“The Liberals don’t need a change in leader, but more a change in strategy when it comes to leadership. Because maybe, just maybe, that will lead to the change in government they’ve been seeking,” writes ANDREW HUGHES. 

As the ACT election gets closer, so does a sense of déjà vu: yes, while there will be some reshuffling of chairs, there probably won’t be of government, unless things start to change. 

Stunts such as finding the lookalike Andrew Barr for a parody skit aren’t helping the Libs cause. If you can’t take this election seriously, why would anyone believe you are a viable alternative government? 

I’ve been asked why I think Labor is the number one show in town in local politics. They are far from perfect, after all. But there are several reasons. By far, one of the most important is leadership. Especially how they deal with this internally, so that externally we believe they are one big, happy family.  

Truth is they aren’t. Labor might be one of the most highly organised parties, but they are also one of the most segmented parties you’ll come across. If you ever attend any of their party conferences they’ll have people in the room who are pro and anti-life, development happy and defenders of the earth, and so on. The wide spectrum of left and right.

Sometimes you win and sometimes lose but regardless, the outcome of any vote is respected and protected. 

Since the dark days of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, Labor has learnt a valuable lesson in the modern political era. Leadership matters. Unity of everyone below matters. 

That’s why Senator Fatima Payman had to go, as hard as what that was for Labor. Disunity is death in Labor because it isn’t factional, it’s personal as you are all in it together. 

Locally, this is where they are streets ahead. One of the reasons why the Liberals don’t come close to getting the numbers behind them to win is that they are often seen as divided. It’s either a conservative leading the conservatives, or a moderate leading the moderates. Rarely are they the   united team. 

When the two meet and replicate what Labor does, that is agree to disagree, support the leadership team with blind loyalty, they are formidable. 

They become like the Howard “broad church” vision, which the former PM knew was essential to victory. He famously once said he spent 75 per cent of his time fighting his own party and 25 per cent fighting Labor. 

Howard and Costello showed what could happen when they Labor-ed it. Eleven years of government and Labor struggling, although the 2001 election was outside their control. 

Locally, the Liberals need a similar strategy to have a chance at winning. The disposal of Jeremy Hanson, and I have been enthusiastically told two different stories about why, was a mistake. Regardless of the reasons, the consequences have been clear. 

Division. Disunity. Campaign teams restricted to the individual level faithful, not even party level. No Tara Cheyne-level commitment of doing how-to-votes in near freezing and rainy conditions, as I saw one weekend recently. 

Here’s how I would have played it. Elizabeth Lee, the moderate and progressive leader pursuing policies linked to that and her own narrative. Hanson, or another conservative, would be told, you and your team are responsible for party performance on the more conservative issues and policies. 

However, there is party agreement on everything and we all defend each other at the cost of being cut from the fold. 

Now the Liberals can actively see who is keen to be in government, who is pretending, but also have factional consequences for bad behaviour. 

Deputy Liberal leader Leanne Castley is doing fine, but she’s arguably between a rock and a hard place. She should have been allowed to more actively pursue her own policy agenda. 

The contrast with Labor is stark in leadership. While rumours abound of very earthy and blunt conversations on some issues behind closed doors, it never leaves those spaces. The only thing hurting them now is the fact that they have to resolve the Barr leadership issue so the other pieces can be shuffled. 

The Greens are heading the way of Labor. Rattenbury may be shrewd, but Vassarotti should be the leader in this election. Yet with both Labor and the Greens, there is no sense of division, just a need to recognise the obvious in leadership change. 

What the Liberals need to recognise though is far different. They don’t need a change in leader, but more a change in strategy when it comes to leadership. Because maybe, just maybe, that will lead to the change in government they’ve been seeking. 

Dr Andrew Hughes is a lecturer in marketing with the Research School of Management at ANU where he specialises in political marketing and advertising.