It can also be interesting to compare first term governments at this stage of the electoral cycle, and here the obvious contrast – despite all the media beatups – is the absence of major scandal and ministerial resignations compared to both the Hawke and Howard governments. That doesn’t, of course, imply that all the Labor ministers are fabulous, but it is worth observing.

One of the things that’s interested me in the discussion that had already began quite a while before we reached the actual milestone is that in both comments on this blog and in conversations with some friends I’ve seen the sentiment expressed that simply avoiding hearing a daily litany of horrors from the Howard crew is Rudd’s greatest achievement. It might, and no doubt will, be objected that – “lefties would say that, wouldn’t they?” But I think there are a couple of points here. First, there is no doubt that a government with a more humanitarian tinge and an appreciation of propriety and ethics is to be welcomed, and that sentiment – along with the promise keeping – will be a contributor to Labor’s continuing lead in the polls. Secondly, I think The Howard Years has been interestingly timed to stimulate some comparison and to reinforce the whole sense of relief that we don’t have that turgid mob to kick around any more.

But, again, one thing that wore out the Coalition’s welcome with the electorate was the constant “rabbits out of the hat” and the whole bag of divisive tricks, along with the internal ructions and the cockiness of ministers. I agree that the Liberals are still playing at the same game in many ways. John Howard was elected in 1996 as a safe pair of hands and the Libs were “the party of order”, if you like. By the end of their fourth term, they looked like the risky and unsafe proposition and Kevin Rudd’s calm demeanour undoubtedly contributed much to Labor’s victory. WorkChoices was also probably the biggest single mistake the Coalition made, and the related apprehension that worse would follow and more leadership instability also condemned the Howard government to defeat.

But what of policy, and that shibboleth beloved of the punditariat, “the narrative”? First, there’s the irony that Paul Keating – through one artifice or another – succeeded in setting the critical tone for assessment of the next Labor government after his fall from power. So it probably wasn’t surprising to see Rudd – in an interview with the Fin on Saturday – insist that the government does have a narrative. In fact, I don’t think that’s ever been in doubt. The three themes Labor laid out last year – broadly speaking – human capital and infrastructure, modernisation and social inclusion have continued to be a leitmotif of the government’s program. Rudd himself encapsulated the major tones somewhat differently, including security and defence for instance, but in practice that hasn’t been a domain that’s been at the forefront of public debate.

One could spend a lot of time assessing all manner of policy initiatives and announcements – and the symbolism which actually unifies those three themes (think of Quentin Bryce’s elevation or the Closing the Gap initiative associated with the Apology). But, when forming an overall view, probably the most significant single political factor has been that people really have – on the whole – got what they thought they would get, and that even though the ship of state now has to be steered through some rather more stormy waters, the promises have been kept. It’s almost impossible to underestimate the political importance of this one fact. That’s why, or the biggest reason why, Labor and Rudd have continued to enjoy – monotonously for the punditariat – a level of support somewhat in excess of the election winning vote.

Forget about almost everything that’s been written about politics this year – politics has in effect been on hold. Labor ministers really have been able to play the requisite game in their sleep, and Malcolm Turnbull’s elevation hasn’t changed much. It’s also been accompanied by a maturing of the government’s communications and strategy and sense that a tighter outfit is emerging less obsessed with winning the daily media cycle. It really would be a waste of effort to examine which groups and demographics have shifted slightly or whatever – at least from the perspective of the bigger picture. The reality is that it’s highly likely that a substantial majority of electors are happy with the decision made last year and despite all the counterfactuals and scenarios the media love to play with, the truth is that it would likely take a lot to reverse that satisfaction and comfort level.

It may be, of course, reasonable to borrow one of the punditariat’s favourite notions and remark that the hard decisions lie ahead – two of the most important being the final shape of the emissions trading scheme (and the stance adopted in international negotiations) and the industrial relations changes (with Julia Gillard introducing the legislation tomorrow). As well as the obvious questions about economic policy, service delivery and improvement will be another key yardstick for judgement. But we need to recognise that Rudd plays a long game, and that if the planets align, all the criticism of government by review and so on will appear very ephemeral and fleeting.

