The recent general elections in Australia and Canada provided some interesting results for political trainspotters. Both saw the incumbent parties, once trailing, secure decisive victories, while opposition leaders - Peter Dutton in Australia and Pierre Poilievre in Canada - lost their parliamentary seats in stinging personal defeats. These results highlight how leadership dynamics and national sentiment can upend conventional expectations.
Canada’s election turned on a pivotal leadership shift at home and the election of Donald Trump in the United States. The Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, the long-time foil to Justin Trudeau, had enjoyed some electoral support for his criticisms of Trudeau’s progressive tenure and undoubtedly was also benefitting from some voter fatigue with Trudeau given that he had been in power since 2015.
However, his campaign faltered when Mark Carney, a former Canadian and UK central banker, was parachuted into the Liberal leadership to replace Trudeau. Carney’s technocratic credibility and steady demeanour blunted Poilievre’s attacks, reframing the contest as stability versus populism. Poilievre’s Trump-inspired economic nationalism failed to regain traction, and the loss of his Ottawa seat reflected a very pointed voter rejection.
The threat of Trump loomed far larger in Canada than it did in Australia, and it allowed Carney to frame the moment as a “crisis”. For a country that historically favours steady political leadership, the choice became a simple one for Canadian voters.
Australia’s election was a different story - although it ended in a similar manner - a stunning comeback victory for the incumbent.
Since John Howard’s 2007 defeat, Australia has endured a revolving door of six Prime Ministers - Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Rudd again, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, and Scott Morrison - each felled by party spills or electoral losses. This instability, fuelled by internal rivalries and voter discontent, made Anthony Albanese’s re-election the first consecutive win in 21 years since Howard’s 2004 re-election.
Despite a first term marred by inflation and the failure of the Indigenous Voice referendum, Albanese’s Labor Party gained 16 seats to secure 93 seats (the most in the party’s history) and register a rare second-term majority in recent Australian political history.
Albanese’s campaign had begun divisively, with a “Project Fear” strategy framing Dutton as a Trump-like threat. Labor targeted Dutton’s pledges to cut services, curb immigration, and oppose Indigenous recognition. This approach risked alienating voters weary of acrimony.
Yet Albanese pivoted, emphasising fairness and unity with a campaign slogan ‘Building Australia’s future’. He received lukewarm endorsement from Nine Entertainment’s newspapers including The Sydney Morning Herald, which wrote, “Dutton should not be our prime minister. But the Albanese government needs to be so much better.”
Albanese’s final pitch of affordable healthcare, housing, and climate action celebrated an “Australian way” distinct from foreign divisiveness. This shift, paired with missteps and flipflops from the Liberals, was enough to deliver a landmark victory.
Dutton was endorsed by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp papers, including The Australian although it too could not hide its lack of enthusiasm for the choices on offer, writing: “This campaign, regrettably, has fallen way short of the contest of ideas that circumstances demanded.”
Dutton’s defeat in his Dickson seat stemmed from missteps and policy backflips which he acknowledged in his concession speech. His Trumpian policies, including a short-lived ban on remote work for public servants and criticism of Indigenous ceremonies, clashed with Australia’s desire for optimism. Late policy reversals, like softening anti-immigration stances, eroded trust.
Albanese’s polling has spiked following the election victory. According to the latest Guardian poll conducted last week, more than 40% of voters say Labor’s large parliamentary majority should encourage Albanese to set out an even more ambitious schedule of reform.
The same poll found that 75% of Australians wanted the government to move faster on improving health services; another 70% wanted faster moves on building more homes, while 51% wanted quicker reforms on regulating tech and 49% on developing renewables and making childcare cheaper.
These election results illuminate the nuances of political leadership. To some extent, Carney was the right man at the right time for the Canadian electorate. Despite being a political novice, he was able to successfully project competency at a time of crisis. Albanese’s recovery demonstrates that pragmatic shifts rooted in national values can salvage divisive campaigns although he undoubtedly benefitted for a lacklustre and error-strewn effort from the Liberals.
For New Zealand, these elections offer subtle reflections. Political success hinges on grasping local values and providing pragmatic and steady leadership. Leaders must address economic and cultural challenges with policies that are authentically homegrown. The personal nature of the electoral results, evident in Poilievre and Dutton losing their own seats, underscores the risk when political leaders misjudge the mood of the nation.
