Prolix or antilix?
I am back from the family holiday in Tasmania. While I was away, I thought about going to an internet cafe and writing a piece on the Beazley-Rudd-Gillard challenge. But two things occurred to me.
First, on 7 December 2004, in anticipation of the imminent demise of Mark Latham, I foreshadowed the candidate I favoured: Kevin Rudd. I think he is Labor’s best shot at a candidate that appeals to middle Australia. As a Federal Labour leader Rudd would embody the strong suits of Peter Beattie and Bob Carr. I am not convinced that Beazley is as hungry or as hard working as Rudd.
While Julia Gillard can match Rudd for hunger and hard work, her leftist inclinations makes her chances of Prime Ministership just a little tougher. I know that Gillard appeals to the rank and file of the Australian Labor Party (especially the latte set), but the rank and file are not representative of middle Australia voters. If caucus voted for Gillard it could be choosing the impotence of opposition. With Rudd and Beazley Labor has a slightly better chance at the impotence of government. (According to Peter Gay, in the eponymously titled The Dilemma of Democratic Socialism (1962), democratic socialist parties must choose between pragmatism and principle, and the consequential impotence of government or opposition respectively).
Second, and more importantly, it was pretty much irrelevant who won this Labor leadership contest as all three candidates were pretty strong contenders. None have the disabilities of Crean (a high turn-off factor - possibly a five or six seat liability) or Latham (the flakey, undisciplined, lone wolf - possibly a six to eight seat liability). I am convinced that in the right circumstances each of the three contenders could win government, and win it easily; notwithstanding that I think Rudd has a two or three seat edge here over Beazley and maybe as much as a three or four seat edge over Gillard.
Why do I suggest the choice of Labor leader is largely irrelevant?
In my view, winning government is not about having the right policy mix, a charismatic leader, a small target, or the like. It is more akin to the 1979 movie, Being There. The Australian electorate consistently returns popular governments. As I noted on 22 and 24 October 2004, incumbency is its own reward. Typically, it is only when governments become unpopular, arrogant and disconnected from the electorate that oppositions have a chance, and then typically only if they put forward a solid, safe candidate. Oppositions typically win government by being in the right place, at the right time, with a plausible candidate.
Howard won the 1996 election simply because he was not Paul Keating (and because he did not appear to be on a messianic crusade like John Hewson before him). Howard was not a stunning candidate - simply a plausible one. But the 1996 election was not about electing Howard, it was about getting rid of the arrogant and out of touch Keating.
Howard has since made pragmatic, populist and responsive government his hallmark. While he is not omniscient, and from time to time takes decisions that alienate the electorate, he is attune to this problem like few politicians are. He will address these issues as they arise. He will change direction and spend money if he detects a waning in public support. Howard is also attuned to finding and rooting out the enemies within: arrogance and hubris. Collectively, these factors make him an exceedingly difficult incumbent to beat. Unlike Gorton, McMahon or Fraser before him, he has mastered the Menzies secret of electoral longevity.
At the 2007 election, Beazley needs 16 seats and a five percent two party preferred swing to win government. He should be able to wind back five to seven seats easily. He might even get ten seats. He does not carry the same lead in the saddles as Latham did. But quite frankly he needs a Howard stuff-up to win government. The same would be true of Rudd or Gillard. On past performance, while a Howard stuff-up is entirely possible, it is not all that likely.
Andrew Leigh has spotted an interesting confirmation of this assessment. With odds of $3,00 the betting market gave Latham a 33% chance of winning government, today with odds of $2.55 it gives Beazley a 39% chance. Not exactly a vote of confidence in the new leadership. [Update: if you adjust the odds for the bookmaker’s over-round, the probabilities are 31% and 36% respectively.]