Yet the influence of the Howard-era battles remains – and its most significant legacy might be the fact that history is embedded in the national curriculum at all. This is a major shift from its folding into SOSE (Studies of Society and Environment) at P-10 levels in many states.

In an interesting piece for Crikey today, Tony Taylor looks at the reception and implementation of the history curriculum:

The shameful moments came when, uncertain how to tackle a curriculum that was being hyped as traditionalist?—?and while Tony Abbott was pictured crouched in earnest conversation with an Aboriginal elder?—?some Opposition MPs started to count mentions of Aborigines in the curriculum. Should there be a quota on references to Aborigines? Give me a break! How would I feel, I asked myself, if I were an indigenous Australian and yet again in the newspapers I read that my culture’s presence in the nation’s schools was unwelcome?

When both sides of Australian politics acknowledge, with sincerity and generosity, the value and contribution of our indigenous heritage, the country will have truly grown up. Until then, we wait, but not with bated breath.

There were other knee-jerk reactions, too. Gallipoli watchers were at work. Wilful misreaders were prominent. Conspiracy theorists abounded. SOSE educators, a vanishing breed, said the curriculum was too narrow. Conservative commentators, a stubborn sort, said, variously, it was too broad, too stodgy, too socialist and a bit too Asian. More generally though, the new history draft was well received.

But, as Taylor argued, there’s always a potential gap between policy text and pedagogical practice. He goes on to discuss the absence of expertise in history at secondary and primary schools, and crucially for the future of the curriculum, in university Education Faculties.

The whole thing is worth a read.

NB: Previous LP discussion of the draft national curriculum is here.

A key element in Australia’s success has been that we do not define our nationhood by reference to a common religion, ethnicity or race. Our culture has always been very open to new ideas.

That’s in stark contrast to both Tony Abbott’s mishmash of Howardian themes and dire mutterings about “values”, and the apparent propensity of the current crop of Australian Labor leaders to avoid the question altogether, preferring to make sure they’re in frame for a right Royal photo-op. Turnbull’s articulation of an inclusive Australian identity will no doubt make an interesting contrast to the anticipated mawkish patriotic themes our ‘Fair Shake of The Sauce Bottle’ PM provides for our edification sometime or other over the next few days.

It is disappointing if this is now the politics of Rudd’s prime ministership. Despite Rudd’s tendency to conflate issues as moral challenges, he appears to view every political decision through one prism: inflict no pain and it’s all gain for him. … Here, in a nutshell, is Rudd’s political nirvana. He can continue a prime ministership based on rhetorical flourishes and symbolism without inflicting any pain on voters.

Much of Albrechtsen’s analysis is inflected with the spleen one would expect (and the illusion that to introduce WorkChoices is to do good), but I suspect she has something of a point. I’ve been critical myself of Rudd’s ‘big tent’ strategy – the accumulation of political capital for its own sake. As I’ve also commented, the Labor Party, in the face of Abbott’s leadership, is likely to downplay climate change as an issue. In an election year, the theme will move to an accentuation of the argument that Abbott and his frontbench waxworks represent a return to Howardism; but a nastier, more brutish version. And don’t be misled, they’ve hardly even begun to fight on this front. In many respects, the smart political move is to let Abbott prepare his own noose, as his negatives are already very much defined in the public mind.

But any election theme that Abbott represents the past requires painting Rudd as representing a brighter future. I’m not so certain Labor can just run on its record – a la the first term Hawke government, which got a nasty surprise in the 1984 election.

The issue of health might be a straw in the wind, indicating which way it may blow. Health still plays as one of the biggest issues in Queensland at state level, and I’d be surprised if that’s not the case in other states. Whether or not a commonwealth takeover would lead to a more efficient system I’ll leave to the policy wonks to ponder. But there’s no doubt that health, and “the administration of things” generally, is a potential minefield for governments. It’s one area, and some talk back programmes in Queensland more or less specialise in this, where human stories of woe can be endlessly sheeted home to political causes.

Richard Farmer has been arguing for a long time that health is an issue on which the government is vulnerable, and rightly decrying the useless performance of Peter Dutton as shadow minister. But Abbott seems to have finally taken his advice, and raised the temperature of the health debate – seeking to hold Rudd to his promise of a federal takeover if hospitals aren’t fixed. It’s absolutely no coincidence that the Prime Minister’s first public appearance after returning from Copenhagen was the opening of a cancer care facility, duly popping up on the news.

But there’s a seeming gap between “the buck stops here” and a review that reported ages ago, an apparently interminable round of consultations, and a fractured COAG process. Rudd might be doing the bureaucratic tango, and erecting his big tent, but the politics of health reform are problematic, insofar as the opposition can actually begin to politicise this question.

I don’t expect that Tony Abbott and the Coalition will go close to winning the 2011 election, but I do think that there’s some truth in the argument that the government’s dropped the political ball to some degree. In that context, it was interesting to look at the numbers in the latest Essential Research poll on the government’s performance, compared to expectations. It’s not impacting on primaries or the two party preferred, but there’s at least an indication here of some vulnerability.

