Bomber's Giving Us Deja Vu All Over Again

by Dennis Shanahan - The Australian

For John Howard, the return to Opposition leadership after his first electoral failure in 1987 was deemed "Lazarus with a triple bypass". For Andrew Peacock, his resurrection as Opposition leader in 1990 was said to be evidence that "the souffle does rise twice". For Kim Beazley, in his second stint as Opposition Leader and facing his third electoral test, the feeling is deja vu squared.

The new-old Labor leader expressed it that way this week as he addressed the National Press Club for the first time since his re-election. It was a feeling of having been there before, before. Naturally, Beazley couldn't avoid confronting the issue of having been leader previously and addressed it with good humour. Indeed, his very familiarity, his long experience in politics and his ability to heal ALP differences are advantages after the exhilarating harum-scarum experience of Mark Latham.

When Beazley was pondering his political future last year - whether to stay in politics or pull out completely; whether to stay on the backbench in Churchillian style or join Latham's frontbench - there were those citing Howard's Lazarine experience.

The view was that Beazley could emulate Howard after a stint on the backbench, be drafted into the leadership after the incumbent imploded, then beat a long-term and tired Coalition Government: Prime minister Beazley, no longer being robbed by party officials underspending on election campaigns, by immigration scare tactics, terrorism or Labor's 17 per cent interest rates and a Coalition willing to do anything to win.

But it would also seem Beazley is still intent on emulating Howard's 1995-96 strategy of providing only general policy directions and no costing details until the dying days of the next election campaign. Bitter Beazley supporters always resented that Howard didn't produce a detailed economic blueprint -- as did John Hewson -- and still defeated Paul Keating in 1996.

This was the genesis of Beazley's "small target" policy; simply a case of not putting forward any comprehensive alternative policies and riding to power on a wave of resentment. As Beazley said this week, he did not demur at such a characterisation of his previous tactics and set out a remarkably familiar election plan. In a nutshell, Beazley intends to attack the Coalition, make it accountable to the people, ferret out waste and highlight deceit.

Beazley would also ignore the opinion polls and expect Labor to be taken seriously as an alternative government only in the six weeks before an election. Detailed costings of the policies that are released will not be determined until the election campaign because of the charter of budget honesty, which sets out the real budgetary position.

There will be detailed policies, ideas and directions, says Beazley, but that's not his prime task. The reasoning for this approach is that for the first time in 25 years the Government will control the Senate and focus will be on the Opposition's performance in the House of Representatives. Beazley argues that, because Labor can no longer be party to blocking or amending Coalition legislation in the Senate, the attention shifts from what Labor will do to each piece of legislation in the Senate to how it will carry out its classic Westminster role of opposition.

"It means a return to an opposition in the classic Westminster sense of the word, an opposition, that is, whose primary job is to hold the government of the day to account," he said. "I'm determined to hold this Government to account, correct its priorities and ultimately send it on its miserable way." This is a new blanket for an old horse.

The issues are no longer whether Beazley had or has a small-target policy but whether it will be a case of third time lucky and whether Labor accepts the grand strategy again. It's one thing to have a feeling of deja vu; it's another to act out your outdated experiences.

There is a danger that the Labor leadership still doesn't have a professional and mature reading of Howard. Beating Howard is not about trying to emulate his historical record but decoding his contemporary success. Until Labor gets over its resentment and unfulfilled and overdeveloped sense of entitlement, it will be condemned to re-running its last, losing campaign.

Why is Labor shrilly talking about interest rates and the last campaign tactics? Beazley has a right to hold the Government accountable on rates, but every time he says that he's not crying "stinking fish" about interest rates it sounds exactly like that and reminds everyone of the Coalition's electioneering on Labor's interest rate record. Reinforcing that insidious thought extends the Coalition's campaign and won't help Labor even if the economy slows and the golden run comes to an end.

When Howard was revived in 1995, there was no doubt at all about his style, agenda, personality, obsessions and shortcomings. In a leadership contest, people knew what they were getting and wanted him more than Keating.

When asked why he wanted to be prime minister, Beazley said he had the ideas and direction for the next phase of economic growth, that he wanted to be not just an education prime minister but a skills and innovation one who wanted to pursue micro-economic reform (except industrial relations) and work for ecological sustainability.

Not exactly a nice crisp definition that cries out to make room at the Lodge. Beazley seems more determined and energetic, but his strategy has an awful feeling of deja vu about it.