Political communications

A couple of nights back I watched Tony Abbott get grilled by Leigh Sales on some ABC program.

Because he had just retained the prime minister-ship after a party spill, the focus of the interview was pure party politics.

It was a somewhat boring cat-and-mouse affair with the increasingly frustrated and quite disrespectful interviewer working hard to get a gotcha moment out of Tony, who to his credit avoided one altogether.

However in the process he revealed (to me at least) that he has absolutely no philosophy as to where he wants Australia to go. All the policies discussed are aimed at getting re-elected – sugar for a sufficient number of the masses.

The interviewer was out for blood but missed the opportunity to focus on the lack of an overriding philosophy, which could have been very easily and calmly exposed.

Reflecting back, Bob Hawke did have an over-riding philosophy – a healing of the traditional rifts between labour and capital.

Keating wanted to restructure the economy so we could compete internationally after years of  protectionism.

Howard wanted to reinvent the calm contentment of the 1950s.

And then came Rudd, who like Abbott just wanted to be prime minister.

Gillard, I suspect, did have a philosophy especially in improving the equality in, and performance of the education sector. But it was somewhat limited in scope, poorly communicated and rather tactical as opposed to strategic.

When a politician has an over-riding philosophy it is much easier to listen to him her her.

Conversations become more natural and structured because policy can always be communicated in the context of the larger picture.

I wonder if we well ever have such again?