Beazley can't crow too loud about the Aston by-election result

This is not an isolated blunder. In the days after the Federal Budget Labor’s spokesman Simon Crean frequently said, "When we are in government we will…". In another incident on the tally room floor in Brisbane on the night of the last Queensland election, senior Labor backbencher, Kevin Rudd was claiming that the Beattie’s victory proved that Labor was the natural party of government.

This was an on-going theme of the Hawke and Keating years. That Labor holds all but one state government must reinforce it. Taken together they indicate that Labor may be slightly delusional. That they believe the electorate made a mistake in electing John Howard and that they will wake-up this election and put Labor back into their rightful place. If so, then it increases the chances that they will mismanage expectations and be rejected as being arrogant, out of touch, and taking the electorate for granted.

It also increases the chances that the electorate will demand that Kim Beazley actually release some substantive policy well before the election period. Afterall, if he is going to win the election, they will want to know what he is going to do. If he releases too much policy he then runs the risk that the next election will become a referendum on what he will do in government rather than what Howard has done.

Expectations management is not confined just to politicians. Pundits also practice this art, but for different reasons. Those of us who forecast don't get rewarded so much for being right, as for being more right than our peers. If you think that Peter Beattie may win an election in a landslide, but your peers think it will be close, then to be regarded as good you don’t need to pick a landslide, just a comfortable win. While picking the landslide will increase your reputation, it won’t do it in proportion to the additional risk you are taking in making the prediction, so you play percentages.

Pundits also manage expectations when they are wrong, which is what appears to be happening with the minor party vote in Aston. If there is one certain loser out of Aston it is Natasha Stott Despoja, but you wouldn’t know it from the commentary, because most of us have invested reputation in supporting her challenge to Meg Lees’ leadership. To admit that the Democrats performance was poor with only 8% of the vote seems to undermine that call and devalue those reputations. On the evidence of Ryan the Dems would not have done as well if Lees had still been in control. That is easy to assert, but how do you prove it?. Better to claim a good result and let the Democrats trundle on to the next election with their prospects perhaps boosted by your analysis that the result was good.

The Democrats need to critically analyse their performance. I think their product is still basically good, but their campaign was damaged by poor marketing. What does their slogan "Change Government" actually mean? Is "change" an adjective or a verb? Is the slogan an exhortation to vote Labor so as to change the government, or are they improbably claiming that they could become the government? Are they talking about a new type of government with the phrase being used in the sense of "change management". And if it is being used in this sense, how secure does this make the many people feel who have been "change managed" out of the workforce. Presumably the Democrats are talking about changing the substance of government itself, but why would anyone see a party that has been around for 25 years and been part of the system as a catalyst for that?

The essence of good political marketing is to keep your message simple, clear and believable while providing a clear "what’s in it for me" benefit. "Change Government" fails the test dismally. If the Democrats stick with it they are in trouble. They survived last federal election by running on racial tolerance and balancing Hanson. Balance, not change, is their role in life.

Aston also shows that, contrary to Bob Brown’s assertions, green issues are not biting with urban voters. The Greens should also be disturbed that the Democrats have moved decisively ahead of them. Aston is also problematic for independents. Garry Scates, as a local government identity, was the best placed to do well, but only won 4.6% of the vote. However, the decline in both the Liberal and Labor vote indicates discontent is there to be harvested, but perhaps not in dormitory suburbs. One Nation didn’t do well, but then they have never done well in Victoria and would have been better off not to have run at all.

The Bass by-election 26 years ago signalled the end of the Whitlam Government. After the Ryan by-election commentators thought it might do the same for Howard. Aston should have changed this perception that Howard will definitely lose, and that paradoxically creates a problem for him. If people think he is more likely to win they are less likely to vote for him. I am sure Howard can’t believe his luck that Beazley is doing his best to reverse perceptions. That could help to polish up Howard's underdog status. As a result Aston may well go down in history as the by-election which signalled the survival of the Howard Government. Only 161 more sleeps until Christmas, and by then, we should all know. Don’t expect too much.