Signs the dynasty is dying

In 1998, 2001 and 2004, Labor got barely 40% of the vote. It did not even bother engaging with the Liberals on the economy and certainly did not go after Howard in any notable way. The Liberals raised Keating's interest rate bogy periodically, making it the focus of their campaign in 2004. The key feature about Liberal advertising was that it both reinforced a strong pro-government message (who can forget 'we will decide who comes into this country') and a strong anti-opposition message on the economy, and that anti-opposition message returned the voter's thinking to the Liberals' economic credentials. In Latham's case, the highly personal campaign tapped into the inherent volatility detected in his character.

This campaign they tried it again. It lasted five minutes before Rudd launched a guerilla reposte ridiculing it first on YouTube and then national television. It was a tired idea which was so predictable Rudd's counter looked like it had been produced after the attack ad. Having tried to attack Rudd, they are now ignoring his stratospheric presence and committing electoral suicide.

The Liberals' lack of an agenda is hurting them badly. Tax cuts are not an agenda, they are viewed in many quarters as a right. The Liberals have been caught out picking low-hanging fruit, seduced by the idea they can just take a chainsaw to a leader's character during a campaign. The only issue they can run on with surety is the economy, but...

there is an innate belief in Australia that the Liberals are better economic managers which makes it easy for the Liberals to tap into it. However, as Possum Comitatus noted this week, the economic primacy of the Liberals does not translate into votes. People assume that the Libs will manage the economy well, but people don't assume Labor will. Labor is viewed as the competent party for services and the Libs for the hard stuff. Ergo, if the Libs run a campaign solely on economic management, then it means they won't win. But, Liberal voters do vote for the better economic manager eight times out of ten, so it would be a good way to protect your base vote. Similarly, the union theme does not relate directly back to a government strength. Fears about union power are at historically low levels; after the Howard government's performance with Workchoices, only the most ardent supporter would agree unions were a risk.

The latest Galaxy Senate poll may point to an interesting side effect of the union fear campaign. Senate polls are temperamental beasts and the figures do suggest a very high Green vote. But one possibility is that vote-splitting is returning in the Senate. After the collapse of the Democrats and Latham Labor on 2004 gave the Coalition control of the Senate, a chastened electorate may hedge its bets. On the left, Rudd has consolidated a large chunk of Green voters behind him. They may still, however, be inclined to vote Green in the Senate, particularly if they are concerned about 'me-tooism'. On the right, former Liberal voters may be slightly spooked by the union-mongering (especially if they are first-time Labor voters) and want to ensure Rudd (or the unions) doesn't have unfettered power. If this is the result, it's quite possible that Labor's vote, while not as low as 33% in the Senate, certainly won't get anywhere near as high as in the House of Representatives.

In other news, Christian Kerr at Crikey is reporting that Brendan Nelson may have the numbers for the opposition leadership. This, despite the fact Kevin hasn't even vacated it yet.