There seems little doubt that the primary reason Labor lost the last election was voters’ disgust with the tiresome leadership struggle. This ever present theme distracted from any real debate (on either side of politics) about the big issues, about what policy an incoming Government should build to address those issues.
Rudd, ever popular with the people, apparently had a leadership style that failed to bring his close team along: hence the 2010 “coup”. His reinstatement was just to “save the furniture”.
Gillard, apparently a smart thinker, negotiator, and leader of her close team, failed in her communication with the voters: in the end they just stopped listening. We only ever got a rare glimpse of the “real Julia”.
Abbott devoted all his energy to attack. He saw the political weakness created by the Rudd v Gillard struggle, and rode to victory by exploiting the electorate’s disgust.
And the real losers out of all this? Us.
The electorate lost intellectual leadership from those elected to govern and those elected to oppose. Policy debate was overshadowed by slogans and personal attacks. By TV “news” soundbites and extraordinary prejudice on talk-back radio and the tabloid press.
Now Abbott is in Government. We are quickly learning that there are indeed promises that are “core” and others that are “non-core”. That little that was said in the heat of the election campaign battle meant anything. That policy thinking is very fuzzy.
And so we have a long series of issues that has the electorate scratching it’s head.
- Would getting rid of the carbon tax make any of the punters better off after all? And if it won’t, perhaps we had, after all, be doing something about pricing carbon pollution?
- Is the small flow of wretched refugees in boats enough of a problem to wreck the relationship with Indonesia?
- Is it wise to offend China by siding unquestioningly with the USA?
- Is debt such a problem after all? (It is of course, but you wouldn’t think so reading what Hockey has been really saying since elected.)
- Why do we now need more delay in improving education funding? Wasn’t the “unity ticket” a core promise?
- If the budget emergency is so bad, why are we giving money back to the mining companies? Surely they can afford to contribute a bit more to the correction of inequality?
- and so on the list goes …
Small wonder that the first polls show that the new Government has already thrown away it’s political capital …
So, the Rudd v Gillard battle created the leadership and policy void. And it created Abbott in that mould.
The legacy of all three is a serious decline in political leadership and quality policy making. With Abbott going the way he is, it looks like we are stuck with that legacy for a while yet.
something 2 ponder 
Excellent pondering Geoff. I am wondering how are we going to get the quality back into the political arena where we get statesmanship and forward thinkers tackling issues that do matter? The success of Abbott political strategy as an echo from Howard’s time in office where little of consequence was undertaken (except the introduction of the broad based consumption tax). The size of the PM’s personal staff grew enormously and we experienced the introduction of the “executive style” of Prime Ministership. Managing the daily soundbite became far more important than involving oneself in policy debate and long term thought. Risky little things those policies!!
Rudd seemed to me to continue this trend. I feel Gillard did try to return the national debate to policy. One could certainly argue that as a minority government she actually did quite well on policy reform with a medium term focus. As you point out she lost the daily sound bite battle. This should be something we lament.
The recent ponderings you have made on inequity in society generally and the extreme influence of the super rich is also a problem we experience in Australia. Particularly evident in the last election where we had Rupert cease any pretext of having his organisation reporting on news or politics and turn himself into a vicious marketing arm of the right wing opinion. Items that ran as editorial would not have passed a advertising standards review for accuracy let alone be regarded as reasonable or balanced Journalism. This problem of the aligned press is one that i think needs a lot more pondering…….
I agree with this comment and would be inclined to take your point about the press even further. The Gillard government was never given a chance to be heard on policy issues because the press was absolutely fixated with Rudd’s undermining of Gillard. This wasn’t just the Murdoch media, it included the Sydney Morning Herald (Peter Hartcher was/is still obsessed with it) and the ABC (when did they start employing idiots like Latika Bourke?) It was only when the Guardian showed up (sadly too late) that we started to get some quality political commentary and reportage. I agree with Colin – the Gillard government did extremely well for a minority government – many important pieces of legislation passed, and I hold the media largely responsible for the public’s ignorance about this.
Great writing Geoff!
Helen O’Callaghan
Geoff – this article, along with other indeed are getting the pondering going…
It is distressing to see the level of political debate that is happening in Australia, particularly as a non-resident where I read the Australian press, then also the international press and the pieces that they choose to report on about Australia. Our parliament has been reduced to a college dorm room debate club with a 6 drink minimum… does that really show our kids, or the world, how we, a diverse, multicultural, young, wonderfully privileged nation choose to engage in respectful, important, life changing and thoughtful debate over polices that will effect millions of people both domestically and internationally … or will it feature in the final 30 seconds of the news when they show the collage of bloopers for the day, or even just in the entertainment section along side the latest news about the Kardashian sisters?
It seems our “successful” politicians for the most part are the most savvy politicians, they rise to the top by navigating the murky corridors of back room politics, press management, damage mitigation and opportunistic ridicule of opponents rather than, as Colin stated, true leaders, visionaries and statesmen. Hence, I think you have to ask do you trust our elected leadership to make very difficult decisions, not because it’s popular, you might even personally disagree, you might be personally “worse off”, but because you trust that the population is being represented, its not being done for short term political gain or reelection.
If the current (or past government, it doesn’t matter) came up with a facts based proposal to make spending cuts, raise taxes and refuse to allow the current generation to create many more lifetimes of debt for the coming generations to pay for, would there be any consensus, would our own selfishness and lifestyle be willing to accept that and maybe even vote for it? I believe that it is too easy to point the finger at others… perhaps the politics truly is a reflection of voter attitude and the apathy shown (especially by the silent majority) that this behavior is acceptable and an attitude that change is fine, as long as it does not effect me.
Just a ponder…
I’m no expert but I reckon this is a pretty accurate summation of the state of our federal politics. Agree also with the comments about the media’s role. Scoundrels.