Winning five elections may be an ask too far

A second reason why 2007 is not 2004 revisited, is that Kevin Rudd is not Mark Latham. Latham just scared the pants off voters. I have written previously in On Line Opinion on what I believe opposition leaders need to do to have their best chance of getting elected (using, in that instance, a West Australian election as a case study), and everything I see in Mark Latham and Kevin Rudd confirms my views.

Voters judge opposition leaders much more harshly and with much less tolerance than the incumbent leader, and so far Rudd has managed to operate largely within this narrow band.

Opposition leaders have to be seen to be safe, capable and with perhaps a few good, but not scary, ideas. They never (or rarely; maybe and only maybe a case for Whitlam) “sweep” or “muscle” their way into office. Boring I know, but boring has worked for Howard up to now and it is working just fine for Rudd.

My final point is simply that winning five elections, if history is any guide, is nearly always an ask too far. Put simply, the “cost of government” just wears governments down.

Yes, I know this is the era of the incumbent, due largely to risk-averse voters not wanting to upset the economic apple-cart, but in the end voters will weary of a government. Are they simply sick of the sight of John Howard? Maybe that is the message in the polls over the last 12 months? Relaxed and comfortable can look like yesterday’s man very quickly. Nothing personal, John, perhaps is their message, but a fresh face on the box would be nice.

My intention in this article is not to predict who will win the 2007 election but rather to challenge the orthodox thinking that we are in some sort of ground-hog cycle where at every election a wily John Howard pulls a victory out of the hat. Opinion polls have their uses and their failings, but in this instance I think they help tell a story: this election is not a foregone conclusion and has not been for some considerable time.