Only two of Australia's twenty-five prime ministers -- Robert Menzies and Bob Hawke -- have won more than three elections. The scale of what the Liberals are attempting isn't underestimated by anyone -- least of all by John Howard himself. Menzies and Hawke fought Oppositions that were in turmoil. Howard's achievement is particularly impressive given that he has confronted an ALP that has been relatively united.
Failure to win a fourth term will be disappointing for him but it won't erase the fact that he has been one of three of Australia's most significant leaders of recent decades.
In the 1970s he conceived the policies of economic reform pursued by Labor in the 1980s -- Keating as Treasurer implemented them -- and Hawke as prime minister allowed them to be implemented.
Howard has not yet achieved every part of his vision. Whether more substantial reforms to the tax or industrial relations system would have been worth the risk of a double dissolution election will be the great "what if" of his prime ministership.
For Howard to continue to pursue his agenda he must win the 2004 federal poll. What is required? He must do three things -- the first is tactical, the second and third are strategic.
First, the Coalition must make Labor a small target. This might sound strange as it is usually assumed that it is the Opposition that decides how big a target it wants to be. In 1993 John Hewson presented a big target, and in 2001 Beazley a small one. Neither was successful. If either had adopted the opposite strategy they probably would have won.
A Government can have a huge impact on how an Opposition is perceived. In 1993 it was in Keating's interests to highlight the supposedly radical nature of the Coalition's policies. In 2001 it was in Howard's interests to stress the absence of Labor policies in an uncertain world environment. During the first few months of his leadership Mark Latham captured the public's imagination because he presented new ideas in an interesting way. In the last few months Latham has been quiet as he has struggled to turn his ideas into policy and the Coalition has regained the initiative.
Howard's response to the ALP's complaints about politicians' entitlements was a masterstroke. Overnight Labor ceased to provide an alternative. Similarly the budget to neutralise the issue of tax cuts for the middle class. Howard must portray Latham as without alternative policies. When there's no alternative people will vote for what they know.
Second, the Coalition must provide something for everyone. This does not mean taxpayers' funds should be doled out to every industry and community group that demands money. What it does mean is that to win the Government must get the votes of groups other than those it has traditionally favoured. Support from families with children and the elderly certainly is important. But more people are now living alone than ever before. In a decade there will be more couples without children, than with children. Singles, and couples without children have so far been ignored in the tax debate. This is a question that goes beyond how to deal with an ageing population. How political parties respond to demographic and lifestyle changes is obviously a major challenge. The significance of this issue for the Coalition is that being in government provides the resources for it to develop and enunciate policies on these matters. And this is related to the third thing the Coalition must do to win in 2004.
Howard must provide a reason why people should vote for him. This is so obvious that it is usually forgotten. He has a great capacity to present a vision of the nation and society. But because it is a vision disliked by most in the media his skill in this regard is either belittled or ignored. In 1996 and 1998 the circumstances demanded a vision and he offered one. During the 2001 campaign because of what had occurred a few weeks before he only had to convey a sense of stability. In 2004 in the absence of another literally epoch-defining event Howard is again required to tell Australia of his vision.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment