When Tony Abbott became leader of the Liberal Party in December 2009, Labor ministers famously cracked open the champagne to celebrate: there was no way the public would vote for him, they chortled. Barely six months had passed before Abbott had driven Labor into minority government; he was one term away from a landslide victory.
The damning Bulletin cover.
Before 1996, John Howard was considered unelectable. He was seen as yesterday’s man – a recycled former leader whose failure in the 1980s had provoked one of The Bulletin’s most memorable front pages: “Mr 18%: Why on earth does this man bother?” His return to the leadership in 1995 was mocked as proof positive that the Liberal Party had run out of both ideas and talent. Howard went on to lead a four-term government and served for longer than any other prime minister except the great Robert Menzies.
Menzies himself was once almost universally regarded as unelectable. After his unsuccessful prime ministership in 1939-1941, he too was written off as yesterday’s man. When he dusted himself off and led his newly formed Liberal Party to a bad defeat in 1946, the whispers around the Melbourne establishment – in those faraway days the Liberal heartland – were “you’ll never win with Menzies”. They did: in 1949, and again in 1951, 1954, 1955, 1958, 1961 and 1963.
The reverse is also true: Australian political history is littered with the failed prime ministerial ambitions of political princelings who once seemed destined for the prize: Evatt, Peacock, Beazley, Shorten. Nobody ever called any of them “unelectable”. But the voters are always wiser than the opinionated insiders of the parliamentary press gallery. As my friend Graham Richardson is fond of saying, “The mob always work you out.”
It’s almost as if being ordained a “future prime minister” is a kiss of death, while being deemed “unelectable” is the ultimate unintended compliment. There may well be more who ultimately make it to The Lodge among the latter category than the former.
Loading
Of course, criticism of the alternative leader is an important part of every election campaign. But when attacks on a political opponent are focused on the person rather than policy, it makes the critic look weak – even fearful. As well, making the challenger the issue enlarges him. Trump dominated nearly every day of the presidential campaign because Harris foolishly made it all about him.
Where personal attacks come from the incumbent, they also convey to the electorate the subliminal message that he is reluctant to defend his own record, and that he has nothing new to offer.
Nevertheless, I still expect that next year, demonising Peter Dutton will be central to Labor’s campaign – firm in its conviction that he is unelectable – all the way until he is elected.
