By The Might Of The Silvery Spoon

by John Warhurst - Canberra Times

Image may not be everything in politics, but it is still very important.

Image is superficial outward presentation while substance is the solidity that lies beneath. Sorting out image from substance can be very difficult because a whole industry exists in politics to make sure that the two are regularly confused.

The election of Ted Baillieu as the new Liberal Party leader in Victoria immediately raises the question of the image of those born of the establishment. Baillieu, of the prominent Victorian business families of Myer and Baillieu, is reportedly the wealthiest MP in the Victorian parliament. He was immediately attacked by the state Labor Attorney-General, Rob Hulls, as "Ted the toff from Toorak".

Now a toff is a colloquial expression for a rich, upper-class, usually well-dressed person, often found lolling about in private clubs and the members' section of racecourses. Baillieu made a dignified response, declaring his pride in his family background and noting the contribution these families had made to Victoria's development.

That may or may not be the end of it. Some may think Baillieu's origins fair game; others that this is hypocritical Labor mud-slinging. But that's politics.

Was this an expression of a Latham-esque politics of class envy of a sort that no longer exists? Or does this sort of jibe in an allegedly classless society like Australia still win votes?

Hulls, demonstrating what he was about, went on to allege that Baillieu was lazy and out of touch with working families. According to Hulls, "He's inherited everything he's got, and that includes his seat in parliament and now, obviously, the leadership of the Liberal Party".

Above-average wealth is still looked at askance in Australian politics. It may explain why there are so few senior business leaders in parliament. The image of Malcolm Turnbull, now parliamentary secretary to Prime Minister John Howard, has suffered because he is seen as one of the super rich. He is Baillieu's equivalent as the wealthiest MP in the federal Parliament.

Inherited wealth is looked at doubly askance, as it combines money with the suspicion that it is unearned. It has elements of the born-to-rule syndrome. Attacking inherited wealth plays well in the Labor Party, but the more important question is whether it plays well with the general electorate.

In my view, whether good manners or not, such attacks are of diminishing utility to the Labor Party with the average swinging voter.

But Labor is never afraid to explore it. Back in the 1970s much was made of Malcolm Fraser's privileged origins in a wealthy grazing family. Labor's rage was just that bit more intense, because someone from the Western Districts landed aristocracy had benefited from the 1975 dismissal of Gough Whitlam.

More recently Alexander Downer, another privileged MP, suffered some similar attacks when he became Liberal leader. Downer suffered doubly because his accent was decidedly plummy.

Much of this is just inverted snobbery and shouldn't be tolerated. But it contains a whiff of political significance.

The Liberal Party may be at its most popular when it is not led by toffs or silvertails but by self-made men and women from the middle class. Professor Judith Brett has argued convincingly that this factor is essential to John Howard's popularity and to his long-term contribution to the standing of the Liberal Party in the community. Howard's very ordinariness and lack of airs and graces is central to his image.

The Liberal Party, in this rendition by Howard, is a party of mates rather than toffs. He may be just the sort of leader that Sir Robert Menzies had in mind when he founded the party in 1944. Certainly its image has been strengthened over the years, as Norman Abjorensen has shown, by decidedly non-toffy state leaders, such as Victoria's rough-hewn Sir Henry Bolte.

An issue of image like this is primarily one that divides Labor from the Liberal Party (at least in Labor's eyes). It is about class politics, which may or may not be dead and buried in the eyes of the electorate. Certainly class divisions have become more complex, though they have not been obliterated.

But there is also a sense in which it can play out within the Labor Party itself. In the party of the working man, potential leaders still may have to be careful not to get above themselves. They still may have to cultivate an image.

Bill Shorten, the Victorian union leader already preselected by Labor, is an example of someone from a private school background who seems well aware of this. He acts and dresses accordingly. Whether this style is natural or cultivated, I don't know.

There are plenty of exceptions to this rule. Whitlam himself, of renowned aristocratic bearing, was certainly one. But there is still something in the idea. The highly educated, as well as the wealthy, in the party still have to be careful to avoid having the mickey taken out of them. The issue is not inherited wealth, but it is still privilege of a sort.

In the current virtual leadership contest within the Labor Party, image is something that holds back Kevin Rudd. Despite a humble background, his carefully modulated tones, somewhat mandarin style and supposed difficulty in communicating with the ordinary punter, means he comes across as "Kev the toff from Morningside" to some in the party. I'm sure this means that he enjoys being photographed in the front bar with a beer in his hand, as he has been recently, because it establishes a certain sort of credential.


John Warhurst is professor of political science at the Australian National University.