Good Reasons To Doubt Beazley Again

by Mike Steketee - The Australian

After a failed experiment with the new generation, a desperate political party turns back to a former leader. He may have lost before but at least he is a known quantity and he epitomises stability and reliability. The new/old leader goes on to win the next election and entrenches himself in office for a long period.

It is not surprising that federal Labor, in as parlous a state as the Liberals ever were in the 1980s and early '90s, is drawn to the back-to-the-future option Kim Beazley represents. No wonder they are prepared to overlook Beazley's two election losses to John Howard, his failed challenge to Simon Crean and his loss to Mark Latham in favour of the credentials he offered on Tuesday – unity, stability and experience.

But there is a factor missing in Labor's hope that history will repeat itself. After his resurrection, Howard won the 1996 election by default. As former Queensland Premier Wayne Goss put it, voters were waiting with baseball bats for Paul Keating to stick his head up.

The successful Howard strategy in 1996 was to remove every possible obstacle to giving voters a clean swing at Keating. He offered reassurance: he was no longer the radical reformer, Medicare would be preserved, social security benefits would not be cut and there would be no GST. Remember "relaxed and comfortable"?

Beazley does not have a Liberal Keating as an opponent. Howard may not be widely liked but neither was Robert Menzies. Respect is more important in politics.

The "it's time" mood may grow as the Howard Government enters its second decade, but by itself it will not be enough: it took 23 years of Liberal government, with a weak prime minister in Billy McMahon, for Gough Whitlam to win in 1972 and then he did so with only a modest margin.

The small target strategy that Howard adopted against Keating will not work for Beazley against Howard on the basis of present forseeable events. Of course, Beazley may get lucky. The economy could turn sour or, despite Howard's election mantra, interest rates could rise, creating real stress for many Australians mortgaged to the hilt. Howard may even make way for Peter Costello, creating a quite different political dynamic.

But Labor cannot count on any of these things happening. Beazley assumed too much about Howard's unpopularity in the early years, allowing him to dig in and become Australia's second longest serving prime minister. Incumbency confers great political advantage, with governments often able to set the agenda and voters needing a substantial reason to switch from the devil they know.

Besides, the next election hurdle is a high one for Labor – it has to win an extra 16 seats to govern. On a uniform swing, this would require Labor to increase its vote after preferences by 4.9 per cent, compared with the 2.2 per cent it needed in the last election. Labor has achieved a larger two-party preferred swing in federal elections only once since 1949: Whitlam's 6.9 per cent against John Gorton in 1969. Beazley came close with a 4.6 per cent swing against Howard in 1998. But neither was large enough to put Labor into office. Only the Coalition has achieved larger winning swings – Malcolm Fraser's 7.4 per cent against Whitlam in 1975 and Howard's 5.1 per cent against Keating in 1996.

Beazley is right to dismiss notions of a two-term strategy for Labor to return to power. Oppositions have to fight every election as though it is there to win. But if Labor loses next time, the problem becomes bigger than usual. Even if he achieved a substantial swing, would the party sign up Beazley for a fourth try, by which time he would be about age 62, or cast its lot, again, with a new generation leader?

Beazley has proved himself to be a good campaigner, at least compared with what came afterwards. He won a majority of the national vote after preferences in 1998 but fell short on seats. Despite Tampa and September 11, Beazley did better in the 2001 election than Latham three years later.

Judging by past opinion polling, Beazley's return to the leadership would lift Labor's support, including beyond his honeymoon. Beazley led a largely united Opposition for the whole of his two terms as leader. But that was easier when Labor retained some of the habits of discipline formed in government and when it looked closer to returning to office than it does now.

Beazley's experience also counts. His former chief of staff Michael Costello made the point yesterday that every successful federal political leader since World War II had been prominent in public life for 20 years or more. The L-plate advertisements the Liberals used against Latham in the last campaign would not work against Beazley.

But the longer Howard remains dominant, the more certain it is that the old questions about Beazley will again surface. One concerns his toughness. There are doubts about just how driven and hungry he is for the prime ministership. It is an issue Beazley reinforced unintentionally on Tuesday when he said: "I am not motivated particularly personally for high office, though that is important to me" but was fired instead with ambition for the Australian people.

And there is the question about what Beazley stands for. He is more the conciliator than the hard-driving reformer, which no doubt is a relief to many of his colleagues after Latham. While it is not necessarily an inhibition to winning office, it makes it harder to whip up enthusiasm among Labor followers.

Recycling leaders may seem the logical option for Labor after the failed gamble with Latham, but it is not without its problems.