Abbott must take care that history doesn't repeat

VERY incapable, is the simple answer, and surprisingly often. The question at the end of this week, the final parliamentary sitting week of the year, is whether history will repeat itself next year, and another opposition leader who has focused on the government's negatives rather than developing a case for election as prime minister begins slowly to fade from contention.

John Hewson and his Fightback package was the exception that proved this rule. It was 20 years ago this week that he launched that detailed package, well ahead of the 1993 election campaign.

Having worked as Hewson's press secretary at the time, Tony Abbott is more inclined to learn from Hewson's mistake of showing too much of his plans, rather than the many counter examples of opposition leaders at state and federal levels who crawled up into balls to avoid serious scrutiny.

Most notable among them was Kim Beazley.

In this week's Liberal partyroom meeting Abbott implored his troops not to stray into ill-discipline because of frustration about Coalition policy. They had to keep up the fight against the government, keeping the attention on government failures, including the carbon tax. An election might be just around the corner, he reminded them.

Of course, Peter Slipper's defection from the Liberal Party to become an independent Speaker on Thursday may have changed all of that.

If we go back more than 10 years, another opposition leader expressed similarly confident sentiments to his partyroom during a period of solid polling dominance. When the parliamentary sitting week of March 26, 2001, began, then Labor leader Kim Beazley used his caucus meeting to implore MPs to stay disciplined and trust the leadership group's strategy of unpicking John Howard's GST. An election was due before the end of the year; if they stayed disciplined, victory was within sight, he told them.

The Newspoll released the week of March 12, 2001, had Labor's primary vote on 48 per cent, the Coalition's just 35 per cent. The poll released the week Beazley addressed caucus showed similar results, although with a slight tightening of the numbers (46 per cent to 37 per cent).

Howard's net satisfaction rating as prime minister was at a near all-time low of -36 (Beazley's was sitting on -8), and the opposition leader led Howard in the preferred PM stakes.

I well remember the mood among Coalition staff at the time. Many were circulating their CVs in anticipation of losing their jobs. Lining up behind Beazley at Aussies Cafe in parliament, you thought you were looking at the next prime minister.

Only the hardest of heads inside the Coalition were holding their nerve. Interestingly, one of them was Abbott, who had just been promoted into cabinet. About that time he told his staff at a dinner at Portia's Place restaurant in the Canberra suburb of Kingston not to lose heart because a comeback was achievable.

We know now that later that year Howard won a third term in power, increasing his majority from the 1998 election. Events moved quickly, from budget U-turns and the Tampa stand-off to the September 11 attacks.

For Liberals who think the unpopularity of the incumbent government (and Prime Minister) is unprecedented and irrecoverable, let's compare today's polls with those Beazley was crowing about in March 2001.

Labor trails the Coalition on the primary vote 30 per cent to 48 per cent: similar numbers. The net satisfaction ratings of both leaders today are woeful at -21 a piece. But Julia Gillard's rating has recovered to the extent that it is not as dire as Howard's in March 2001. Unlike Howard then, this week Gillard reclaimed the preferred PM lead, 40 per cent to 35 per cent.

Despite the setback in the party vote for Labor in this week's Newspoll (it went backwards from two weeks ago), the government is starting to chalk up some wins. Passing legislation, deals done on the international stage and now the improved numbers on the floor of the parliament, courtesy of Peter Slipper's slippery act, are all examples.

Abbott was outmanoeuvred by Labor on Thursday when the government plucked one of his own MPs from his ranks and installed him as Speaker. It was a tactical victory, but it is far from clear whether it will turn out to be a strategic masterstroke.

Given Labor's poor party numbers, the big risk for the government is that the slippery deal feeds into the impression that brand Labor is capable of anything, and not in a good way.

And differences between 2001 and 2011 may save Abbott from copying Beazley's mistakes.

While he is emulating Beazley's relentless negativity and small-target strategy, although doing a better job of it, Beazley was constantly lampooned for lacking ticker. No one could accuse Abbott of lacking ticker.

While the Tampa incident and September 11 contributed to Howard's recovery in the polls, asylum-seekers policy and national security are traditional Coalition strengths. And Howard had already started to recover, courtesy of budget giveaways. Fiscal settings next year will be too tight for Labor to do likewise.

The big difference between now and 2001 may turn out to be the competence of the respective parties in government. Howard had serious horsepower around him (Peter Costello and Peter Reith, for example). Labor has yet to prove that it can govern competently. And the GST had already been fought for and won at the 1998 election. The carbon tax appears very different.

These differences may mean that the history written for 2001 doesn't repeat itself in the 43rd parliament. However, one thing Gillard has on her side that Howard didn't 10 years ago is time. In March 2001, Howard was staring down the barrel of calling an election within six months. The Slipper defection means Abbott may need to survive and thrive two more years as Opposition Leader, taking his time in that role to four long years.

Historically, opposition leaders usually don't last that long. The last one who did was . . . Beazley. Abbott will be hoping he doesn't suffer the same fate.

Peter van Onselen is a Winthrop professor at the University of Western Australia.