd.