Without admitting it, even perhaps to themselves, this election has been fought by the major parties with the spectre of Paul Keating and the  Unlosable Election of 1993 hanging over everything and everyone.  A lot of things changed in Australian electioneering after 1993 but more than ever before, 2013 has witnessed how memories of that day still significantly affect both parties.

Tony Abbott’s Coalition has had a hidden Fightback! Agenda for many years. They have needed to have a comprehensive set of policies and plans in place in case the minority Gillard government fell ahead of schedule.  Even the rarely-wrong predictions of John Howard who (correctly) said that the Gillard Government would run its course were not enough to prevent Fightback 2013 from being developed.  But it is now generally acknowledged that releasing the full detail of that 1993 policy over a year in advance of the election was a fatal mistake.

Ironically, it was this open and up front level of detail that the voters (apparently) are screaming for now and yet decisively punished the Coalition for twenty years ago.  History shows us that Paul Keating won the unwinnable election after being six points down at one stage.  And so here we are once again...

The coalition have learned their lesson and have become gun-shy or perhaps the word is policy-shy and as such have released very little of their comprehensive plan for government to the electorate.  It is not hard to understand why but it is still disappointing. Voters deserve better, although we are to blame for it just the same.

The Labor party on the other hand has tried to copy the Keating handbook of winning from behind and as we all know now, has been a massive failure.  And the major reason for this failure is that Kevin Rudd is not Paul Keating.  Aside from massive egos, the two share little in common.  Keating was the consummate parliamentary performer, superbly disciplined leader and policy genius.  Rudd on the other hand is an appallingly bad leader as evidenced by the fact that everyone in caucus hates him and he is a policy wonk.  Paul Keating was never handicapped by a desperate desire for everyone to love him because not many ever did.  But people respected his abilities nonetheless.  Rudd on the other hand lives to be loved and even his supporters rarely refer to his leadership or policy genius. And so it is that the Keating way of winning the unwinnable election was always going to be a bad fit for the Rudd Labor Party.

Keating lied, exaggerated and misinterpreted much of Fightback! The birthday cake fiasco was ruthlessly exploited by a cunning and effective communicator. Rudd has tried much of the same methodology, lying about GST increases, school cuts, health cuts and a variety of other things.  But Rudd just came off looking like a serial liar while Keating was believed.  Both lied, but only one could carry it off.

Keating was a substantial politician with strengths and weaknesses and a massive ego.  But he had actual and substantial ability.  Kevin Rudd however was brought in because of his supposed star-power and little else.  But that power has faded rather badly, a bit like the paint in the pantry that hasn’t had a retouch in 20 years.  All that is left is the true Kevin Rudd - the ‘Real Kevin’ if you will. And it is not much of a look.

Stripped of popularity, Paul Keating remained a politician of substance as did John Howard who followed him.  But now stripped of his popularity, Rudd strikes us as a rather sad and shallow little man with little ability and even less likability. And that is because he always was thus, but someone noticed that the Emperor had no clothes and suddenly we all see his transparency as well. (No one wants to imagine a nude Kevin Rudd!)

Perhaps Paul Keating or the like could have won this unwinnable election - or not. But Kevin Rudd was never going to and the ALP caucus that put him back in for the most cynical of reasons deserve the flogging they are getting.

1993 has had a rerun but this time the blue tem are getting the points.  Perhaps the ghosts have been put to rest and in future, small-target elections and blatant lies about your opponents will be put to bed.

We can but hope.

adelcrow wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 6:32pm:


sounds like corpulent_whiney and his completely off-topic positing still lives through you.

salad in wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 7:35pm:


so no comment on the substance of the thread????

Keating was a front bottoms.

Not as much as Hawke but still a front bottoms.

Never forget the Daily Mail that day.

"Take your hands off our Queen, Convict!"

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:


Where did you get the article and who wrote it. Doesn't look to me like a serious analysis of why Keating won the 1993 election but rather an excuse to dirty the current leader of the ALP so as to convince voters to vote lib. Albanese pulled a similar stunt when during the labor launch he told us that Abbott is no John Howard. Its an old political trick sunshine. 

YeAhhh, 100 posts, I can start posting links. I just want to say thank you and I couldn't have done it were it not for ... Ohhhh, you know who you are. I love you all God bless Australia.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 8:13pm:

Which explains why it rung so hollow

The ghost of 93 with the result of 96

Labor gains ground on Coalition, says new mobile-only poll

Labor has gained ground in the final week of the campaign...with 50.8% of the two party preferred vote to Labor’s 49.2%.

A Guardian Lonergan mobile-only poll, taken primarily on Thursday night as the Coalition finally released its policy costings and was forced to backflip on its originally-released internet-filter policy, showed a higher vote for the Greens and “others” flowing through to the Labor party’s two party preferred vote after the distribution of preferences.

The poll of 862 voters found the Coalition’s primary vote had fallen from its early campaign high to 42%, the Labor party’s rising slightly to 34%, a rise in the Greens’ House of Representatives vote to 14% and “others” to 10%.

The poll indicated a potentially higher vote for the Greens (at 16%) in the Senate, where “others” polled at 8%, Labor at 29% and the Coalition at 40%.

Lonergan research chief executive Chris Lonergan cautioned that in previous elections “the actual Senate vote has tended to differ from the self-reported voting intention figures in polling, possibly because it is very difficult to convey the complexity of a Senate voting form over the telephone”.

But he said based on these poll results he expected to see a strong result for the Greens and the minor parties in the Senate.

The poll shows a slightly better lower house result for Labor in two party preferred terms than three other final-week polls already released, largely due to the higher recorded primary vote for the Greens...

...“The fact that this is a mobile-only poll is very significant,” Lonergan said.

“We know a growing proportion of Australians do not have a landline at all, and many more Australians rarely or never answer a landline call – yet almost all Australians carry a mobile phone. We believe that a mobile-only poll is the most accurate means of measuring the views of Australians in 2013.”...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/06/two-party-preferred-vote-narrows