My punt is still that Labor are dug in for a long innings. But the continued salience of the “not Howard” factor suggests to me that we do have to wait somewhat longer to discern the true shape of the government elected one year ago.

Update: Here’s my take, focusing more on politics than policy. Graham Young looks at the deficit issue. An Onymous Lefty emphasises the Not Howard issue. At Crikey, Bernard Keane wishes everyone a Happy Kruddiversary and readers weigh in, and Scott Bridges writes in New Matilda.

Update: Andrew Bartlett notes the anniversary and the fact that it happily coincides with the long over due removal of statutory discrimination against same sex couples.

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull a hit in Queensland

If you look at the tables, Labor is in a (slightly) better position on the two party preferred than it was in the federal election, on 51-49 in the state (the ALP’s 2PP in Queensland in November was 50.4%). And the Coalition’s primary vote has fallen by .5%.

But:

The fact that Labor’s advantage in the home state of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Treasurer Wayne Swan could be eroded so quickly is likely to send shockwaves through the Federal Government.

Hardly.

All this is based on some improvement in the ratings on economic management (but with the Coalition still behind Labor). Last year, the Coalition had better poll numbers on economic management – and lost the election.

[Via Oz Politics]

So what’s Labor up to? A lot of it has to do with Turnbull’s persona. As Kim observed the other day, Turnbull won’t be anywhere near as well known among the general public as he is among political junkies. When there’s so much attention on him, you get in quick to define his persona. The line has already morphed – from rich dude to out of touch Eastern suburbs silvertail who represents, you know, latte sippers and Sydney Morning Herald readers. Which, after all, he does. “Vaucluse”, “Point Piper”, and “Western suburbs” (by way of contrast) are words carrying huge symbolic weight. It’s a tie in with the “right to drive a Porsche” jibes and will be a better fit with Turnbull than with truckin’ Brendan.

Turnbull’s possibly doing himself no favours by talking about himself so much, a point that a conga line of Ministers have made. It’s the downside of having to define yourself. To the degree that Turnbull does have an image as egotistical and arrogant, he reinforces that by dwelling on his own qualities. And the press does part of the job for the ALP by writing about him in terms of his stellar intellect, heroic qualities, his temper and “inability to tolerate fools”, blah blah. If there’s one image that Australian voters don’t like, it’s of someone with tickets on themselves and a sense of entitlement. Just ask Peter Costello.

Thirdly, while the press may have been suggesting Turbull is some sort of “crazy brave” choice and will provide sparks and excitement, that’s probably a negative. An objective look at most of his public presentation since becoming a Parliamentarian belies that. It must be a reflection of his private behaviour – just as Rudd’s known to “Insiders” as having a temper, but has a very carefully crafted public self-presentation as almost respectful and gentle in disposition towards his interlocutors. So the “truth” doesn’t matter in communications terms. What Labor is doing is again playing on the media story and goading Turnbull – particularly in Parliament – to actually lose his temper. While the press gallery might be writing admiringly about Turnbull’s poise in question time, what the government is trying to do is to rile him. Then the deal is sealed. Hubris can be gamed.

All this is quite similar to how the Liberals tried to game Rudd last year. It didn’t work then because of Rudd’s incredible self-discipline, and because he didn’t appear to be a media tart. It may well work with Turnbull.

The Labor attack on Rudd will have been focus grouped. Any political machine worth its salt does research on possible opponents. There’s a lot of discipline and strategy and cohesive themes in Labor’s assault, which (among other things) suggests it’s a game plan which has just been taken off the shelf, and isn’t some sort of frightened reaction. There’s actually been some very clever politics from the Labor side over the last couple of days. It doesn’t appear to have been noticed by the press gallery, who are lost in their own “media narrative”. To the degree that there is now a contest, Labor is ready. They’ve hardly had to play politics at all since the election, because Nelson was doomed from the start. Now they do. But don’t forget these dudes and dudettes threw out a government which was supposed to be unassailable with a very large swing indeed. They’re not political amateurs.

Yes, Virginia, there is a strategy.

Boycott the thing, I say!

Ps: The crew at the Opposition Organ were in a collective sulk over the weekend with the entire news analysis section or whaddeveritis full of Cossie this or Cossie that. In Crikey, Bernard Keane underlines one of only two serious points to be made about the whole memoir touting/breathless speculation show:

“Agenda journalism is a dangerous pursuit,” wrote Frank Devine in The Oz last week, quoting John Hartigan.

“It makes newspapers tediously predictable at best and, at worst, cumulatively untrustworthy.”

It was good to see that old Frank is still capable of writing cogently, even if it is the same right-wing bile he’s been vomiting for decades. But his description of his own paper was spot on. Tediously predictable and untrustworthy — especially when it tries to play kingmaker.

The other point?

Andrew Robb’s argument that the best thing for the party is for everyone to knuckle down and get on with their jobs is true enough, but it’s not going to happen. Not with Costello still on the backbench, not with everyone waiting for Nelson’s next gaffe, not with the clock ticking, every second and every opinion poll taking Nelson closer to the end.

And not with Tony Abbott and other, more anonymous, Liberals opening their yaps every day to offer their own self-interested take on events.

The only people knuckling down and getting on with the job will be Kevin Rudd and his ministers, confident they can operate without serious pressure from the other side. And Rudd only looks vulnerable when he’s under pressure.

It’s not as though Kevin Rudd and the government couldn’t do with a bit of, well, opposition. You know, in the real sense, not populist bollocks designed mainly to try to get Brendan Nelson an extra point or two in the almighty Newspoll.

Industrial relations and global warming were key issues for the Labor voters who took part in all three polls, with two of the polls revealing that global warming was the prime concern among voters who changed their vote between the 2004 and 2007 elections.

One of the more interesting arguments Davis makes in the opening chapter is that “being Australian is an ethical project”. He quotes Nettie Palmer, writing in Meanjin in 1944:

A new country that is merely an imitation of its predecessors, that discovers no new thoughts or forms, that contributes nothing to the meaning of the world – would it deserve to exist?

In a way, the dislocations and the sense of insecurity Davis seeks to trace over the past three decades reflect a disjunction between the nation and the state – a disjunction embodied in the casual bipartisanship of the major parties, even if some of the wellsprings of everyday doubt and pain were harnessed by Kevin Rudd and Labor in 2007. If one were to compare political ideologies, both conservatism and social democracy – in quite different ways – want to see the state as a vehicle for creating meanings and symbols, for fostering a shared and collective culture. One looks back, the other forward, but it’s characteristic of both to regard governance as something like steering a ship – while one may tack often, there’s an intention of heading in a determined direction.

Liberalisms of almost all stripes are quite hostile to the idea of a collective vision realised through the state. Partly, it’s as Davis says, a different time sense where one lives in “the eternal present of the market”, seeing the future as something amenable to both unpredictability and calculation. Partly it’s a belief that meaning is an individual affair, and that progress is the result of the aggregation of individual decisions through the mechanism of the market. Liberals are often highly suspicious of the idea that politics is about meanings, seeing this as the first step on the road to serfdom.

In actually existing Australian politics, of course, we’ve been beset by culture wars for a decade or more, where those taking up the sword in the “battle of ideas” have – despite some protestations to the contrary – been far more conservative than liberal. But, and here’s the rub for conservatism, with the decay of institutional authority and moral certainties of all kinds, all this results more and more in an articulation of a narrow sense of national belonging with the individual. Secular ceremonies such as Anzac Day aside, we’re supposed to be patriots only in the privacy of our own castle, as it were. Not too dissimilar to George W. Bush’s “beat the terrorists through spending money” thing.

So all the sound and fury of the “battle of ideas” aside, what’s left of the sense that “being Australian is an ethical project”? Our cultural history, Davis argues, is replete with a particular privilege given to fairness and egalitarianism (at least among those within the symbolic pale of Australianness), and what really is a social as much as a political democracy – a set of habits and attitudes as much as the institutional and policy architecture which sustained and gave voice to them. Is much left of this tradition? Should we be looking to ourselves rather than to the state or the Labor party or whoever to sustain them? These are questions if not raised then implied by his book which I think are well worth posing.