Latham may have set Labor up for victory

Later, when Rudd became leader, he branded himself an “economic conservative”, a clever way of presenting himself as a safe pair of hands on the economy. Soon afterwards, Swan and Julia Gillard would also dub themselves with the economic conservative tag, in an effort to neutralise the issue of the economy. Labor had learned from its 2004 mistake, and in doing so blunted the Howard government’s biggest electoral weapon.

Second, Labor deliberately avoided adopting policy stances which would preach to the converted, rather than appeal to swinging voters. The forests policy and Medicare Gold, for instance, were unsuccessful in appealing to undecided voters in 2004. As previously mentioned, the economy instead won out.

This can be contrasted with Kevin Rudd’s approach, which involved cleverly positioning Labor in the centre so that voters that lie somewhere between the two major parties swung towards Labor. Rudd picked his fights: instead of fighting with Howard on the Iraq War or the Indigenous intervention, as many in his party would have preferred, he ensured that industrial relations and climate change were the biggest policy area differences between the two sides. Since WorkChoices was so unpopular and climate change had gained increased importance, these were always going to be Labor winners.

Also important is the interest rates factor. In 2004, this issue was a major factor in favour of the Coalition. By 2007, after several subsequent interest rate rises, the electorate finally understood that interest rates have little to do with the government of the day. While surveys revealed that most voters did not blame the Howard government for the interest rate increases, the issue was an embarrassing loss of credibility for the government. Furthermore, many borrowers may have felt deceived by the government, and this would have contributed to the prevalent “it’s time” mood in the electorate.

Finally, there is an ironic twist involved in the magnitude of Latham’s defeat, particularly the fact that it resulted in control of the Senate being surrendered to the Coalition. It is undisputable that the Coalition could not have passed WorkChoices without its Senate majority.

While in the short term this was a disaster for Labor, it resulted in the party being given an invaluable electoral asset for the next election. As I have already explained, the opportunity was fully exploited by an Opposition desperate to win office after almost 12 years in the political wilderness. Its task would have been made a lot more difficult if the Coalition had not won by the margin it did in 2004.

So while Mark Latham may still be a hated man in the party he used to lead, he may in fact be its unsung hero, even if unintentionally. In the end, there are serious questions to be raised about whether Labor would have won the 2007 election without him.