The election outcome.(Editorial)(Editorial)

THE RESULT of the November 24 general election came as no surprise, though the polls if anything turned out rather more accurately than was anticipated. But it seemed pretty much time for a change of government, other things being equal, and this duly took place. It is possible that the Howard government could have been returned if the Coalition's campaign had been better conducted, but this was unlikely. Even so it is worth remembering that despite all the seeming inevitability it was a close margin. There is plenty of rejoicing amongst the Howard haters, and crowing about in particular Howard's loss of his own seat, but the defeat was not the humiliating rebuff that its deliverers would have wished.

However, it has to be said that it was a great mistake of John Howard's to insist on fighting through to the bitter end. It is not at all certain that Peter Costello would have won the election if he had taken the reins--but the overall result for the Coalition would have been very much less humiliating than it was. If Howard had retired from the prime ministership after completing his decennial in 2006 he would have left covered in glory; and Costello would at least have had a year or so to attempt to consolidate his position. Even to have lost honourably towards the end of 2007 would have been a better position for both Howard and Costello.

Howard's behaviour throughout 2007 can only be characterised as hubris, and he can only be personally blamed for this. Whom the gods would destroy ... This is a pity, since the former prime minister's record remains permanently stained, and his record in government only able to be discussed through this defect. Most of the petty triumphalism of the post-election period will dissipate, and John Howard's record will be able to be subjected to reasonably objective analysis, though the usual defamations will be liberally applied. Again, the former prime minister has himself to blame for not having chosen a better time to leave office. Nevertheless he showed considerable grace in the manner of his conceding office; grace which had never been shown by his immediate predecessor in the job.

Kevin Rudd is as yet an unknown quantity, as is most of his front bench. The new Prime Minister throughout the election campaign emphasised his own conservatism, especially in economic matters. Much the same was true of the new Treasurer, Wayne Swan. At this early stage the new Labor government looks a lot like the Hawke Labor government before Keating's grab for power--overall, an effective, reformist government introducing many of the reforms which the Fraser government should have introduced but for various reasons, in particular Fraser's sheer stupidity, did not. Like Hawke Labor, Rudd proposes to dwell on fiscal responsibility as well as overall monetary soundness. Despite the scheming of backwoodsmen like Senator Kim Carr, most of the economic ministers seem solidly against a reversion to tariffs and other protective devices.

All this sounds very promising. But we are really guaranteed only about a year of the first Rudd government. After that the shape of the government is likely to change quite substantially. In effect, the composition of the ministry is mainly that of Kim Beazley's shadow ministry. But although the Coalition's message was conveyed quite crudely, it was all the same correct about the heavy emphasis in the new government on people more or less directly derived from the trade union movement. From the beginning the ALP caucus will be dominated by unionists (especially in the Senate). More importantly it will contain a substantial number of heavyweight unionists who will soon insist on making their voices heard. Many of these are temporarily parked as parliamentary secretaries, but will be expecting to see radical promotion within a year. That will be the first big stir amongst the new government, when a good deal of the remaining dead wood of the old Beazley regime will be finally shed.

It will be the real test for Rudd, also. Whether he will be able to keep control of his government once the union barons begin to flex their muscles, whether he will be able to continue with the conservative policies he has promised, whether he will be able to continue to implement a policy of labour market reform will be in question; above all whether Rudd will have the strength to continue his essentially rationalist position and implement the kind of bureaucratic policies which he seems to espouse will have to be seen. It will be easy enough for him to reject the previous government's workplace relations policy, since this was a total mess from the beginning, and every amendment to it made it worse. So long however as he does this without returning labour markets to the kind of sclerosis and union power base that they had developed this could only be a good thing. What will eventuate cannot be confidently predicted. Given the much greater sophistication of the union barons who have now entered parliament the outcome may be quite desirable--the thugs who have dominated a few unions will not necessarily determine the outcome.

It remains to be seen what Julia Gillard's role in all this will be. It may be that Rudd has deliberately overloaded her with work: education, employment, workplace relations and social inclusion will be a heavy burden. Either she will have to slide some of it off onto others, or she will escape Rudd's control altogether. Either way could have a chaotic result, and unless Rudd is a really first-rate bureaucrat it could be the beginning of his government sliding into chaos along the lines of the Whitlam government.