A preview of the 2025 year in federal politics

In our final essay for 2024, we look at what to expect in federal politics in the lead up to the next election campaign.

2025 is set to be a crucial year in federal politics, with the nation gearing up for an election that will define the direction of governance for the foreseeable future. After months of media-driven speculation about potential election dates in late 2024, the inevitability of a 2025 election has finally been reached, likely to be held in May. This timeline gives the Albanese government a short but critical window to shape the narrative and address the pressing concerns of an electorate already experiencing economic anxieties.

The economy, as always, will be front and centre throughout 2025, a reality highlighted by the enduring resonance of former US President Bill Clinton’s dictum: It’s the economy, stupid! – in 2025, this mantra will dominate political discourse, just as it has in years past. Economic issues – interest rates, cost of living, and housing affordability – will continue to be the main areas that concern the electorate, echoing the many unresolved issues of 2024.

The Labor government’s management of these issues will be critical, not only to its electoral success but also to its credibility as a government that can deliver meaningful change. While the Coalition has eked out a slender lead in the two-party preferred polls at 51 per cent to 49 per cent, this margin is far from insurmountable for Labor. Historically, polling this far from an election offers limited predictive value, as voter engagement intensifies only once an election is formally called.

Despite the tight polling, the broader political landscape does not yet suggest an appetite for change: incumbent governments often enjoy structural advantages, and Labor enters this election cycle with a relatively stable platform. However, it must overcome the reality that it hasn’t run a federal campaign from the position of government since 2013 – the skills required for campaigning as the incumbent are different to those for an opposition – and this gap in institutional memory could pose some challenges, particularly as election campaigns have become increasingly sophisticated and unpredictable in recent years.

Compounding this challenge is Labor’s struggle with political management. While the government has avoided the catastrophic mistakes of the Coalition when they were in government – Scott Morrison’s infamous holiday debacle during the national bushfire crisis in 2019 being the most egregious example – its track record is hampered by missed opportunities and a lack of decisiveness. This has fed perceptions of a government that is competent but uninspiring – a reputation that could prove problematic in the hostile environment of an election campaign. Nevertheless, the Albanese government’s stability is a marked improvement over the tumultuous Coalition governments of recent years, and this steadiness may prove to been enough to hold back voter dissatisfaction.

For the Liberal Party, the road to victory is perilously narrow. The Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, faces significant hurdles, among them is his lack of electoral charisma and appeal in key marginal seats. To overturn Labor’s majority and reclaim the heartland Liberal Party seats that are now occupied by community independents, the Coalition requires an extraordinary effort: a disciplined campaign strategy, a compelling vision for the future, and a leader capable of engaging the electorate on a deeply personal level, qualities that Dutton has yet to demonstrate convincingly. Unless the government’s performance in the coming months deteriorates dramatically, the Coalition’s prospects at the next election remain slim. However, it would be unwise to entirely discount the possibility of a strong opposition campaign, especially given the unpredictable nature of Australian politics.

For now, the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has the upper hand, but the position for the government is far from unassailable. Labor’s ability to capitalise on its incumbency while addressing the electorate’s most pressing concerns will be the decisive factor in whether it can secure a second term.

The contest over Australia’s future amid electoral discontent

Elections are not only a referendum on the past performances of the government; they are battles over the future and which side of politics offers better outcomes for the electorate. While historical precedent favours first-term governments – all have been re-elected since 1931 – the political landscape is always evolving, and no government can rely on these historical precedents. The Albanese government faces the paradox of providing stability – no mean feat when the considering the polemical nature of Australian politics since the early 2010s – while contending with deeper vulnerabilities that can be exploited by an opportunist opposition or an increasingly volatile electorate.

One of the Albanese government’s potential difficulties lies in its primary vote. Its supporters often point to the 2022 election result, where Labor secured 32.6 per cent of the primary vote – the number it currently holds in published opinion polls – as proof that the party can hold government with similarly low numbers. However, reliance on historical performance can be dangerous. Preference flows under Australia’s two-party preferential voting system can swing elections unpredictably, meaning that even an improved primary vote could result in a loss for the Labor government, while a reduced vote could still deliver victory.

This unpredictability highlights the stakes of the campaign and the importance of coalition-building – both within the Labor base and with other groups such as the Australian Greens, who were publicly alienated by the government throughout much of 2024, primarily over housing policy. Such antagonism could risk crucial preference flows, potentially undermining Labor’s chances.

Albanese’s leadership remains central in this dynamic: while his government has avoided catastrophic governance failures, voter frustration has mounted over perceived inertia on key issues such as housing affordability, climate action and its lack of interest over international issues such as Palestine, which do have significant relevance and resonance within the Australian electorate. Yet, this frustration alone does not equate to electoral defeat. For Albanese, the challenge is less about neutralising dissatisfaction than about presenting a compelling vision for the future – something that will require deft political skills and a campaign narrative that inspires trust and optimism.

The Coalition faces its own, arguably greater, challenges. Dutton’s polarising persona is both a liability and, paradoxically, a potential asset in certain conservative segments of the electorate. While his hardline positions and lack of broad appeal limit his ability to court swinging voters in marginal urban seats, they resonate with parts of the Coalition’s traditional base, particularly in regional and outer-suburban areas.

The Liberal Party’s prospects, however, hinge less on Dutton’s personal brand and more on the party’s ability to craft a coherent message that goes beyond just opposing everything proposed by the Labor government. Without a transformative leader or groundbreaking policy agenda, the Coalition risks languishing as an uninspiring alternative to an imperfect government, equipped with nothing more than a megaphone of hostile negativity and a supporting platform provided by the mainstream media.

The Western Australian state election in March will provide a crucial bellwether for federal politics. While the extreme dominance of Labor in WA during the 2021 state election is unlikely to be repeated – winning 53 of the 59 seats was an anomaly and the anticipated natural electoral correction where the WA Liberal Party picks up seats, won’t necessarily signal a broader rejection of Labor at the federal level.

Western Australia’s unique political landscape often reflects localised issues rather than federal sentiments, but any significant losses – even if it is a natural political correction – could embolden Coalition strategists to target vulnerable federal seats in the state. However, the WA Liberal Party’s organisational weakness, with just two lower house seats in the state parliament, complicates its ability to mount a co-ordinated federal challenge in that state. Albanese’s frequent trips to Western Australia over the past few months suggest an awareness of this delicate balance, as well as the need to reinforce Labor’s position in a region where memories of the Coalition’s unpopularity still linger.

Beyond the battleground of Western Australia, the broader electoral map presents additional complications for the Liberal Party. The community independents, who seized a swath of traditionally blue-ribbon Liberal Party seats in 2022, remain entrenched, with high-profile incumbents who continue to enjoy strong community support. These independents, characterised by their alignment with progressive social and environmental policies, have effectively neutralised the Liberal Party’s hold on affluent urban electorates. The Liberal Party’s path back to government would require not only recapturing these seats but also holding or gaining ground in regional and suburban battlegrounds – an almost insurmountable task under current circumstances.

Who wins between Albanese and Dutton?

Leadership will undeniably play a defining role throughout 2025, but the current state of leadership in Australia’s political landscape leaves much to be desired. Albanese, despite being the incumbent, finds himself in a precarious position. While he retains a slight edge as the preferred Prime Minister in opinion polls, his approval ratings have been dragged down to levels similar to those of Dutton. The fact that both leaders hold negative net approval ratings reflects a broader dissatisfaction within the electorate – not just with the leaders themselves but with the political system as a whole.

The Albanese government, elected in 2022 with hopes of transformative change, has struggled to meet the lofty expectations placed upon it. Many anticipated a reformist agenda akin to those of the Whitlam or Hawke governments, but instead, the government has been characterised by self-imposed incrementalism and an inability to navigate the political battlefield effectively. Its performance in governance has been steady, even commendable in many areas, yet its political management has been lacklustre. For voters, the disconnect between policy achievements and the government’s ability to communicate them effectively has fostered a sense of disappointment.

Labor’s historical tension between idealism and pragmatism is central to its current predicament. The party has at times leaned heavily into idealism, as seen in its ambitious climate policies, while neglecting the political groundwork needed to secure public buy-in. In the 1980s and 1990s, figures like Bob Hawke and Paul Keating mastered the art of balancing these competing forces, crafting a style of leadership that prioritised results while maintaining public support. In contrast, the Albanese government appears to lack a cohesive political strategy, leaving it vulnerable to criticism and unable to shape the national narrative effectively.

Dutton, for his part, faces even greater leadership hurdles. His divisive politics highlights a deeper malaise within the Liberal Party, which is grappling with declining membership, resource constraints, and an inability to adapt to the shifting political landscape. What is clear, however, is that neither leader has yet articulated a compelling vision for Australia’s future. The electorate is not simply searching for competence; it craves direction, purpose, and a sense of optimism. In this regard, both Albanese and Dutton have significant work to do if they hope to inspire confidence in their leadership.

For Albanese, the path forward lies in reclaiming the narrative, and recalling the issues that enabled him to lead the Labor Party to victory in the 2022 federal election. This requires not only highlighting his government’s policy successes but also demonstrating how these achievements translate into tangible improvements in the lives of Australians. The government must move beyond the inertia of the past year, presenting a forward-looking agenda that resonates with voters across the spectrum. This means addressing key issues such as housing affordability, climate action, and economic inequality with both substance and clarity.

Dutton, meanwhile, will need to do a lot more than just offering endless criticism of the government; it will demand a positive agenda that appeals to a broader electorate. To date, Dutton’s leadership has been defined more by opposition than proposition, and a seemingly endless culture war against “wokeness” – a strategy that may galvanise his supporters but falls short of building the kind of leadership needed to win government.

Beyond the leaders themselves, the political system must rise to meet the challenges of the moment. Ultimately, the 2025 election is not just a contest between Albanese and Dutton; it is a referendum on the ability of Australia’s political leaders and institutions to provide a vision worthy of the nation’s future. To succeed, both leaders must transcend the narrow confines of political expediency and offer a vision that inspires, unites, and addresses the pressing challenges facing Australians. Without this, the election risks being another exercise in managing decline rather than a moment of genuine renewal.