Howard's leadership led to election defeat, academic says
Posted Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:23pm AEDT
Updated Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:38pm AEDT


Academic Judith Brett says former PM John Howard had a style of leadership that relied on dividing issues in terms of 'for me or against me'. (File photo) (News Limited: Michael Jones)
As the Liberal Party continues its own soul searching on why it lost last month's federal election, Australia's leading academic authority on the party has just released the first in-depth analysis of the election loss.

A Professor of politics at La Trobe University, Judith Brett, blames John Howard and his authoritarian style of leadership but says she has been surprised at the extent to which the federal party has fallen apart since the defeat.

Professor Brett has just released her Quarterly Essay, called 'Exit Right: the Unravelling of John Howard'.

She has based the essay around the theme of leadership and she says that when a leader's grip on political power starts to slip, observers can see most clearly the inner workings of that leadership.

She says former prime minister John Howard had a style of leadership that relied on clearly dividing issues in terms of 'for me or against me'. She says this approach had been very successful for a few elections but then it stopped working.

"I think it stopped working partly because people ... had seen it all before; partly because we weren't in a year where there was a lot of foreign policy issues that were really new and demanding; and I think most importantly because Kevin Rudd had had a while to study John Howard," she said.


'Aggressive' leadership

Professor Brett said Mr Howard would relentlessly attack his opponent and by refusing to oppose Mr Howard's policies, then-opposition leader Kevin Rudd confounded the prime minister.

"[Mr Rudd] shaped his leadership I think to prevent John Howard being able to do the things that he most likes to do, which is turn the attention from himself onto the opponent," she said.

"One theory I have is that 'me-tooism' of Rudd's was a very carefully crafted political strategy to stop there being sufficient distance between him and Howard for Howard to swing a punch, and that seemed to me was evidence that Rudd had really thought about Howard."

Professor Brett says there was a definite contrast between Mr Howard's campaign against Mr Rudd and his campaign in his own seat of Bennelong against Labor candidate Maxine McKew.

She said because Ms McKew was a woman, Mr Howard could not use his usual tactics against her.

"I think the style of strong leadership that Howard uses works against men because it's all about this aggressive, 'if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen' sort of stuff," she said.

"[But] if you do that against a woman, you start to look like a bully, you look rude. It's very hard to get away with.

"I think it's interesting that Howard didn't even mention Maxine McKew's name in the campaign against [her in] Bennelong. So where normally he goes for his opponent, here the only strategy available to him was to completely ignore her."


The future

Professor Brett says she did not predict the extent to which the Liberal Party would fall apart after its defeat.

"Power is a glue that holds ambitious men together and when that glue melts, they all fall back into their individual selves, and I think that's what we've seen," she said.

"I've found it pretty extraordinary. I didn't predict Peter Costello leaving."

She says Mr Howard's leadership has masked problems within the Liberal Party.

"It's certainly masked the mess that a lot of the state branches are in," she said.

"I don't really understand why the federal party didn't pay more attention to the states, because it'll be from the states that the next generation will be getting some experience."

Professor Brett says the Liberal Party may now choose to head in a different direction from their past policies.

"I think what we'll see, which we in a way already saw in the leadership struggle, is attention over the extent to which they stay true to Howard's legacy and the extent to which a much less socially conservative Liberalism starts to become dominant in the party," she said.

But she says she does not believe the party will vanish altogether.

"Because of the way our system works, we rely on there being two parties," she said.

"Ambitious people of the rising generation will go into the Liberal Party as the only option to Labor, so I think it will revive just because of the particular position it holds in our two-party system."

Poseidon, the rodent got the flick for many reasons
Ilegal war
workchoices
arogance
lies
But most of all most aussies wanted to brought into the 21st century, whilst Howard was still living in the 1950s.He had totally lost any connection he ever had with the electorate, stopped listening to his own senior ministers who had on numourous occasions told him it was time to go, and he became alianated by his own party becouse the only people he would take advice from was hyacinth a his kids. Hence he not only lost the election , but suffers the indignity of being only the second PM in history to lose his seat in parliment.

Bwhahahaha- Who is trying to focus the attention off their beloved leader because Kruddy is fast being recognised as a lame duck

Howard has gone unfortunately- it is now time to focus on what Kruddy is doing...oh thats right, he is failing


LOLOLOLOLOLOL

oceanz wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 3:30pm:


I can hear perfectly well - but no one is saying anything.  Why did John Howard lose the election Oceans?

I can't answer it because I can't understand why anyone is opposed to a fair go, open government, increased opportunity and prosperity.

"My old spearing club used to meat in a church hall....."

I had to resist the urge to comment on the image this conjured up when you posted it in the spirtuality thread.

Its spelt MEET FD..



"1) His refusal to ratify kyoto and dragging his heals on climate change. "

That would be heels FD.

But apart from that I agree with you..but there was more to it than that..

Thanks for having a crack..

Noone so far has bothered.

Anyone who blames an election outcome they didn't want on mass stupidity is in denial about something.

freediver wrote on Mar 30^th, 2008 at 7:18pm:


I expect anyone who blames it on . . . .


Quote:


. . .  is stating he lost it according to mass stupidity.

If a government was voted out on the basis of these three things then I agree with you - a kind of mass stupor must have come over the country.

Let's look at each one in turn.

Kyoto.

Kyoto was an old concept, in fact Kyoto has been around for over a decade.  It was pretty old science which formulated it and it was agreed while everyone present was either stoned, drunk, both, insane or suffering from group wankery.

It was never going to be effective and this was proven before very long despite the group madness which saw the sheeple sign up to it.

The UKs carbon emissions have risen by 2%.

Japan stated "it can't reduce emissions by the expected amount"

Norway's carbon emissions increased by almost 8%.

Germany's government announced it would exempt its coal industry from requirements under the EU internal emission trading system.

France switched to nuclear energy and has reduced emissions.

China and India are exempt.  China builds a new coal fired plant a week.

What kind of idiot even takes it seriously?

Well not our PM until Little Kevvy came along so I guess that's the answer to what kind of idiot..

So why would Australians want Australia to sign up to a meaningless and outdated agreement no one was bothering to keep?  I can only think it was mass stupidity.