The government’s “Manchurian candidate” statement, referring to a 1960s film in which a U.S. soldier is brainwashed by the Communists into a puppet for a foreign government, was addressed in parliament against Labor leader Richard Marles in the months leading up to the election. .
Erickson’s assessment of the campaign will also cite housing and wages as key issues in which work gained an advantage.
“We were constantly campaigning on the need to drive wage growth; it was in our TV commercials. And we pointed out that there were a lot of things the federal government could do,” he says in a draft excerpt of the speech.
Erickson says the Liberal Party denied the government could do anything, but went too far when Albanese backed the idea of raising the minimum wage for essential workers to keep up with 5.1 percent inflation. .
“Then the Liberals claimed that the sky would fall, undermining their campaign claims about the strength of the recovery,” he says. “This was not only incompetent, but inconsistent.”
Loading
On housing, Erickson says a government proposal in the last week of the campaign to allow people to use their retirement to buy their first homes was a “desperate attempt” to start a cultural war.
“This last week’s surprise was reduced because voters saw it as it was: a bad policy that undermined the pension system and would raise house prices,” he says. “In our investigation last week, we struggled to find a friend for the Liberals’ retirement policy for housing.”
Some Labor experts have privately criticized aspects of the party’s campaign, including moments when Albanese stumbled upon his answers or made mistakes, as he did on the first full day of the campaign when he could not name the unemployment rate.
A Labor figure told this headline a week after election day that Labor would win despite the way the campaign was conducted and not because of it.
But Erickson says the party overcame the crucial barrier between voters who could resist the idea of change.
“The biggest barrier that Labor had to overcome was not the voters’ assessment of our proposal or a Coalition counter-offer. It was a widespread and profound feeling of tiredness, anxiety and risk aversion after some. of the most difficult years we have suffered, “he says.
Loading
“Normally, these sentiments would lead the audience decisively to the government of the day and weigh heavily against an effort to build a majority for change. However, we had a strong argument.
“We have made sure that the alternatives in this election were not ‘the devil you know’ or ‘a leap into the unknown’. Instead, it was a clear choice between a better future under Anthony Albanese and three more years under Scott Morrison. “
Cut to the chase of federal politics with Jacqueline Maley’s news, opinion, and expert analysis. Subscribers can subscribe to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.