Sean Kelly theguardian.com, Thursday 15 August 2013
Both candidates are trying to run campaigns they've already run. Abbott should give more of himself, and Rudd should focus on attention-grabbing economic policy
Kevin Rudd: Like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, only happier. Photograph: Allstar/Cinetext/Allstar
In the final weeks of the 2010 campaign, Labor was heading for a loss. I was in the travelling party with then prime minister Julia Gillard, and our pollsters were telling us Labor was about to be reduced to a one-term government.
There were a lot of factors – leaks, division, gaffes. But most of those were out of our control. Up to that point, the public had seen the election as a policy-free zone. That was one factor we could change.
On the day Gillard launched her new education policies, we trumpeted it as the return of substance to the campaign, and it ran that way in the media. “Labor’s policy push” read one banner headline. That, of course, was the spin we’d put on it. But the thing about so-called “spin” is this: it only works when it’s true.
The policy play worked. It wasn’t the only factor, not by a long shot – but it was crucial in restoring momentum to Labor’s campaign at a time when it was desperately needed, and shifting the focus of the election to a debate we could win.
Labor will need something even bigger policy-wise this time around. And there is a good chance that, if it comes, it will again leave the Liberals flatfooted. But so far we haven’t seen it. Instead, there’s an odd sense of deja vu about this campaign.
That’s because both candidates are trying to run campaigns they’ve already run. Kevin Rudd thinks it’s 2007. Tony Abbott thinks it’s 2010.
From a pop psychology standpoint, this makes sense. Of course Kevin Rudd wants to revisit his glory days – don’t we all? Most of us might choose high school. Rudd, not so much. But give him the chance to relive over and over the 2007 election? Picture Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, only happy.
Rudd again promises change. Then it was “new leadership”, today it’s a “new way”. He wants to end divisiveness. He campaigns on cost of living. He promises to work with the states. He’s here to help.
For almost the exact opposite reason, Tony Abbott would love the chance to redo 2010 – it is the movie with the "one that got away", in which the sweetheart you were going to marry ran off with the other guy (or redheaded woman) at the last minute. This time around, he finally has the chance to change the ending. So he sticks to the script. This is from 2010, but really, who could tell: “We'll end the waste, repay the debt, stop the new taxes and stop the boats.”
They say practice makes perfect. If you’re swimming laps, that’s true. But while elections may be repetitive at times, the reason that rehearsals only get you so far is this: politics is never performed on the same surface twice. Which means both leaders need to shake up their campaigns.
Abbott needs to give more of himself. He needs to realise people want something different from a prime minister than from an Opposition leader, and it’s not just “positivity”. It’s a genuine sense of what sort of a prime minister he’d be. The gap between who a politician seems to be pretending to be and who he actually is can be fatal, as voters fill in the blanks with their own worst fears. Just ask Mark Latham. Endlessly repeating slogans doesn’t fill that gap. Victory may yet slide Abbott’s way. But he’s certainly not reaching out to grab it.
Rudd’s task is harder. He needs to shift the entire ground of the election. Right now, this election is a referendum on Labor and minority government. In other words, it is about the past. Fairly or unfairly, that is a vote Labor is likely to lose.
But a big policy from Labor that captures voters’ imaginations could blow that out of the water, and make this poll a referendum on the future instead. And this is where Rudd needs to find what differentiates 2013 from 2007. What issue defines the challenges the country now faces? What is Labor’s answer?
Gay marriage will win votes, but it isn’t large enough in scope to shift the question voters ask themselves on election day. The economy is more likely material. But this is a perfect example of the magnitude of Rudd’s challenge. Simply winning the economic debate as it stands is necessary, but not sufficient. To actually win the election on those grounds, Labor requires attention-grabbing economic policy that not only demonstrates Labor’s credentials but provokes a massive national debate. That's easier said than done.
Whatever Labor comes up with, it must redefine what this election is about. When voters mark their ballot paper, this question must be what is on their minds.
To be fair, we’re not even two weeks in yet. There’s time, but not that much. In a campaign, weeks can creep up on you. Here’s hoping we see something genuinely new soon. Something that belongs not in 2007, or in 2010, but in 2013, with all the complexities and hopes and fears of this period in Australian history on display.
