Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.<\/p>\n
As the electoral cycle reached its mid-point last week, most commentators were agreed on three things: first, Anthony Albanese\u2019s honeymoon is definitely over; secondly, the failure of the Voice referendum marked an inflection point in the life of the government; and thirdly, Peter Dutton\u2019s lack of public appeal is one of the best things Labor has going for it.<\/p>\n
Certainly, the bloom is well and truly off the rose. That had already begun to happen before October 14; the referendum result was a symptom, not a cause. In the eight months since the Aston by-election \u2013 probably Albanese\u2019s high-water mark \u2013 he has succumbed to the unforgiving law of political gravity: no political leader, however strongly they start, stays very popular for very long. Just ask Malcolm Turnbull, whose stratospheric popularity in late 2015 crashed to an electoral near-death experience barely six months later.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese (right) in parliament last week.<\/span>Credit: <\/span>Alex Ellinghausen<\/cite><\/p>\n On the Dutton factor, however, most commentators are dead wrong. Typical was Bruce Hawker, one of Labor\u2019s most trusted strategists, who opined: \u201cIf I were Albanese \u2026 I certainly wouldn\u2019t be hitting the panic button. \u2026 [T]here are no signs of any great enthusiasm for Dutton. He is not capturing the imagination of the Australian public.\u201d If Labor is heeding advice as bad as that, no wonder <\/strong>Liberals are happy. Apart from the fact that it is empirically wrong \u2013 Dutton\u2019s approval has steadily climbed in recent months and, after the strength of his performance in the last fortnight can be expected to climb still further \u2013 Hawker\u2019s observation entirely misses the point.<\/p>\n Opposition leaders don\u2019t have to be liked in order to win. Perhaps the reason so many Labor insiders don\u2019t get that is because on the occasions Labor takes office, the atmospherics are so different from coalition victories. When Gough Whitlam won in 1972, on the back of Labor\u2019s skilful \u201cIt\u2019s Time\u201d campaign, he seemed positively Messianic (an impression he did nothing to discourage). In 1983, Bob Hawke appeared a folk hero, the embodiment of the national reconciliation he promised. We all remember the Kevin 07 phenomenon. Last year, although Albanese had less political wattage than the other three, he played the \u201cgood bloke\u201d card to perfection.<\/p>\n On each of those occasions, the change of government was accompanied by high hopes, great expectations, and soaring rhetoric that gave plenty of hostages to fortune.<\/p>\n The circumstances in which Liberal prime ministers come to office have tended to be different. Usually, it has been after a period \u2013 in the case of all but the Hawke-Keating government, a relatively short period \u2013 of Labor government during which the dreams have turned to dust, the economy has hit the wall, and the public has seen through the tinny idealism to glimpse the cold light of day.<\/p>\n When John Howard was elected in 1996, he was still seen by many as yesterday\u2019s man.<\/span>Credit: <\/span>Sage<\/cite><\/p>\n When Australians elect Liberal governments, they\u2019re looking not for Messiahs but saviours. Which is why the popularity of Liberal opposition leaders has never much mattered. Remember when Labor ministers literally uncorked the champagne when they heard that Tony Abbott had been elected Liberal leader in 2009? How did that go for them?<\/p>\n When John Howard was elected in 1996, he was still seen by many as yesterday\u2019s man \u2013 he had yet to achieve the stature that 12 years in office brought him. But at least he wasn\u2019t Paul Keating, whom the public had grown to loathe. After the constitutional crisis of 1975, Malcolm Fraser was an unpopular figure, even with many who voted for him, but Australians were so desperate to put behind them the embarrassing circus of the Whitlam Government, he won in a landslide.<\/p>\n In the 1940s, Menzies had still to live down the memory of his unsuccessful prime ministership of 1939-1941; after his newly minted Liberal Party lost badly in 1946, the words whispered around the Melbourne establishment, advancing the claims of his rival Richard Casey, were \u201cyou\u2019ll never win with Menzies.\u201d He survived to prove them wrong in 1949 (and in 1951, 1954, 1955, 1958, 1961 and 1963).<\/p>\n In contrast to newly elected Labor prime ministers, no Liberal opposition leader has been a popular hero \u2013 except to their own supporters \u2013 at the time they won office. But they got the politics right.<\/p>\n Dutton, so far, has got the politics right. I struggle to think of a single tactical mistake Dutton and his front bench have made. Of course, people may disagree with his policy positions, but where are the political mistakes? One largely unnoticed feature of the last 18 months is how stable the opposition has been; even differences about the Voice were handled without causing fractures. Having sat across the shadow cabinet table from Dutton during the first term of the last Labor Government, we both know what a shambolic opposition looks like. This isn\u2019t one.<\/p>\n Nor, I suspect, is Dutton\u2019s tough guy image \u2013 which is also the reality: with Peter Dutton, what you see is what you get \u2013 as unappealing as Labor thinks. If he were to visit China, I doubt Premier Li would metaphorically pat him on the head and call him a \u201chandsome boy\u201d. In a tough world, I expect Australians will feel our interests are better protected by a tough leader than by a prime minister so eager to please that he\u2019s easy to patronise.<\/p>\n As the clock ticks down to the election in early 2025, with cost of living pressures soaring, the government looking increasingly rattled, and international storm clouds gathering, I expect the tough cop will better capture the nation\u2019s mood \u2013 and its worries – than the handsome boy.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n