The Monday essay: The struggle to define the government’s vision and direction

The Albanese government risks being remembered not for its achievements but for its missed opportunities and its failure to stand up for the very principles that it once championed.

The current political landscape presents a curious contradiction, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese facing a slow and steady decline in popularity despite the relatively poor performance of the leader of the opposition, Peter Dutton. According to recent Essential Poll, Albanese’s approval ratings have reached their lowest levels since taking office, with 50 per cent of respondents expressing dissatisfaction with his performance, reminiscent of the declining support for former Prime Minister Scott Morrison in the lead-up to the 2022 federal election. While it is not uncommon for a sitting Prime Minister to experience fluctuations in public support, the critical question is why Albanese’s approval ratings have dropped so sharply and what this means for the future of this government.

One issue within the current polling data is the relatively small percentage of undecided voters – 10 per cent – suggesting that the electorate has largely made up its mind about Albanese’s leadership and this sentiment presents a challenge for the Prime Minister, as shifting public opinion once it’s entrenched is notoriously difficult. The reasons for Albanese’s unpopularity are varied and complex, reflecting a confluence of economic, social, and political factors that have coalesced into a broader dissatisfaction with his government.

Economic concerns, as they usually are, are at the forefront of the electorate’s discontent – the rising cost of living, coupled with housing affordability issues, has placed pressure on many people in the electorate, and the perception that the government has not done enough to address these issues has undoubtedly contributed to Albanese’s declining support. While the economy has shown signs of improvement, the benefits of this recovery have not yet been felt by many households, leading to a disconnect between the government’s optimistic economic outlook and the lived experiences of the electorate.

Beyond economic issues, there are also significant concerns about the government’s stance on various international and domestic matters. The AUKUS agreement, for example, is a contentious issue, with some voters feeling that the government’s commitment to this alliance compromises Australia’s sovereignty and security. Similarly, the government’s indifference on the genocide in Gaza committed by Israel has alienated a segment of the electorate that expected a more assertive stance on international human rights.

Domestically, the government’s strained relationship with the CFMEU has raised questions about the party’s commitment to its unions and its working-class base. The tension between the government and the unions is emblematic of a broader challenge facing Albanese: the inability to craft a cohesive narrative that resonates with a diverse electorate. This failure to effectively communicate the government’s vision and accomplishments has left many voters, especially from younger demographics, feeling disconnected from the party that they feel should be offering more.

However, it is important to note that unpopularity does not necessarily consign a Prime Minister to electoral defeat – history offers several examples of leaders who have managed to turn around their fortunes and secure re-election despite low approval ratings. Paul Keating in 1993 and John Howard in 2001 and 2004 both faced significant challenges yet managed to win the subsequent elections, if not win over the electorate. The key to their success was the ability to build a compelling narrative – Keating’s focussed on the GST and the economy, while Howard focussed on national security and “trust” – that ultimately resonated with voters.

For Albanese, the challenge is to find a way to rebuild his political capital before the next election and this will require a delicate balance of addressing immediate concerns, while also articulating a clear and cohesive vision for the future. Complicating matters for Albanese is the presence of Peter Dutton: while Dutton is also unpopular, his political resilience should not be underestimated, irrespective of how bereft of talent he might be. The unexpected rise of figures like Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison to the Prime Ministership serves as a reminder that even seemingly unlikely candidates can succeed under the right circumstances. If the electorate’s dissatisfaction with Albanese continues to grow, it could create an opening for Dutton to position himself as a viable alternative, despite his own significant shortcomings.

Ultimately, the Albanese government must navigate complex and rapidly evolving political circumstances. The government’s ability to connect with voters on a broader range of issues will be critical to its success, especially in the context of the upcoming federal election, which is due before May 2025.

Unmet expectations and missed opportunities

The Albanese government’s current struggles can be further understood through the lens of unmet expectations and the shifting political mindset of the electorate. The 2022 federal election was a decisive moment, with voters sending a clear message that they were tired of the politics-as-usual approach and desired a government that would bring about meaningful change. The Labor Party was seen as the vehicle for this transformation, promising a departure from the policies and behaviours of the previous Coalition government and, in particular, former prime minister Scott Morrison.

One of the core issues lies in the perception that the Labor government is not delivering the transformative policies that were anticipated by its supporters. The COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally altered the public’s expectations of what governments can and should do, where during the pandemic, the Coalition government implemented significant economic support measures, such as JobKeeper, that are anathema for conservative governments typically averse to such interventionist policies. Money that the government usually claims is never available for the public good, was magically found: governments can always spend money, it’s just a question of political will. This created a belief that a Labor government, traditionally more inclined towards social welfare and public investment, would not only maintain but expand upon these initiatives.

