Kevin Rudd's timely tactics

ACCORDING to Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister John Howard is simultaneously poll-driven and out of touch.

This contradiction would surely suggest Howard should sack his pollsters but Rudd believes we should sack Howard.

Sacking the prime minister before the federal election would undoubtedly give the ALP its best shot at winning but what of the cost to the nation.

Rudd hangs his hopeful opinion on leaked advice from the Liberal Party's pollsters Crosby/Textor, published yesterday by The Daily Telegraph and outlined voters' views of the current political leadership along with suggested areas which needed addressing.

It's the sort of thing pollsters regularly prepare but usually save for confidential briefings rather than present in documentary form so as to reduce the possibility of a leak.

But in this case the contents would come as no surprise to anyone who has been following the political debate. Let's examine the five areas outlined on the front page of the newspaper and ask whether the proposed campaign points are valid.

Does it make sense for the Government to highlight Rudd's inexperience?

Heck yes. The public needs to be urgently informed about Rudd's lack of real world experience, something the media has largely overlooked in its overwhelming desire to one day see an Australian PM address the Chinese in their own language.

At the same time, the media has shown extraordinary interest in Howard's past, and even his father's and grandfather's pasts have been scrutinised.

Should the Government stress its record for economic management and the risk to the economy posed by Labor?

You bet. After all, there are young voters who have not only never experienced a Labor government but have no memory of the pain inflicted by past Labor governments through high interest rates combined with high levels of unemployment.

Is there a need to emphasise the failure of the states to meet their responsibilities for health, education, transport and other areas of public service which they are charged to deliver?

Absolutely. Even supposedly sophisticated punters get confused about which government is meant to be doing what - as listeners to talkback radio are reminded daily, but it's fairly safe to assume that the problem which most immediately affects daily life, ie. getting to work safely, ensuring the kids get the best possible education is one the state has responsibility to fix.

Does the Government need to cash in on optimism by linking with its past performances?

Why wouldn't it. The record is stunning by any global measure and has put the praiseworthy achievements of the Hawke-Keating government in the shade. Unemployment is at a 33-year low, all taxpayers are enjoying a higher level of prosperity than they imagined a decade ago, taxes are lower and benefits are higher.

Has the Government's plummeting expectations of winning impinged on the vote and is there a need to rebuild optimism? Damn right. Reading the Fairfax press and listening to some of 2UE's sob sisters, one would believe Australia was on the ropes.

But other nations regard such commentary with scorn and derision. A couple of foreign visitors were left choking on their soup when I told them first home-buyers receive government assistance and a baby bonus is funded by taxpayers.

Rudd's claim that Howard is poll-driven just doesn't stack up.

As Howard reminded John Laws yesterday, his decision to have the Government make a difference for sexually-abused children in indigenous communities after years of ineffectual discussion between state and territory leaders and community figures was taken on June 21, the same day the Crosby/Textor paper was prepared.

It was not a question of the chicken and the egg. The eggs were rotten and the chickens had done nothing and there was no prospect of the situation changing before Howard acted.

Similarly, it would take a particularly silly person to suggest that the decision to go to an election with a plan to introduce a GST was poll-driven, or to join the Coalition of the Willing and topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Rudd, of course, was more strident than Howard on the need to go into Iraq and see the mission through, but he has now changed his tune.

It may have been to do with something he read in the polls.

Howard's fight to bring sanity to the argument over the Murray-Darling was hardly poll-driven, nor was his decision to introduce technical colleges.

In each case, the states and territories had let down their people and Howard felt the Federal Government should pick up the burden.

But with the states receiving even more money from the GST (which the ALP adamantly opposed but will not wind back) and piddling it away on higher salaries for even more bloated armies of bureaucrats, what else can Howard's Government do?

The reality is there is not a more poll-driven political entity in Australia than the Federal ALP, which receives prepared briefs throughout the day from Hawker-Britton staffers who alternate private sector careers with stints as Labor advisers.

The worry is Howard would not be around to bail out a Rudd government, should voters fail to come to their senses before the election.