Pearls and Irritations

History has too stately a progress to be the guide to tactics. But those who make history that does not fit logically into a pattern of principle, consistency and good judgment are doomed to stumble in the short term and earn the contempt of its core followers.

The size of the gambling industry, and its corrupting influence on sport and the Labor Party is a major public scandal. No one may mind a little wager on a race or a game. But the mechanisation and computerisation of gambling technology is such that Australians lose more money gambling than people in any other country. Millions are problem gamblers losing more than they can afford, with resulting poverty and misery as the money is diverted to pubs, clubs, professional sports and major media interests. These hire expensive lobbyists – most with solid Labor backgrounds — to protect and promote their interests. In parliament, backbenchers have called for controls over the industry’s attempts to recruit children into the industry. But institutional and factional Labor figures, including Anthony Albanese, are trying to water down the proposals. The happy enterprise may end up being the primary legacy of the Albanese government.

It is not as if there is a big stack of achievements to overshadow the extraordinary favours that the government has in mind. In the long run, leaders will be judged about how they used events to cause changes that were out of the mainstream of government.

The final judgment of history about John Howard may end up being about gun control and his response to refugee boats and to what happened in the US on 11 September 2001. On Kim Beazley, for what did not happen with the same events. On Kevin Rudd for his apology to the Stolen Generation. On Julia Gillard, perhaps, her misogyny speech – hardly recognised on the day it was given – and on her being the first woman prime minister. It might have been her action on climate change, were that not soon off the books.

Tony Abbott will be remembered, if at all, for knighting Prince Phillip, and Malcolm Turnbull for same sex marriage. Neither left any lasting change. Most of the judgment on Scott Morrison will be very harsh, particularly because of systemic corruption of proper constitutional government. But he may get some credit for his initial response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

It’s not about a record. It’s about character, temperament and purpose in power

In the making of judgments, historians, colleagues and enemies will be focused on character, and some appreciation of their nimbleness and capacity to adapt to circumstance. To move quickly to face threats from an opposite direction. To respond to unexpected change, including natural disaster or events abroad over which Australia, or its leaders had no control at all. How they influenced their colleagues and mobilised them to deal with the challenges of the moment. How they dealt with the resistance and sabotage – and arguments – of the opposition. How they managed conflict from supporters, and other parties, and lobbies. How they used carrots and sticks, and bluster and bluff to win arguments along the way. How they coped with established institutions, including the media. How they maintained public support, and the support of important groups in national decision-making processes. How they interacted with key groups of voters and maintained their confidence.

Ministers and prime ministers are mostly devoted to day-to-day administration of government functions. Some, like Albanese, are so absorbed in them that they are neither looking down much from the parapets to search for political opportunities properly suiting the government, nor traps being set up for them. They maintain a continuous low-level critique of the opposition, but behave as if they were the opposition, rather than the party of government. In doing so, they fail to use the use the benefits of incumbency, not least the administration as an ideas machine.

Others, like Scott Morrison and Julia Gillard, spent too much time on politics rather than policy, devising public relations stunts, announcements of little substance (soon betraying how threadbare they are) and statements generated more for their capacity to make the opposition uncomfortable than the promotion of a public agenda or public interest. Particularly from government, this soon exhausts the public appetite, increases cynicism about whether the leader really has a worthwhile agenda or is simply looking for headlines, fake fights and endless conflict, all things which turn voters off. Particularly when governments do not appear to be eager for real action on matters of substance, or which pose risk.

Voters expect new governments to do something. Not to be paralysed by fear

Voters want sound and “responsible” government. But they install parties and throw others out because they expect and want change, not merely continuity under new management. The very idea of parties involves different philosophies, policies and programs designed to advance the ideas and convictions the parties represent. The parties have different schools for training their men and women for government. They should at the least understand the key points of difference.

If elections were merely a beauty contest, or a charisma competition, parties would choose different leaders. These might not always be better ones, from the point of view of promoting interests in Government or developing policy. But the very idea of political battle involves voters having a good sense of what the parties and their leaders stand for and the broad approach they will bring to bear on problems of Government. As the entry of Kamala Harris into the American presidential campaign has shown, new leaders imply new points at which voters are invited to divide. Most particularly, only a tiny fraction of a campaign is really about announced policies or election promises. Promises are a proffer of the flavour of Government in prospect: what is really on sale is the introduction of a character said to have a particular set of ideas, that will mean they will take a particular approach.

In the US, research suggests that most voters do not shop around for different parties, although they may shop closely to find out which of their own party they want. But they don’t much change parties. It does happen, but the overwhelming factor is how issues attractive in one party affect the vote among people already predisposed to vote for that party, provided they get off their bums and wander down to vote. If a candidate evokes no enthusiasm, people do show up. Sometimes, of course, people show up so as to vote against an opposition candidate whom they see as a threat to their interests. But generally, people adopt most of the views of the party with which they first identified.

