The electoral objective of a political party is to win or retain government. This is not the highest aim of a party. Good, competently administered, and visionary programs that uphold human dignity, support individual freedom and assist the nation to be secure and prosper are the reasons why government should be sought. But in purely electoral terms, winning or retaining government is the key objective.
Sometimes this is impossible, due to the competence and popularity of the opposing party, or the travails of one’s own. In these circumstances, the secondary objective of a political party is to not lose badly.
This is because election swings are usually small in Australia’s preferential voting system. A party rarely obtains the landslide witnessed in first-past-the-post nations. However, the cumulative loss of seats in successive elections makes the task of winning again more difficult. An average swing at a subsequent election may be insufficient to achieve victory because of the cumulative deficit of seats.
Eight months ago, even the second objective appeared heroic for the Coalition. Polling in the second half of 2009 suggested that the Liberal and National parties would lose 20 seats, placing government out of reach for a decade or more.
To have turned around that situation in less than a year is a remarkable achievement. Many critics had written off the Coalition after Tony Abbott became leader, arguing that he would lead the Coalition to political oblivion.
Many of the same critics now argue that Labor’s loss of a majority was due to factors associated almost entirely with the government, including Kevin Rudd’s declining popularity and political execution, and the subsequent – ongoing - infighting in the ALP.
For a media obsessed with the theatrics of politics, and with an inclination to treat politicians as celebrities, this is understandable. But these are not the things that influence ordinary Australians. It also misses a significant part of the story about what happened this year.
Of all the factors that lead to political change, three are enduring.
The first is the competence of the government and the effectiveness of the Opposition in pointing out its faults and failings. Unity and discipline are important on both sides. As much has been written about the Labor government’s incompetence, I will concentrate on the Opposition.
Shaped by the experience of the Howard Cabinet, Tony Abbott, as leader, promised his colleagues from the outset to be collegial. He selected a shadow cabinet that reflected the cross-section of the Party. He turned to experienced colleagues. And he listened to candid advice from them.
He also knew that an Opposition must propound an alternative. That is not to oppose everything the government does, for no government is always wrong. The role of the Opposition is to consider any legislation the government proposes. It can support it or reject it. In doing so, it should set out its own principles as to why it believes the proposal is, or is not, in the national interest.
Some people believe that an Opposition should seek to improve the government’s legislation. Hence the expression ‘governing from Opposition’. The problem with this approach is that it can involve the Opposition compromising its own principles, and often sending a mixed message to the community.
Much commentary has focussed on the success of this first task, with the popularity of Kevin Rudd in freefall in response to the Coalition’s clear policies on the ETS and the mining tax; the panicked response from his colleagues; and Julia Gillard’s subsequent rush to an election before obtaining the advantage of incumbency. But this alone didn’t result to the loss of a majority by Labor. In 1998, 2001 and 2004, the then Coalition government was also trailing significantly in the polls, but remained disciplined and united, and was re-elected.
Abbott’s appeal as an ordinary Australian bloke and family man, and his plain-speak compared to Gillard’s slogans, were factors, as were the second and third key issues that are crucial for a good electoral result.
Electoral change requires a credible alternative as well as a tired or unpopular government. This means alternative policies, an alternative platform and vision.
Beginning with Julie Bishop heading policy development, and then continuing under myself and Andrew Robb, the Coalition over three years engaged in the arduous, time-consuming, and little remarked-upon task of reviewing all its policies. This involved countless meetings with shadow ministers and backbench committees, openness to new ideas, a rigorous criterion for the acceptance or rejection of proposals, and a disciplined expenditure review process.
Proposals were not automatically accepted because they came from a former Cabinet Minister, or rejected because they were suggested by a new backbencher. Rather they were judged on their merits in meeting the challenges facing Australia.
As Robert Menzies once observed, good politics reflect good policies. For years, we watched various State Opposition parties fail to develop and argue policies. The pattern repeated itself time and again. The new Opposition would spend a term bemoaning its loss, often suggesting that it had been robbed of the election.
There would be an assumption that falling popularity would eventually cause the government to lose. While true in the long run, it usually meant that the Coalition remained in opposition for many more years than it would have been otherwise.
As Menzies said: “Opposition gives more time for study and thought. It must be regarded as a great constructive period in the life of a party; properly considered, not a period in the wilderness, but a period of preparation of the high responsibilities which you hope will come.”
Thirdly, the direction of the economy always is significant. The former Labor Member for Port Adelaide, Rod Sawford, propounded a theory first developed by his grandfather to explain the outcome of Australian elections. Briefly it relies on three major economic indicators: unemployment, inflation and interest rates.
If two or more of these indicators fell over the electoral cycle, the government was returned. If two or more rose, the government was defeated.
Since the 2007 election, unemployment has risen but interest rates have fallen. The third indicator, inflation, is slightly higher than it was at the previous election. This predicted a very close election, regardless of who was the Prime Minister.
A faltering government; a politically confident, policy-driven opposition; and uncertain economic conditions remain the enduring factors in political change. They also reveal why the recent election was so close.
Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day
Get The Punch on Facebook
Facebook Recommendations
Read all about it
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision
The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision
Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses
Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…
Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this
Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…
Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?
ClubsNSW is set to introduce a fresh new effort to combat schoolyard intimidation, insisting on a principal’s…
Nosebleed Section
choice ringside rantings
From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
Michael S says:
"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone
Change Up! says:
I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]Gentle jabs to the ribs
They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more
Most commented