The Reign Had To End

“Howards End: The Unravelling Of A Government”

By Peter Van Onselen and Philip Senior

It is a marvellous thing to look back using hindsight on the political landscape. Especially now that the man who, as the subtitle suggests, unravelled a govt, has himself since been sent packing by the people that got him the top job in the first place.

With hindsight perhaps we should have seen it coming. Yet as a nation the people wanted change so much that a multitude of personal weaknesses in Rudd were overlooked. The sentiment was strong, was it a good enough reason to oust a strong, capable government? The last three years have gone some way to answer that question. Still, depending one your philosophy the question will be debated for a long time.

So much more happens in an election campaign than we will ever know. A multitude of factors contributed to the events of 2007.

Firstly there was the strong sentiment for change for the sake of changing. Add to that an unknown entity in Kevin Rudd who despite his nerdy and awkward demeanour managed to capture the attention of a nation. He played heavily on the desire for change while gaining some profile on channel 7’s popular morning program, Sunrise.

On the other side of the coin was an over confident government that didn’t see Rudd coming, who did? They were rarely able to set the agenda and were playing catch up most of the time. Any thought of succussion planning or generational change came too late. This didn’t help counter the strong public sentiment for change.

Rudd had cleverly neutralised most issues through what was called “me tooism”. The government tried to inform the public that there is no point of distinction between then and the opposition. But they didn’t care.

The opposition had a distinct advantage in the issue of workchoices. The union campaign was very successful in scaring the public that the world will end if workchoices were allowed to continue. Admittedly the legislation went a tad too far but was nowhere near as bad as the unions would want you to believe. There were in fact some very good and well-needed aspects of the legislation. But once again, it didn’t matter, the government had no chance to counter the well-funded union machine once it had gained ascendancy.

It is ironic to read this book three years after the events. In particular to read quotes that resonated with the public back then. Such as examples on how committed the Rudd government was to being fiscally responsible. He even bagged out Howard for what he considered “reckless spending”. Yes, ironic.