Australian Politics WI: Downer Makes It To The 1996 Election

An interesting WI, one would think. In May 1994 Alexander Downer takes over as Leader of the Liberal Party and becomes Leader of the Opposition. By January 1995, he had had made enough gaffes that the Liberal Party was ready to turn back to John Howard who went on to win the 1996 Elections and become Prime Minister for nearly 12 years.

WI Downers does not make nearly enough gaffes (at the very least not taking the piss out of his Things That Matter Policy Platform) and makes it to the 1996 Election?

Does he win off the fact that the electorate would've been tired of Labor after it's been in power for 13 years? What would a Downer PMship look like?

or

Keating emerges victorious at which point the question becomes what kind of policies Keating would get up to post 1996? At what point does he contemplate retirement?
 
I don't think Howard had a particularly good reputation back in 96, he only gained it during his time as PM. I think maybe many of the things that got Howard over the line could work for downer, and once in office he'd benefit from the mining boom like Howard did.
 
Going by his record as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I think he would have made a good job. I doubt that he would have put in GST.
 
The Keating government was probably done after the 1993 budget (which failed to meet key promises made during the election campaign earlier that year). Downer as Liberal leader would have made for a closer contest but still a clear Liberal victory of, say, about 80 seats.

Beazley thus has a much better chance of becoming PM in 1998/1999, which may have meant that Hansonism wouldn't have declined in the early 2000s (Howard's Coalition picked up much of that vote after Tampa).
 
Going by his record as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I think he would have made a good job. I doubt that he would have put in GST.

I agree with the first part. If you butterfly away the gaffes then, yeah, he wouldn't be bad. As for the GST, I wouldn't be so sure. Both major parties knew it was good policy. The Libs were particularly keen on it - we can't give Howard all the credit.
 
If Downer doesn't take the small target approach of either refusing to talk policy, or say he supports popular Labour policy, Keating might have picked him apart. Labour's policy was still popular, and as soon as the Liberals went for big changes instead of killing Labour policy slowly, they go thrown out. Work choices. So Keating could win. A lot of seat changes wouldn't take a lot to shift

Keating would keep modifying Superannuation, expanding free trade, fighting for the Republic and Indigenous recognition. But the biggest thing is that the Liberals don't get to take credit for the Hawke-Keating economy and didn't get to pull at the seams of Labour achievements. Guns might not be dealt with in the same way, or might encounter greater resistance. He might end up passing the GST anyway, even thought he opposed it before. But perhaps it would be lower or less expansive.

Keating was a conservative Labour man in terms of social policy so unless he gets rolled he could start getting on his parties nerves. And while he wasn't a neoliberal like some have labeled him, there might be some more apprehension about the continue liberalisation of the Australian economy, even as it was tempered with reforms to keep the market in check. But that is only if he hangs around even longer. He likely serves out the 1996 term (ending in 1999 instead of Howard's early election) and passes it off to someone else. Who then loses, because a third unlikely win would be a miracle. But it might be a softer loss, in better economic times and so Labour would be in a prime position to bounce back. They nearly did so in OTL with Kim Beazley, and getting a majority in the two party preferred. Just a uneven swing.
 
If Downer doesn't take the small target approach of either refusing to talk policy, or say he supports popular Labour policy, Keating might have picked him apart. Labour's policy was still popular, and as soon as the Liberals went for big changes instead of killing Labour policy slowly, they go thrown out. Work choices. So Keating could win. A lot of seat changes wouldn't take a lot to shift

You just read the Wiki article where it said Howard presented a small target, didn't you? ;) Fair enough since this would have been before you were born, and it's not a bad article.

A gentle reminder: It's the Australian Labor Party.

There's no reason to think Downer wouldn't have approached the 1996 election with the same strategy as Howard - remembering election strategies are determined, on the part of major parties, by more than just the leader.

And there is a maxim that is very true in politics: Oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them. Keating was on the nose, Labor had worn out its welcome.

The fact that the Liberals can be a mess early in the term, with Downer rating rather poorly as leader, but still win with a five per cent 2PP swing by the end of the term, shows swinging voters were ready for a change.
 
The definitive book of the Keating/Howard eras might be 'The Longest Decade' by George Megalogenis. He cites the interest rate rises in 1994 as being as final nail in the coffin of the ALP government, although (as mentioned above) the 1993 budget probably provided most of the substance of the coffin. But even without those things, the Coalition may still well have been clear favourites in 1996, just as they would have won in 1993 if they hadn't decided to make the election a referendum on the GST.

Keating, incidentally, stated that he'd have had a better chance of a second election victory if he'd had another year (i.e. if the electorate had approved the four-year term in 1988). I doubt that myself, as it would simply have meant another year of the ALP government, which voters were clearly tired of.
 
Last edited:
I’m pretty sure that Keating has said that his plan was to retire in office and hand over the reins to Beazley (presumably so he could call up Hawke and say “see, it’s not so hard to retire, is it?”). He said though that he refused to go before the 1996 election because he knew that there was nobody else in the party who would be able to theoretically defeat Howard. So the election could have theoretically been Beazley v Downer, which makes things a bit more interesting given that Australians aren’t predisposed to chucking out first term Prime Ministers - the last one to suffer that fate was McMahon in ‘72, and Downer being Downer, there almost certainly would have been at least one horrific gaffe made in the campaign. In that contest, I’d say either Libs win on a smaller majority than in ‘96 and plod along for 1-2 terms, dependant on whether the Labor Opposition are any good, or Labor eke out another win and then go on to lose in ‘99 by a wider margin (potentially ‘96 level if Beazley turns out to be a dud). Next PM in the latter case - probably Peter Costello, although maybe Bronwyn Bishop if the Libs are willing to go that conservative.
 
What would a Downer PMship look like

upload_2018-12-5_13-21-41.jpg
 
Overall summing what I am reading here, it appears most people think it would be similar to what happened Howard or Downer.
 
While it is nice to think Labor is going to lose, with Downer in play and Keating on the offence it could have gone anywhere.

While ecconomics is usually the primary thing Australian elections are won on there was a big social element with Keating too. He was pushing "elite" topics like Reconciliation, the Republic, and the Asian century (with immigration) pretty hard. The reaction to that was pretty much where One Nation came from (I sometimes feel PK created them). Too much too fast.

Howard was a familiar face offering a breather. How would Downer present himself on these sorts of topics?
 

sprite

Donor
Monthly Donor
If they had stayed with Downer, I believe the Liberals will have won the 1996 election, just not as overwhelmingly.

Downer was personally unpopular; much more than his party . We have elected a government with an unpopular leader before. Howard himself has a -23 net satisfaction rating going into the 1996 election.

Looking back at old Newspolls, during the time he was leader the Coalition averaged 45.3% for primary voting intention compared to 43.1% for the ALP.

The Democrats were averaging 6.1%, with their preferences splitting 55-45 to the ALP.

This leaves 5.3% ‘Others’, of which approximately 2.5% of this Greens, which split approximately 70-30 to the ALP. The remaining was minor right-wing parties which split 70-30 to the Coalition.

This very rough 2PP shows Downer averaging 50.81% during his spell as opposition leader from May 1994 to January 1995.

There were several events in the aftermath of his tenure up until the election, that I believe would have widened this lead.

  • Labor suffered a 16% swig in 2PP at the March 1995 Canberra by-election.

  • The near loss at the QLD state election and then the loss of a seat in a by-election, forcing Labor into minority government.

  • Labor being in government for 13 years and the ‘it’s time’ factor.
On the other hand, Keating would be probably destroying Downer in QT every day. So it may have all balanced out.

The focus was on economic performance and as 1995 ended with a rise in unemployment and a five-year peak in inflation, Keating was not looking so good.

Still it would be a squeaker. Assuming Downer’s average holds, on a win of 50.81% 2PP, assuming uniform swing, the coalition would gain a very slim majority. It’s important to note that Labor held a lot of marginal seats going into the 1996 election.

Here are the seat changes;-

ALP to Liberal (12) - Gilmore, MacArthur, Macquarie, Leichhardt, Moreton, Petrie, Kingston, Bass, McEwan, McMillan, Canning, Swan.

ALP to National (2) – Page, Richmond

Ind to Liberal (1) – North Sydney

Liberal to ALP (1) – Canberra

ALP to Ind (2) – Calare, Kalgoolie

Liberal to Ind (2) – Moore, Curtin

Ind to ALP (1) – Wills

National to Liberal (1) - Murray

Which has the make up of the 1996 parliament as follows (OTL in brackets).

Coalition 77 (94)

  • Liberal 60 (75)

  • National 17 (18)

  • Country Liberal 0 (1)
Labour 66 (49)

Independents 4 (5)

Adding one more percentage to the Coalition would have netted them another 4 seats from Labor.

Downer Government

A Downer government would focus on business deregulation, reforms to capital gains. There won’t be any tax cuts in this term, Howard did not introduce tax cuts until FY2000-2001.

IR reform would be much the same and I suspect we would have the same level of unrest. Howard was the shadow IR minister in Downer's shadow cabinet.

Gun control would not be as strong. There would be a push for the various bans we had enacted after the Port Arthur Massacre, but Downer is faced with a National party that has a higher proportion of seats in the Coalition than Howard had. In fact, Howard won enough in 1996 to govern without the Nationals, Downer would not be in this position.

The stronger National presence will also have an effect on the government’s response to the Wik ruling.

I don’t believe Downer would equivocate on condemning Hanson early. Early condemnation from Downer ensures that Hanson does not win in the Division of Oxley. She spends time as a perennial candidate in council and state elections in QLD, a female Bill Heslop.

Graeme Campbell takes up the mantle of the maverick populist politician. An Arthur Calwell throwback, Campbell is not as shrill as Hanson. Campbellism is much the same as Hansonism, but with a touch more blue collar appeal and obviously stronger in WA and a little weaker in QLD. He forms the Australia First Party which has a little more success in the Senate next election. Downer does not co-opt Campbell’s policies, which gives his anti-establishment credentials a boost.

There would be no GST, not with such a slim majority. The government would have to take it to the next election. This will have knock on effect for the Democrats.

Support for a republic will keep building, but without Howard’s fix, the issue will be ignored by the Downer government as a third-order issue. Labor will announce their support for a Yes/No election if they win the next election.

Downer does not go to the polls early and the election is held in early March 1999. He loses.

Kim Beazley become PM.

Australia First gains 2 senators, Senator Eric Nagle of QLD and Senator John Fischer of WA. Pauline Hanson is not successful having been relegated to number 4 on the QLD Australia First ticket.

A referendum for the republic held in early 2000 results in a yes vote with 54% of the vote and majority of states voting yes (NSW, VIC, SA & WA).

Australia becomes a republic on 1st of January 2001, on the 100 year anniversary of Federation.
 
Top