KEY POINTS:
Even overseeing 11 years of unbroken economic prosperity has proved insufficient to win John Howard a fifth term as Australian Prime Minister. The victory of Kevin Rudd's Labor Party confirms yet again that there comes a time when it is not enough merely to appeal to voters on
the basis of an outstanding record. At that stage in the political cycle, the electorate's view of a leader can turn. A feeling that it is time for a change will take root. If politicians add sins of omission and oversight to this burden, as Mr Howard has done, they are doomed.
Labor's decisive victory owed much to Australians seeking a leadership that could respond to new challenges, not one essentially content to rest on its laurels. Leaders in their fourth term are always apt to be seen as stale and complacent. Mr Howard, while recognising the danger, did little to counter it by offering fresh ideas. Equally, his instinctive feel for the concerns of the ordinary Australian, a significant factor in his longevity, deserted him.
These factors coalesced in his approach to climate change. Having declined to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, Mr Howard failed to discern the groundswell that was acted on by other conservative politicians such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Angela Merkel. Instead, he remained fixated on his self-appointed role of faithful sidekick to President George W. Bush.
Mr Howard remained mute as severe drought threatened the viability of large tracts of the Australian agricultural landscape. This threatened an outback lifestyle that still resounds in the national psyche. Brownie points were there for the taking by Mr Rudd, who pledged to sign the Kyoto accord, and take Australia to the heart of the discussions that will shape its successor.
Such new ideas were reinforced by the Labor leader's relative youthfulness. Even if unfairly, a decade-plus period in power inevitably elevates the question of age and increases an incumbent's vulnerability.
Mr Howard would have been about 70 when, as he intended, he handed over the prime ministership to Peter Costello. Mr Rudd is 50, fairly new to politics and part of a different generation. Given the point in the political cycle, his key task was not to alienate the legion of working-class battlers, many of whom had had their increasing doubts about the Howard Government reinforced by workplace relations legislation.
Previous Labor leaders had managed to scare the horses. Mr Rudd did not. The former diplomat, a resident of Labor's right wing, paid due homage to the Howard Government's sound management by virtually mimicking its economic policies, and promised an increased emphasis on health and education. Throughout the campaign, he mixed blandness with a nice line in self-deprecation.
In the age of larrikins such as Bob Hawke, he might have been ridiculed. In a climate of unease, he seemed a safe and decent proposition. This persona was placed in sharp relief on the eve of the poll when senior members of Mr Howard's Liberal Party were implicated in a dirty tricks campaign in which bogus pamphlets were used to smear Labor and whip up anti-Muslim sentiment in a key marginal seat.
The ploy allowed Mr Rudd to suggest that "after 11 years, all the Liberals have left to offer is negativity, desperation and dirty tactics". It was a message embraced by the electorate. Mr Howard is left to reflect on the fact that, in terms of managing Australia and delivering personal prosperity, he did little wrong. It was simply his lot to fall victim to the pernicious spinning of the political wheel.