
Libs channel Labor's unfriendly ghost, Jim Scullin
It's a familiar tale, right? In fact, the very circumstances that have ushered us towards the 2025 federal election?
Yet it was these same events which also played out in 1931 for Labor prime minister James Scullin as he railed against the devastating impact of the Great Depression.
Potentially telling though is that despite having swept to power on a record majority, the former grocer and newspaper editor also holds the unfortunate distinction of being in charge the last time a federal government lost power after just one term in office.
It's no coincidence Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has repeatedly referred to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on the campaign trail as presiding over Australia's "worst government since 1931".
History may be against the coalition winning the election after its short stint on the opposition benches but Mr Dutton hopes discontent over Australia's economic fortunes resonates at the ballot box the same way it did almost a century ago.
Cost-of-living pressures following the Wall Street crash of 1929, just two days after Mr Scullin was sworn in, and the ensuing Great Depression were central to his demise, according to Australian National University political historian Joshua Black.
"The federal government didn't feel it had the tools in its arsenal to respond in a way it wanted and that alienated a number of supporters," he tells AAP.
"It was quite unpopular in the country and it was a difficult period for government."
But economic crisis wasn't the only factor that led to the abrupt downfall of Scullin's administration.
The forced resignation of treasurer "Red" Ted Theodore after the Mungana affair, a fraud and dishonesty scandal linked to his Queensland mining interests, didn't help.
Neither did defections to the fledgling United Australia Party led by Scullin's successor Joe Lyons, which rendered him a minority leader and dependent on the volatile support of fiery demagogue Jack Lang.
A second fracture with Lang supporter Jack Beasley at the helm triggered a fatal parliamentary showdown, notable also because first lady Sarah Scullin was on hand to witness the vote. A snap poll followed, with Scullin and Labor defeated in a landslide.
While many in the present-day coalition have sought to draw a link to 1931, Dr Black says there isn't a direct comparison as such.
"There are more obvious comparisons of the recent past, like Whitlam, and then in the 1980s in the decisions with tackling inflation," he says.
"But I don't think the comparison with 1931 is a useful one.
"In terms of the shambolic nature of the Scullin government itself, this term has been relatively disciplined for government messaging and ministers not leaking and staying on message."
That said, the "rhymes of history" were apt to darken the Albanese government's dreams, according to veteran author and journalist Graeme Dobell in 2022.
"Labor knows Whitlam's three years in power were bedevilled by the slowing world economy, just as Jim Scullin's Labor government was hit by the times ... to be smashed by the Great Depression and party splits," he then wrote.
"A looming global recession threatens to revisit the three-year hoodoo on Albanese."
Even so, the current administration has undoubtedly made it its business to be around for a long time rather than a good one, as Whitlam's crash-or-crash-through style was often accused of aspiring to.
It was a lesson learned before Albanese came to office, according to Rudd and Gillard government treasurer Wayne Swan.
"The Scullin government lacked the necessary policy tools to deal with the crisis, we did not," he told parliament in his 2019 valedictory speech.
"While it was bullied into austerity, we would not be. We knew from the failures of the 1930s and 1990s what recessions do."
The latter reference, Paul Keating's "recession we had to have", was then echoed within a year of Kevin Rudd's first appointment in 2007 as prime minister and the arrival of the global financial crisis.
"Is it the fate of Labor governments in Australia to come to office in times of economic crisis?" politics academics Rob Manwaring and Emily Foley recently asked.
"The centre-left has long had a complex relationship with capitalism," they noted.
"The Albanese government is again on the back foot and under intense pressure.
"In the current era, voters are punishing incumbents and the economic gods certainly enjoy playing with Labor governments."
But history shows voters often like to give first-term governments the benefit of the doubt, Dr Black says.
It's why oppositions aren't so readily returned to office.
There's also the fact winning from opposition remains a challenging prospect so soon after an election loss, he says.
"There's kind of a political pain oppositions experience after losing government, there's a difficult adjustment to make," he adds.
