Risk of annihilation

JOHN Howard coined the warning and it remains valid: the Howard Government faces the prospect of political annihilation and the most serious defeat since the Liberal Party was created by Robert Menzies.

This is not a prediction. It is merely the direction of the opinion polls, unrelentingly consistent since Kevin Rudd became leader of the Labor Party. As Howard says, a sensible leader cannot ignore the polls.

A correction towards the Howard Government is to be expected. But that correction will need to be huge to avert a significant defeat.

The sense of frustration within sections of the Howard Government is undisguised as senior ministers confront their likely obliteration while convinced that they remain a good government.

The electorate is more volatile than in 1972 or 1983, the only other occasions on which Labor has won from Opposition in the past 75 years.

That Howard faces a more serious defeat than Billy McMahon or Malcolm Fraser is a sobering prospect, once seen as impossible.

Consider this: McMahon was a national joke, a man unfit to serve as prime minister. As for Fraser, his economic policy collapsed in the recession of the early 1980s.

Howard is a superior PM to these former leaders. Howard is no joke and he presides over the longest economic expansion in our history. Yet his polling position is worse than that of McMahon or Fraser.

It is a frightening prospect for the Liberal and National parties.

Howard was very close to both these defeats and he remembers them well. This is one reason Howard, as he signalled yesterday, won't be deferring the election. He knows that would be absolute folly. In 1972 McMahon got into strife because he postponed the poll until December2 and that became a further negative.

When McMahon called the poll, Gough Whitlam mocked him: "The prime minister has steadfastly adhered to the principle he announced for himself on this subject last March: 'What I have never done is to fix a date until I have made up my mind what the date is likely to be."'

In 1972, Howard took leave from work to help McMahon in his fatal campaign. In 1983 he was Fraser's treasurer, and again there was an election timing drama.

Labor switched leaders from Bill Hayden to Bob Hawke just before Fraser pulled the plug. The Howards were driving towards Myall Lakes and Janette asked John: "Are you sure they won't switch leaders on you?" Howard assured his wife it was most unlikely.

It would be nice for Howard if his main problem were election timing. But it isn't. His main problem runs deeper: the gulf between the Government's economic performance and its political rating. Howard's problem is that his Government's policy results are far superior to those of the McMahon and Fraser governments, but his electoral standing is far worse.

In short, his achievement is being discounted. The only conclusion is that this represents a judgment on the Prime Minister.

Contrary to the Howard haters, most people aren't angry about Howard. Many think he was a good PM whose time has expired. They know Howard has enjoyed a very long innings. They know he must retire soon. They feel that his contribution to Australia, for good or ill, is essentially made. In their mind's eye, they place him in the past, not the future. This is a sentiment and, perhaps, a conclusion.

It cannot come as a surprise. Howard has served 11 years as Prime Minister. Tony Blair arrived later than Howard and has resigned. George W. Bush has served seven years and, now deeply unpopular, is prevented by the US constitution from serving beyond eight years. In a world moving faster than ever, Howard's longevity is remarkable.

Howard's problem is that Australia's political mood has changed decisively. Today's Australians have long forgotten their lot in 1991 when unemployment almost tipped 11 per cent in the trough of the '90s recession. Recalling that time, former Reserve Bank governor Ian Macfarlane said in his Boyer Lectures: "A brooding pessimism seemed to affect all shades of economic and political opinion and little hope was held for our economic future."

That year was the start of the long expansion. Since his 1996 election, Howard has presided over a fall in unemployment from 8.5 per cent to 4.3 per cent. Such a result would have been inconceivable when Howard was first elected. Yet the inconceivable is now assumed.

Since 1996, Howard has presided over the creation of 2.2 million jobs, the decisive factor for prosperity and equity. The national accounts released yesterday show an economy growing at 4.3 per cent over the year. Yet Howard faces annihilation.

The agenda of politics has changed, not just since 1996 but since 2004. The environment has arrived as a mainstream issue, Iraq has gone bad, interest rates have kept rising. Howard forgot one lesson from 2004: the public was interested in the change represented by Mark Latham and flirted with him before rejecting him.

Howard's famous tenacity is engaged in his seemingly doomed struggle. He knows only one way to fight: with energy, professionalism and courage. He will not admit defeat until the final vote is counted.

Howard has decided that the only way the polls will turn is by calling the election. Only by concentrating the public's mind will the shift back to the Coalition be triggered. And if that doesn't work, the message will be to wait for the campaign's last week or last day or last hour.

It is true that Rudd's vote may be soft. But the public may have decided that Howard cannot speak about the future with credibility and, as a result, they no longer listen to him or credit his achievements.

There may be a defect with polling methodology this year. If not, then Newspoll's result on the eve of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum summit is a shocker, with Labor's primary vote lead 51 per cent to 37 per cent.

Compared with the 2004 poll, this is a 13 per cent rise for Labor and a 10per cent fall for the Coalition. It is political annihilation.

Howard's response to the Newspoll was illuminating: he pledged to work harder. It was well intentioned but inadequate.

Howard can work as hard as he likes, but the problem transcends diligence and capability.

Howard's formula is that he would stay leader only as long as his party wanted him.

The party is not going to depose Howard and Peter Costello is not going to challenge him. Howard's leadership lies in his own hands.

For 12 years he has stayed Liberal leader because he judged correctly that he was the party's best election winner. That was true in 1995 and it was true in 2006. But is it still true in September 2007?

What is the real message of the polls? Is it for Howard to bring on the election? Or is it that the public has closed its mind against him?

Howard has no intention of walking away from this battle because for him that would be an act of panic and cowardice.

But if the Liberal Party really believes the election is lost, then Howard must consider his responsibility as leader. He needs, at least, to re-examine his position and decide whether its logic remains valid.