On 9 October, Australia rewarded Liberal party leader John Howard with a fourth term and a rare opportunity to fundamentally alter the country. While Michael Howard has returned to London from an uninspiring Conservative party conference performance, the Australian Liberal party are celebrating an increased majority in the House of Representatives, and the fact that they are now effectively in control of the Senate.
It is no surprise, therefore, that Michael Howard has recently appointed Lynton Crosby, who has been at the heart of each of the winning Australian election campaigns, as the Tories’ new general election campaign director. And, just as innovative Labour politicians once visited the US seeking inspiration from the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign, Tory headquarters might be considering sending a delegation down under to see Australian conservatism in action.
John Howard’s success is built on an ability to empathise with the emerging middle classes and adapt to changes in the social and political landscape. While former Labor prime minister Bob Hawke successfully managed economic modernisation in the 1980s through an accord with the trade unions, and his Labor successor Paul Keating relied on the urban middle classes to support his modernisation of Australia’s culture and identity, the ALP have been devastated by their inability to present an attractive alternative for aspirational voters at the turn of the century.
So who is John Howard and what makes him arguably the most successful conservative leader in the world? After entering parliament in 1974, he became leader of the Liberal party in 1995 and formed a coalition government with the National party at the 1996 election. In contrast to the brash young ALP leader, Mark Latham, John Howard is 65, safe, dependable and blessed with the seemingly unshakeable trust of voters. Howard honed his political shrewdness in his own seat of Bennelong in the north-western suburbs of Sydney, where his brand of moral conservatism and free-market economics has proved irresistible to voters seeking stability and security from government.
It is his ability to adapt to social and cultural change that sets John Howard apart from the Tories in the UK. While the Tory frontbench is filled with the likes of John Redwood and Nicholas Soames, who struggle to connect with aspirational voters, John Howard’s leadership has created a new constituency, widely referred to as ‘Howard’s battlers’, who appreciate his brand of boring, unspectacular leadership and trust him to manage the economy and protect their material interests.
It is the prolonged prosperity enjoyed by Australia since the tough economic reforms initiated under the previous Labor government that has been Howard’s greatest asset. From his first budget, he has pursued an agenda to increase reliance on private institutions to provide essential services such as education and healthcare. Just as the Tories are hoping John Redwood’s deregulation crusade will resonate, Howard continues to target public services – his most recent victim was the national healthcare provider, Medicare. Oliver Letwin admits to having studied John Howard’s comeback in the 1990s as he successfully took the goods and services tax policy (which proved the downfall of his predecessor at the 1993 election) back to the electorate. More recently, we have seen his unapologetic approach to the emerging evidence that there are no WMD in Iraq, in contrast to the recent reaction of senior members of the British Labour cabinet.
While the Hawke-Keating Labor governments (1983-1996) are held up as shining examples of progressive politics in action, today’s ALP is struggling to define itself and its relationship with the electorate. John Howard has been very successful at finding issues, such as asylum seekers, which drive a wedge between traditional Labor supporters. The recent election shows that while some inner-city seats recorded swings against the Liberal party, it was the mortgage belts around them where Labor suffered. It is this tension between the working and lower-middle class and the educated, progressive, middle-class voters that was epitomised before the election by pictures of Howard being cheered by members of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. These competing constituencies have been exploited by Howard’s political shrewdness at four consecutive elections.
A key lesson for the Tories is the way Howard relishes the opportunity to appear statesmanlike, steering the Australian political discourse further to the right on issues such as constitutional change, industrial relations reform or immigration. At the 2001 election, he was in total control of the debate over his refusal to allow 400 asylum seekers picked up by a Norwegian cargo ship into the country.
This clear and simple approach to political messages contrasted with the ALP’s struggle to deliver a distinct policy. In the same way the Tories are now seeking to establish their credentials as a party which will deliver on their ‘Timetable for Action’, John Howard stood firm before the 2001 election, announcing to the electorate that, ‘we decide who comes into this country and the circumstances in which they come.’
Despite the success of Howard,it is crucial that, as a progressive party, the ALP does not opt for the easy conservative route of pursuing populist policies. It is in this respect that the ALP must examine the success of Tony Blair and New Labour in making the necessary reforms to lead voters away from the Tories. Australians do not change government easily, so the ALP must strive to provide the leadership that will convince aspirational voters to embrace progressive government.
It was always going to be a big task for Latham to turn the polls around ten months after being elected party leader but this was not helped by the fact that resources were divided between multiple tasks – introducing Mark Latham as a potential leader and dealing with attacks on his past, explaining detailed major policies, establishing economic credentials and neutralising the interest rates scare campaign. The policies were sound and Latham performed well, but not enough was done with negative campaigning to convince voters not to return Howard. With control of the Senate, Howard will pursue an unchecked conservative agenda (including an extensive industrial relations overhaul), the implications of which the ALP must relentlessly explain to the electorate.
In an interview last week, Labor’s communications spokesman, Lindsay Tanner MP, said ‘our core problem is that we haven’t yet really worked out where we stand on a whole range of fault lines in national political life.’ It is this lack of clarity that the electorate are all too aware of and understandably reluctant to gamble on. Instead, they prefer to hedge their bets with Howard at the helm federally and Labor governments in all the states and territories, micromanaging services.
Latham must build a progressive opposition in Australia – one that has a positive agenda and that is not afraid to take it to the electorate in a simple, distinct and consistent form. This requires early preparation and a strategy that – like New Labour prior to 1997 – rebuilds the grassroots as the best way to re-engage with the electorate. Howard is not loved by Australians, but he is trusted as having ‘safe hands’ and, while Michael Howard may want to adopt that type of public persona, Latham needs to provide the leadership Blair did and inspire the electorate to change for the better.