"Political parties get comfortable with the trappings of power and they have to learn to live without and have less resources and money and less natural access to the media.
"The difficulty of reorientating decisions and learning from mistakes of the past makes it so difficult for oppositions to win government on first go."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Sky News AU
28 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Netanyahu blasts Albanese for pouring ‘fuel on antisemitic fire' in scathing attack
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has penned an explosive letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, obtained by Sky News, accusing him of pouring 'fuel on antisemitic fire' by calling for recognition of a Palestinian state. The Israeli Prime Minister criticised the Labor government for mishandling antisemitism in Australia, saying: 'Following Hamas's savage attack on the people of Israel on October 7, 2023, pro-Hamas extremists and left-wing radicals began a campaign of intimidation, vandalism, and violence against Jews across the free world. In Australia, that campaign has intensified under your watch.' Mr Netanyahu also called upon Mr Albanese to 'replace weakness with action'.

AU Financial Review
an hour ago
- AU Financial Review
Israel weighs Hamas offer of 60-day Gaza truce and hostage release
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accused Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's decision to recognise a Palestinian state of 'pouring fuel on this fire of antisemitism.' The letter, obtained by Sky News, was revealed after N etanyahu slammed Anthony Albanese on social media as a 'weak politician who betrayed Israel and abandoned Australia's Jews.' The spat erupted after the Labor government labelled the retaliatory expulsion of two Australian diplomats from the West Bank as unjustified and disappointing. Netanyahu posted on social media: 'History will remember Albanese for what he is: A weak politician who betrayed Israel and abandoned Australia's Jews.' Dated August 17, before the tit-for-tat cancellation of diplomatic visas began, the letter from Netanyahu to Albanese claims that the decision to recognise palestine is appeasement of Hamas. 'It rewards Hamas terror, hardens Hamas's refusal to free the hostages, emboldens those who menace Australian Jews and encourages the Jew-hatred now stalking your streets,' the letter claims. Netanyahu called on Albanese to act with resolve to combat antisemitism before September 23, which is the Jewish New Year.

ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
After moving a motion of no-confidence in a Rockliff government, has Labor orchestrated one in itself?
Did Labor just successfully orchestrate a no-confidence motion in itself? That's probably the question the party should be asking rather than doubling down on its every decision. Labor leader Dean Winter's much-anticipated motion of no confidence in Premier Jeremy Rockliff and confidence in himself finally came to a head on Tuesday evening — and it spectacularly backfired. How bad do you have to play it that, when compared with an 11-year-old government that has driven the state into debt, bungled berth infrastructure for the new Spirit of Tasmania ships and toyed with the idea of privatising government businesses, you're the worse option? Not only did the opposition fail to gain the support of the Greens, who until recently appeared almost desperate to work with Labor, it could not convince a single other member of the crossbench that it was worthy of government. Not to mention, two of those members of the crossbench voted for the last no-confidence motion in the Liberals. Turns out the alternative was even less appealing. And yet it seems Labor's reaction is that the crossbench got it wrong. Compromise is not the way. The Liberals have sold out. Some will say Labor is right, that it needs to stick to its values and its word. But how good does "right" feel when you have just locked yourself into four more years of opposition (theoretically)? It seems, though, that Labor is not seeing this as a total loss. In a statement after the motion failed, Mr Winter wrote "the Liberals' decade-old Labor-Green scare campaign" had been put to bed and it was now the Liberals in bed with the Greens. "Unlike Jeremy Rockliff, Labor won't abandon workers or make deals behind closed doors," Mr Winter said. "While Jeremy Rockliff caved in to the Greens and compromised his values for power, I stood by workers and did not. "Tasmanians have just witnessed the coronation of a Liberal-Green government, and Tasmanian workers will never forget Jeremy Rockliff's betrayal." Apparently, distancing themselves from the Greens is worth more than not having the power to affect real change. That statement likely says a lot about why Labor pushed ahead with its doomed, no-confidence motion. If it