Lawyer and writer Philip Crump explores political, legal and cultural issues facing New Zealand. Sometimes known as Thomas Cranmer. This article was published HERE
However, his campaign faltered when Mark Carney, a former Canadian and UK central banker, was parachuted into the Liberal leadership to replace Trudeau. Carney’s technocratic credibility and steady demeanour blunted Poilievre’s attacks, reframing the contest as stability versus populism. Poilievre’s Trump-inspired economic nationalism failed to regain traction, and the loss of his Ottawa seat reflected a very pointed voter rejection.
The threat of Trump loomed far larger in Canada than it did in Australia, and it allowed Carney to frame the moment as a “crisis”. For a country that historically favours steady political leadership, the choice became a simple one for Canadian voters.
Australia’s election was a different story - although it ended in a similar manner - a stunning comeback victory for the incumbent.
Since John Howard’s 2007 defeat, Australia has endured a revolving door of six Prime Ministers - Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Rudd again, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, and Scott Morrison - each felled by party spills or electoral losses. This instability, fuelled by internal rivalries and voter discontent, made Anthony Albanese’s re-election the first consecutive win in 21 years since Howard’s 2004 re-election.
Despite a first term marred by inflation and the failure of the Indigenous Voice referendum, Albanese’s Labor Party gained 16 seats to secure 93 seats (the most in the party’s history) and register a rare second-term majority in recent Australian political history.
Albanese’s campaign had begun divisively, with a “Project Fear” strategy framing Dutton as a Trump-like threat. Labor targeted Dutton’s pledges to cut services, curb immigration, and oppose Indigenous recognition. This approach risked alienating voters weary of acrimony.
Yet Albanese pivoted, emphasising fairness and unity with a campaign slogan ‘Building Australia’s future’. He received lukewarm endorsement from Nine Entertainment’s newspapers including The Sydney Morning Herald, which wrote, “Dutton should not be our prime minister. But the Albanese government needs to be so much better.”
Albanese’s final pitch of affordable healthcare, housing, and climate action celebrated an “Australian way” distinct from foreign divisiveness. This shift, paired with missteps and flipflops from the Liberals, was enough to deliver a landmark victory.
Dutton was endorsed by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp papers, including The Australian although it too could not hide its lack of enthusiasm for the choices on offer, writing: “This campaign, regrettably, has fallen way short of the contest of ideas that circumstances demanded.”
Dutton’s defeat in his Dickson seat stemmed from missteps and policy backflips which he acknowledged in his concession speech. His Trumpian policies, including a short-lived ban on remote work for public servants and criticism of Indigenous ceremonies, clashed with Australia’s desire for optimism. Late policy reversals, like softening anti-immigration stances, eroded trust.
Albanese’s polling has spiked following the election victory. According to the latest Guardian poll conducted last week, more than 40% of voters say Labor’s large parliamentary majority should encourage Albanese to set out an even more ambitious schedule of reform.
The same poll found that 75% of Australians wanted the government to move faster on improving health services; another 70% wanted faster moves on building more homes, while 51% wanted quicker reforms on regulating tech and 49% on developing renewables and making childcare cheaper.
These election results illuminate the nuances of political leadership. To some extent, Carney was the right man at the right time for the Canadian electorate. Despite being a political novice, he was able to successfully project competency at a time of crisis. Albanese’s recovery demonstrates that pragmatic shifts rooted in national values can salvage divisive campaigns although he undoubtedly benefitted for a lacklustre and error-strewn effort from the Liberals.
For New Zealand, these elections offer subtle reflections. Political success hinges on grasping local values and providing pragmatic and steady leadership. Leaders must address economic and cultural challenges with policies that are authentically homegrown. The personal nature of the electoral results, evident in Poilievre and Dutton losing their own seats, underscores the risk when political leaders misjudge the mood of the nation.
Lawyer and writer Philip Crump explores political, legal and cultural issues facing New Zealand. Sometimes known as Thomas Cranmer. This article was published HERE
2 comments:
Luxon and National ,in my opinion at least ,have seriously misread the mood of the nation with the potential aim of Seymours referendum on the Treaty. Luxon's statement " I see NOTHING I like in the Treaty Principles Bill"...is unequivocal ...and damning.Such a closed mind.
I , and many others WILL remember!
Interesting that the Murdoch press was lukewarm about Dutton's side. From my intermittent experience of it while in Australia, I think it's moved too far right to be palatable to the mainstream electorate, while being pretty predictable as well. So not very influentila any longer.
Post a Comment