The Rudd factor

It remains to be seen how far such trends will continue in Western nations, but the last thing Australia needed was a PM falsely accusing past governments, notably Howard’s, of having no regard for social compassion. OECD data indicated that both Labor and Coalition governments had adopted a policy mix which helped Australia’s level of income inequality remain similar from the mid-1980s to mid-2000s, whereas it worsened in 19 of 24 OECD countries measured.

Under Chairman Rudd, the great leader who supposedly opposed the past, it is remarkable just how recent trends remained similar. In terms of housing, prices were at record levels in 2010 at a time when rental prices were also increasing.

In terms of government relying on domestic consumption and private consumer debt, household debt to income ratio reached a record ratio of 157 per cent by March 2010 with housing alone 140 per cent.

While Rudd promised to stop Australia from becoming a quarry for Asia, more manufacturing jobs were lost and exports of iron ore and coal became even more important.

Rudd was “so disturbed” by the past he even appointed former Howard government ministers to positions of public importance, including Peter Costello.

If Rudd had any real guts in accordance to his supposed intellectual prowess, then he would have indicated that Australia (and other Western nations) were living beyond their means. But of course, why let a good story get in the way of truth and commit political suicide.

Even on the environment, the Rudd Labor government was a failure: Commonwealth environmental spending is projected to decline from a record $4.36 billion in 2007-08 to below $4 billion for the next three financial years. Of the Rudd Labor government’s projected level of $3.12 billion of environmental spending for 2009-2010, $1.13 billion was set aside for the disastrous insulation program.

It took time, but eventually Australians (and Labor) woke up to Rudd. Once Labor abandoned its ETS, the public had much less reason to believe Labor. If the Rudd government could not address the “greatest moral challenge of our time”, how was it going to address rising costs for housing and utilities, issues of immediate importance to many households. While many more voters voted for the Greens, many battlers returned to the Liberal Party, including in Sydney’s western suburbs.

By the time Rudd was dumped the damage had been done.

With many Australians no longer believing Labor after many broken promises and poor policy development, the Coalition rightfully sold a message that Labor did not deserve another term in office. Besides the odd major policy announcement, such as an extra $1.5 billion for mental health and generous paternity leave, Abbott barely had to move from his conservative platform.

Labor’s desperation, which saw matching the Coalition on asylum seekers and immigration, focused much on convincing Australians that Abbott would reintroduce WorkChoices and erode Australian working pay and conditions, arguably the most negative tactic of the 2010 election campaign.

The Rudd Labor government was one of the poorest federal governments due to its unfulfilled policy promises and wastage of resources.

And it was the Rudd factor that best explains the demise of Labor at the 2010 federal election. Sure, the Rudd government did have a number of policy achievements, but its level of rhetoric was so great it was never likely to deliver. Once the major policy backdowns occurred, it was all downhill for Labor.

Hopefully Labor has learned a valuable lesson. In these competitive economic times, rhetoric and false promises are indeed dangerous strategies.

While balancing idealism and realism is difficult, the Rudd government's policy record merely ensured a greater vote for the Greens.