could not grab power then at least it could force the Liberals and the Greens to stand side by side. Because while the crossbenchers made it very clear the vote was not an endorsement of the Liberal government, it was a choice. By choosing not to support the motion, the crossbench has chosen to stick with the status quo, aka the Liberals. And Labor is going to make them pay for that every step of the way. Last year it was the "Liberal-Lambie coalition", this year it's the "coronation of a Liberal-Green government". Labor will no doubt have fun with that. From the opposition benches. But while the Liberals might be rejoicing now, nothing about the next four years (if it gets to that) is going to be easy. It would be a stretch to say Mr Rockliff has the crossbench onside. If anything, he is going to need to work out how to get them onside. They are wary and rightfully so. The Liberals have a track record of promising reviews and then ignoring the findings. They have shown, at times, to be so far from transparent they are bordering on opaque and not to mention that "floating billboard of failure" Spirit of Tasmania IV, which will be sailing into Devonport at the end of the week just to remind everyone it can't be used until the end of next year. Plus the Liberals have broken promises before. They promised taxpayers would spend "$375 million and not a red cent more" on a new AFL stadium, then later said they would use borrowings to cover any shortfall. More recently, they vowed to protect the greyhound racing and salmon industries but then leveraged them to make policy concessions to the crossbench. Not that the crossbench is particularly sad about those last two. But what does it say about Mr Rockliff's word? Labor would argue that it says a lot. That he can vow to support these industries one week and abandon them the next. But do you get to keep all your promises if you fail to win a majority? If 18 is the magic number, the Liberals have three-quarters of a mandate. Labor has just over half. It could stand to reason that if you need to lean on others to govern, you're also going to need to give a little ground. In his speech on the motion, Mr Rockliff said the Liberals' decision to move on certain policy areas was an "acknowledgement that people have spoken". "And this acknowledgement that we are in minority government, and we must respect the views of others." He might have won the day, but there's no denying Mr Rockliff has his work cut out for him. He has to deal with a largely progressive crossbench that would like him to go much further than he has when it comes to his promises on the salmon industry and native forest logging. (They'd end both). On a side note, given the crossbench has been willing so far to accept what Mr Rockliff is offering, it seems they at least know how to compromise. Though Labor might argue otherwise. On the other hand, Mr Rockliff has some very conservative voices in his party who are probably hoping that now they have survived the no-confidence motion, the hard asks are over. Bad news: That work is just beginning. If it wants to survive, the Liberals will need to continue to negotiate, to be up-front, transparent and, yes, compromise. On the face of things, the Liberals — at least some of them — seem aware of this. Members of the crossbench, including the Greens, say Mr Rockliff's language and concessions suggest he has an understanding of how minority parliament needs to work. And the Liberals have made moves that go beyond policy and speak to the way they are hoping to approach this new parliament. They have set up a multi-partisan budget panel that had its first meeting last week. The premier has chosen to forgo any extra portfolios so he can focus on dealing with the crossbench. And they have employed former Liberal MP Nic Street, who is well-liked across the parliament, as a crossbench liaison officer. A position that was desperately needed last time. If they stay on this trajectory, maybe, just maybe, things could work out. After all, they cannot afford to be complacent. They would be remiss to think the crossbench won't throw them out again. Sure, Labor's current tack appears to be doubling down, but they could change course. And Labor is right: Values-wise, they do have far more in common with the crossbench. Look at the legislation they teamed up to pass in the last parliament. If the Liberals forget who is allowing them to stay in power and Labor discovers the ability to compromise, Tasmania could see another change in government. For now, though, Labor is busy licking its wounds and maybe considering a new leader. And there appears to be enough "goodwill" across most of the parliament to try to find a way to make it work for the people they are representing. So hopefully, now, the drama is over (a solid two months after parliament blew up). To borrow a Liberal phrase, they can all just "get on with the job".