It is difficult in an Australian context, particularly because of compulsory voting. But enthusiasm, excitement and engagement do make a difference, in both the campaigning and the results. Parties and leaders making heavy weather, caught out on detail, or unable to project a feel of character, lose votes. The better ones, particularly independents, gain them. Leaders who are not in a continuous dialogue with voters, explaining what they are doing and why, run a real risk that voters will feel they do not have enough information to make a proper assessment of character and temperament.

A good deal of the received wisdom of campaigns is wrong. Or could be. It is now often said that Bill Shorten failed in 2019 because he had an active, detailed and costed agenda of government. Like John Hewson’s Fightback in 1993, it is said that it left too many openings for the others to attack and nitpick. Better if one fights on a narrow front, and with broad pictures – often mere slogans – rather than a well understood agenda for government.

Dutton is actually a big, and very vulnerable, target. Even if he has only two policies

This is how Peter Dutton is campaigning. He’s actually a very big target, albeit with only two policies. And he’s vulnerable. He leaves voters in no doubt about where he stands on immigration, and his dislike of refugees from the Middle East. He has made a big stand, but with no detail other than an impossible timetable on nuclear power. He has as a Treasury spokesman a man almost inarticulate on policy, whether his own or the other side’s. That’s just as Dutton wants it. But he can’t escape questions forever. Unless, that is, the mainstream media goes into even deeper decline.

I do not believe that Shorten lost in 2019 because his agenda was too big or contained too much detail. One can make many criticisms of his campaign and the manner and presentation of specific campaign promises. But the real problem was not that voters did not want the policies or want a new government. It was that Shorten could not gain support because of doubts about his fitness for becoming prime minister. That may be unfair, particularly when one considers the character of those pitched against him. But that the doubts were raised, and continually reiterated with success that moved the opinion polls, suggests that the Coalition campaign was more professional – more ruthless – than the Labor campaign.

That result saw Albanese in the leadership. He has not been the subject of significant character attacks, at least ones that have dragged him backwards. But the Coalition was able to control him effectively because of what Albanese considered to be the lessons of 2019. He has focused on being a small target, and on not doing anything which offends or frightens anyone.

He limited his campaign promises, and tried to make a virtue of how limited they were, in adverse economic times. He was not asking for a mandate for a radically new, and more open and accountable, form of government, but seemed to be making a promise of a more conventional and honest form. On many of his campaign promises, particularly about anti-corruption legislation, he reneged, and is now entrenched in the view that open hearings are anathema. They might cause unfortunate conclusions to be drawn about some Labor mates, cronies and relations.

That’s not a decision he made from principle, otherwise he might have wound his promise back during the election campaign. It is already clear that Labor’s open-door policy with lobbyists creates all the opportunities available under the old regime. That’s assuming that the weakened, and reluctant, National Anti-Corruption Commission can be found to have any interest, desire or capacity to pursue bad behaviour. If, as the indications are, the commission proves inadequate for a job for which most of the nation voted, the fault will lie as much in the Albanese sabotage of the project as in the lack of leadership, or speed, by the commission.

The more successful Albanese is in watering down gambling reform, the more it will be lead in Labor’s saddle

The gambling advertising debate now is the last test of Labor character. And of Albanese’s character. The big end of town may want the Albanese concessions. There’s no evidence that the public does. Or should. That is an issue, like same-sex marriage or the Voice vote, outside the governing mainstream. It’s the sort of issue, unlike any matter of economic management or outcomes in health, education, childcare, aged care, disability care or social welfare, which will be regarded as a landmark of Albanese government.

But, like the Voice vote, (which has led to a shameful retreat from decades of Labor promises to Indigenous Australians), it might not be a matter of success. It might be a story of noble plans being nobbled. A grinding negotiation which showed how vulnerable Labor is to Labor lobbyists acting for anti-Labor figures. Which works for compromise rather than the establishment of a principle. Which has been tied to the commercial protection of major media moguls, people to whom neither the Labor Party nor the general electorate owes anything. All that is reinforced is an image of Labor being in thrall to vested interests. The Albanese ministry wants to limit the damage done to an industry that preys on children and the poor – the true Labor constituency.

The public should see the outcome as an inevitable consequence of the corrupt relationships between Labor and the gambling industry, and its pathetic, but inevitably doomed, efforts to suck up to media moguls. Even assuming that it is not the sort of matter with which the NACC would want to hold limited and unaccountable closed hearings, the stench from Labor in Government, and on its timid leader, can only increase.

I do not believe that Dutton should be allowed to escape close questioning and the demand for detail on his policies. But he has little incentive to be frank. Already polling has shown that a majority of voters think Dutton and the Coalition are more competent and capable than the unambitious Albanese government on the cost of living, the economy, energy, defence, and, amazingly, Labor issues such as education. And immigration, of course. What a tribute to Labor’s record, and its moral leadership. What’s the point of it all?

Share and Enjoy !

SHARE TWEET SHARE COPY EMAIL PRINT