Lessons from history

Newspoll's own pollsters are looking very nervous judging by the performance of Sol Lebovic at the Sydney Institute last night. Mr Lebovic had the body language of one of the hapless characters in Alien whose scanners had picked up the signs of an ominous presence but they couldn't see the monster coming.

He commented that he considered the ALP's poll figures were soft because he didn't detect the mood of visceral hatred in the community that augured the downfall of Keating and at the last few elections up to 10% of voters decided in the booth, while over a quarter didn't decide until the campaign. Methinks he has been seduced by the satisfaction conundrum - how can a PM who has been in power for a decade have a satisfaction rating in the forties or higher and yet be on the verge of being dumped by a seemingly unstoppable wave. This is just one part of the Howard mythology which blinds many of the commentariat to the fact that the times no longer suit honest John.

Howard's approval rating reflects how well he has done his job, not how well he will do it in the future. I happen to agree with Downer et al and their talk about competence being the test for government in Australia.

The problem for Howard is that he's gone from being the most competent economic manager in federal history to being regarded as no longer equipped to manage the economic future. Rudd, on the other hand, is not scaring the economic horses Latham-style. He passes basic competence 101 - he does not have either crazy economic policies such as Medicare Gold, or a frightening program such as Fightback. Howard's attempts to paint Rudd as irresponsible on climate change targets miss the point: people want action, it is inaction that is fatal here, putting the economy before the policy. The ALP has won two elections on environmental issues, including a massive victory in 1983, riding the wave of opposition to the Franklin Dam. It is about to win a third because unless it blocks the Tamar pulp mill, the government hasn't got a candle on environmental matters. The ALP is certainly several wicks short of a candelabrum, but it at least has some kind of belief and understanding on climate change. Whoever's running Howard's campaign should be shot because in two days they managed to generate both sympathy for Julia Gillard and give Peter Garrett the opportunity to sound passionate on the environment. It's almost as if one Newspoll went to their collective heads and they ran roughshod over common sense.

As with climate change, the hubris-laden overkill that is Workchoices demonstrates comprehensively how out of touch the Libs are, beholden to a lunatic fringe that believes in cutting job security and core conditions rather than serious economic reform.

Because the government has no future competence and has lost the ear of the people, it will lose provided there are no abnormal factors such as economic insecurity or terrorism to influence the vote. At the election, the choice is between Howard and Howard + fixing climate change and work choices.

As for this idea that this election is like 1998, 2001 and 2004, this is quite simply wrong. In all those elections, the ALP was not in the game as having economic credentials. The ALP's primary vote has averaged almost 47% for a year. It has not done that for 20 years. For the ALP to lose, it has to get fewer primary votes then it has in any poll (Newspoll's second poll taken after he was elected gave ALP 44%)taken since Rudd became leader.

The other thing is that in 2001, Howard had just resurrected his government by an outbreak of 'listening to the people'. Oh yes, and his Medicare advertising neutralised health somewhat as a hot button issue.

This election is 1996 redux - the primary vote ranges for government + opposition were:

1995-96 (Keating v Howard): ALP 34-43 ; Lib/Nat 46-53 (Result: 38.7 v 47)
2006-07 (Howard v Rudd): Lib/Nat: 34-41; ALP 44-52

Remember that's the primary vote, and given preferences favour ALP over Lib/Nats approximately 60-40, that would come close to cancelling out Howard's 2004 election buffer in his marginals. Hawke got 53.2% of the 2PP vote in 1983, a result Rudd would be more than happy with.