Going Nowhere Without Credibility
Sydney Morning Herald
Friday May 23, 2008
One of Malcolm Turnbull's best lines in critiquing the first Rudd budget was that it is a case of "Morris Iemma comes to Canberra". This instantly conjures the full horror of the NSW Labor Government in all its rotten, dysfunctional incompetence. And it reminds everyone that that nice man, Kevin Rudd, is actually a part of the same crew that produced the nightmare in NSW.
But Turnbull's line conveys more than he intended. Because one of the outstanding characteristics of NSW Labor is that it gets away with it. Why? Because the Opposition has not been a credible alternative. Bob Carr, Morris Iemma and the entire NSW experience demonstrate that a government can get away with absolutely anything - so long as the alternative is not a credible one. This puts the onus back, squarely, onto Turnbull and his colleagues in the Coalition. Yes, Malcolm, Labor federally could do exactly what NSW Labor has done - entrench itself unless you and the rest of your team are a credible alternative. The budget should have been a turning point. It was the moment when the Rudd Government was forced to switch currency. Until budget night, Rudd was trading on the gossamer coin of emotionalism, flowing from the endless printing press of Kevinite symbolism. But on budget night, a government is forced to deal in the harder coin of finite tax revenue. It is forced to make choices, and each time it chooses one cause over another, it inevitably alienates someone. It is the moment when the true, inner character of a government is exposed. Yet instead of a searching analysis of Rudd's quarter-trillion-dollar moment of truthful political accounting, we got from the Opposition an offering reminiscent of the way Paul Keating once described Wilson Tuckey's head: "Like a swallow's nest - all mud and sticks." We had a frantic flip-flopping from Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull who, having warned us gravely of the dangers of excessive Labor spending cuts, then warned us with equal gravity of the danger of the exact opposite. We had a smug "told-you-so" from Peter Costello. Next we had a populist policy gimmick from Nelson's budget reply, a 5-cent cut in petrol excise. We had a leaked email to demonstrate that Turnbull thought the excise idea was, in fact, bad policy. And we had a petty public squabble from the king and queen of South Australian Liberal politics, Nick Minchin and Alexander Downer, over whether Downer was leaving politics or not. So, when the voting public should have been hearing the first serious critique of Rudd's first budget, what we heard was, instead, the Opposition talking about itself. Kevin Rudd cannot believe his luck. Turnbull's address to the National Press Club on Wednesday was the first hard, rigorous examination of the Rudd budget. But, because of the Liberal Party follies that preceded it, the main point of news interest was whether he would defend his leader's silly act of petrolism. What should the Liberals have said? What should they be saying now? This is the way the deputy leader, Julie Bishop, put it to me yesterday: "The budget shows that, in their heart of hearts, Labor is still clinging to the old politics of envy, class warfare and socialist theory. "They are bringing back into federal politics the notion of who is rich and who is not. 'If you earn $180,000 you are rich so you are in the top tax bracket. If you earn $150,000 you are rich so you don't qualify for the baby bonus. If you earn $100,000 you are rich so you have to pay the Medicare levy surcharge. If you want to buy a car that sells for $57,000 you are rich because you want that sort of a car and you have to pay higher excise.' "Their instinct is always to move to the socialist left. They joined the Labor Party because they believed in socialism. But socialism has failed worldwide so they have to pretend they believe in something else. Name one MP in the Rudd Government who joined Labor because they believed in Labor as the party of economic conservatives." This critique then creates the opportunity for the Liberals to set out their alternative, to create a contrast. "The battle of ideas is just starting - again," Bishop declares. The Coalition faces a tough task. When Rudd took the Labor leadership with soaring approval figures, this was widely dismissed as an inevitable honeymoon, a temporary state of bliss which would soon fade. It did not. Rudd's strong approval numbers carried him all the way to a decisive victory. But then, after being installed as Prime Minister, it was widely considered that his honeymoon would quickly taper, especially after a budget which has upset several constituencies. But it has not. This week's Herald poll, taken after the budget, showed Rudd to be the second most popular prime minister we have had in the 36-year history of the Nielsen poll series. His approval rating is 69 per cent. The highest rating Gough Whitlam managed was 62 per cent; Malcolm Fraser's best was 56; Paul Keating's was 40; John Howard peaked at 67. The only leader to rate higher than Rudd was Bob Hawke with 75 per cent, and it took him more than a year and a half in power to get there. Rudd's overwhelming popularity is the dominant reality of Australian politics today. He seems to be on an endless honeymoon and the Opposition should not count on it fading. But Rudd does have big problems. Here are three. First, the country is still in an inflationary breakout and the budget did nothing to help tame it. The Reserve Bank is braced to raise rates yet again to contain it. And, as Turnbull says, "the next interest rate rise, Rudd owns". Second, Rudd has created the expectation that he can somehow bring down grocery prices, petrol prices and mortgage rates. If this expectation is not met. he faces the risk of a voter backlash. And third, on what platform will Rudd campaign at the next election? You can only be fresh the first time around. Rudd has yet to find a winning narrative, and this is already engaging the minds of some party strategists. But, if the Opposition cannot be credible and disciplined, Rudd's problems will be unimportant. The Morris Iemma model of surviving disasters intact will have triumphed, but only if the Liberal Party lets it.
© 2008 Sydney Morning Herald