The Labor Party's dismal performance this year has been book-ended by May's federal election loss and this month's campaign review report. Yet soon after the loss and before the campaign report or any mature reflection on leadership, the party chose its new leader, Anthony Albanese. As it reflects publicly on the devastating election loss discussion has also begun among Labor supporters about whether it has chosen the right leader for the future in Albanese.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The review is the equal of anything that outsiders have produced over the past six months and as good as any previous Labor review. Labor loses federal elections so regularly and is such an admirably open party that there have been many such reviews over the years.
Headed by former federal minister, Dr Craig Emerson and former South Australian premier, Jay Weatherill, the review conducted 120 interviews, received 800 submissions and then made 60 findings and 26 recommendations.
Anyone at all interested in Australian politics should read and digest it because it canvasses the domestic and international context, the run-up, the campaign highlights, the voting, the swings, advertising and digital campaigns and the campaign 'on the ground'. If I was running another political party, or was thinking about getting active in politics by standing for office, I'd put it on top of my 'must read' list.
The report includes a short executive summary which begins: "Labor lost the election because of a weak strategy that could not adapt to the change in Liberal leadership, a cluttered policy agenda that looked risky and an unpopular leader." Other matters highlighted include Clive Palmer's outrageously expensive anti-Labor campaign.
It argues that no one thing was decisive but that together they explain the 'massively disappointing' result. There are some omissions, such as any mention of the negative role of the News Corporation papers. It is also quiet on the role of the union movement and doesn't discuss in detail what the Coalition did well other than by implicit comparison with what Labor did badly.
Election reviews after a loss often make the mistake of having too much in the negative column. The list is enormous, covering most aspects of the campaign. Yet the loss was a close one so if only some matters can be addressed Labor will have a strong chance in 2022.
The report not surprisingly concludes correctly that those voters who shifted against Labor outnumbered those who shifted towards Labor. The party lost voters in Queensland, among outer-metropolitan, provincial and rural Australians, among economically insecure, low-income voters in outer-metropolitan and regional Australia, among some groups of self-declared Christians and among Chinese Australians in strongly contested seats.
This is a bit too much of a shopping list and each of these groups' voting patterns needs further investigation. Some of them are much bigger numerically than others and therefore of greater significance. Yet media reporting sometimes doesn't do the detail of this report justice.
For instance, media reports conflate the category 'Christians' into one undifferentiated group. That isn't accurate or helpful. The report argues: "On the whole people of faith did not desert Labor, but Labor lost some support among Christian voters-particularly devout, first generation migrant Christians. Other religious denominations did not swing decisively one way or the other."
The groups which swung towards Labor included young voters and affluent voters in urban areas concerned about climate change, voters in inner-metropolitan areas, and tertiary educated, high income Australians. Some of these groups are large and growing. Voting patterns are therefore not all bad news for Labor.
The report is not entirely negative about Bill Shorten, who remains on Labor's front bench. While it gives prominence to his unpopularity it concludes: "Despite some early slips, Labor leader Bill Shorten performed solidly during the campaign, including bettering his rival in three debates." It also notes that he led a united and stable team and performed 'brilliantly' on Q & A.
This may be damning with faint praise, but it does set the bar high for Albanese. A solid performance alone may not bring victory next time. What the report doesn't do, though, is examine the ingredients that make up a winning leader. These ingredients are intangible and may be born not learned.
If I was running another political party, I'd put it on top of my 'must read' list.
To what extent is the campaign review a guidebook for an Albanese victory? Many of the recommendations, including those related to digital and on-the-ground campaigning are for the organisation rather than the party leader. Other matters are out of Albanese's control. This includes media coverage.
Some of these elements are to his advantage, including the absence of a moving target: almost certainly Scott Morrison will be his opponent. Others are imponderables, such as what will be on Palmer's mind in 2022.
What Albanese can control is Labor's choice of policies, including their range. He can join the Australian fascination with decluttering and make Labor's election agenda slimmer and more focused.
Albanese has begun slowly and done little to challenge the government directly. Many Labor supporters who recall his persona six years ago when he lost the leadership contest to Shorten, but won the members' vote, thought he would be more outspoken and adversarial. Instead he seems to be a bit washed-out.
He insists this slow start is all about strategy and playing the long-game and has now begun a series of vision statements to reframe Labor in a way that will connect more with its traditional base rather than just new-style progressives. Ultimately however, while Shorten was just one factor in the Labor loss, if Labor is to win next time Albanese must catch fire with the electorate.
- John Warhurst is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University