In short, the Rudd government will need to articulate a positive vision for its second term. It won’t be too hard to argue that the GFC delayed the reform agenda, but it might be difficult to excite people with reviews and administrative caution. I’ve no doubt that the political hardheads in Labor know that, and it will be fascinating to see whether Rudd adopts a somewhat less apolitical political persona, and whether there are some big surprises in store on the policy front. His style, so far, has worked to preserve a big poll lead, but it may need to change to harden part of that lead into a smaller election winning majority.

Possum explains the significance of the latest polling numbers:

With the phone poll average in the sidebar now showing 109 seats going to Labor were the latest round of phone polls repeated at an election, there must be some pretty nervous Coalition marginal and not so marginal seat holders.

Look back at the tactics of the Opposition over the last few months where every card from the Howard era was played. Rising Interest Rates…. tick. Labor’s debt…. tick. Boat People….. tick.

It’s like that episode of the Simpsons where Lisa tests the difference in learning capability between a hamster and Bart. Sure the cupcake is electrified, sure every time he tries to grab it he gets shocked – after a few tries even a hamster would learn – but Bart keeps grabbing away time and time again, hoping that this time he won’t be zapped. Hoping this time it will be different.

When you change governments you change the country – as Keating said, but the national zeitgeist also changes with it and pulling these old cards out from the Oppo benches is a roadmap to failure.

Meanwhile, Essential Research finds 66% of respondents rating the Rudd government’s performance in handling the Global Financial Crisis as good or excellent. But over at The Australian, they’re banging on about the Liberal leadership, and declaiming:

…debt and deficit are now a concern of most Australians…

Oh. Really?

Elsewhere: Bernard Keane.

It also probably contributed to the demand – within the Liberal party – to ‘stand for something’, which is apparently code for ‘defending the Howard legacy’. This theme inspired Turnbull to get ahead of the pack and raise the tattered banner of individual work contracts. Not so useful politically, that one.

Those interested in the merits of this debate, as opposed to the sound and fury, might find Mungo McCallum’s contribution interesting:

It’s all Kevin Rudd’s fault. Here we are, nearly two years out of the Howard years and happily consigning them to well-deserved oblivion.

And then Rudd has to mention the war; and of course John Howard and Peter Costello lurch out of the political cemetery to boast about the size and quality of their tombstones and pretend they are not really dead after all, and Malcolm Turnbull feels that he has to join in and defend the two people in the world he most wants to forget. Such is the level of discussion in contemporary Australia.

The first is the lamentable habit Rudd has retained of retail politics Howard style. So we get grabs on the tv news every night of what Rudd thinks about x y and z – many of which have zip to do with the job of being PM. Let’s not forget the excuse for bringing the Beazer down – mixing Rove McManus and Karl Rove up. Perhaps the twenty something whiz kids Inside Kevin08 have a better grasp of pop culture, but would you really trust KRudd to comment on the political pop culture story of the week – Paris Hilton? Maybe the dude got where he is today in part because he was on breakfast telly and FM radio all the time, but isn’t there some truth to what Keating says about not just the dignity of the office but also trivialising the Prime Ministerial voice? When the Orstrayan public becomes less enamoured of Kevvy than we are at the moment, could it be that we’ll be as uninterested in what he has to say about economic policy as what he thinks of the last cricket result or all those many many many artistic and intertube-ish threats to teh kiddies? (Which probably – incidentally – needlessly alienates part of his support base without really gaining him much…)

Secondly, there’s a very sensible piece by Bernard Keane in today’s Crikey on the narrative thing. It repays reading in full but there’s one bit I wanted to highlight.

Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan have a narrative. They’re addressing supply-side constraints in areas like skills and infrastructure. They’re reviewing the taxation and transfer systems. They want to use a market-based approach to addressing climate change. But they haven’t consistently and pithily explained it in a few memorable turns of phrase — the sort that Keating can apparently produce in his sleep.

And they don’t have a hero. Wayne Swan is competent, but he’s not a compelling figure. This is very much the Rudd Government. The only figures to emerge from the shadow of the Prime Minister have been Julia Gillard and Penny Wong. That’s why the Government’s narrative hasn’t taken hold.

The Government’s commitment to proper policy development processes — including consultation — hasn’t helped. After a decade-plus of the Howard Government’s top-down decision-making, we’re not used to a Government that may actually be interested in developing good policy with input from anyone with a view. As a consequence, debates are kicked off without being shaped by the Government’s agenda. This week’s tax discussion paper is a good example. Wayne Swan was content to see the paper issued and let the debate proceed of its own accord. This is a very healthy thing. Yet it yielded stories in The Australian about “ticking time bombs” and “damp squibs.”

If you don’t provide a narrative, the media will do it for you.

The Government needs a clearer, more coherent narrative. And it needs a hero, to personalise that narrative. Julia Gillard has the gift of reducing issues to their basics. She dominates Parliament. She is respected by opinion-makers and the public. She needs to become the reforming hero of the Rudd Government, and shape its story.

Amen to that. It’s not just because she’s a powerful woman that the right hate her so much (though it is also that).