Instead, what many voters have observed is a government that, while different from its predecessor in certain respects, seems to be drifting without a clear and bold vision. The perception that Labor has been pulled to the right on various issues, partly due to pressure from the Liberal–National opposition, has further eroded the sense of a distinct and progressive agenda.

Is the Labor government squandering its time in office? With nearly every government in Australia currently controlled by the Labor Party – aside from Tasmania and more recently, the Northern Territory – there was an opportunity for a coordinated and cohesive effort to push forward a progressive agenda. However, the federal government’s slow and steady approach has been perceived as a lack of urgency, particularly in a political environment where bold action was necessary to address pressing issues.

While it’s always easy to make comparisons to the Whitlam government between 1972–75, Gough Whitlam’s tenure, though brief and tumultuous, is remembered for its ambitious reforms and the lasting legacy it left on Australian society. The Albanese government, in contrast, seems to be at risk of fading away, as the initial momentum of its electoral victory fades into a more cautious and conservative mode of governance. While there are certainly achievements that Labor supporters can point to, these accomplishments are often overshadowed by the perception that the government is not fully seizing the moment.

There is also the question of whether the Albanese government is being unduly influenced by various lobby groups, which is steering it away from its core values and objectives and these pressures from religious, industrial, social, and cultural groups, as well as the need to appease certain sectors, can dilute the government’s ability to act decisively in the national interest. This balancing act, while an inevitable part of governing, has led the Labor government to compromise on issues where it should be more assertive in pursuing what is best for the country as a whole. In this case, if too many compromises are made, what is the real purpose of a Labor government if it is intent to occupy the treasury benches without following its own agenda, and genuflecting to the wishes of others, who are quite often hostile to its interests?

The missing narrative: A struggle to connect policies with a cohesive vision

The Albanese government’s struggles are not only rooted in policy decisions but also in the absence of a compelling and cohesive narrative that connects these decisions to a broader vision for the country. In the field of politics, the narrative helps the electorate make sense of the various policies and changes that are implemented. Unfortunately, the current Labor government has often failed to provide this connecting narrative, leaving many voters confused and disconnected from the government’s agenda.

Storytelling in politics is crucial because it provides context and justification for policies, especially when those policies may not immediately seem beneficial or necessary to the public. The lack of such storytelling in the Albanese government’s approach has been glaringly evident in several key areas; for example, the Housing Australia Future Fund was introduced earlier this year as a significant initiative to address housing affordability, yet the rationale behind structuring it like a hedge fund was never adequately explained. This left room for the narrative to be dominated by others, particularly the Australian Greens, who criticised the fund as insufficient and poorly conceived (which it was). The debate was left to fester, and the government’s position appeared weak and reactive.

Similarly, on the issue of JobSeeker payments, the government’s failure to provide a clear explanation for why it did not substantially raise these payments, despite campaigning on this issue in opposition and receiving a great level of support from the business community to do this, further eroded trust. This decision, which could have been framed within the context of broader economic challenges or fiscal constraints inherited from the previous government, was instead met with stonewalling and the government’s refusal to at least engage in a meaningful dialogue about this choice left many supporters feeling betrayed.

The handling of the Stage 3 tax cuts is another prime example of the government’s narrative shortcomings. Labor had the opportunity to address this controversial policy head-on from the moment it took office. Instead, it allowed the issue to linger for 18 months, during which time the public discourse was dominated by criticism and speculation. By the time the tax cuts came into effect in July 2024, the narrative had already been shaped by negative headlines and internal party divisions, and the government’s eventual actions were barely noticed.

The government tried to make a virtue of ‘keeping a promise’ on Stage 3 tax cuts, despite the immense inequity of the policy. Instead of just taking the right course of action in the first place, as well as upholding the principles of the Labor Party, Albanese allowed the negative headlines to linger for another 18 months and broke the electoral promise anyway. This was excruciatingly bad politics, and the worst of both worlds: a promise that the electorate wanted the government to break, which was ultimately broken and gave the government 18 months of negative headlines in the media.

The broader issue at play here is that without a strong narrative, the government’s achievements are easily overshadowed by perceptions of failures pushed by its enemies. Labor has enacted policies that have had positive impacts and helped ease inflationary pressures, which is now far lower than at the time they inherited government in May 2022. However, the lack of a connecting narrative has allowed these successes to be dismissed or minimised in public discourse. The narrative vacuum has been filled by critics who frame these policies as inadequate or misguided, reinforcing the perception that the government is not doing enough.

This failure to articulate a strong, cohesive narrative is not just a communications problem; it reflects a deeper issue of leadership and vision. The electorate is unforgiving when it feels that a government is not delivering on its promises or lacks direction. Voters are not particularly concerned with the difficulties of governing; they want to see results and understand how those results fit into a larger plan. The absence of a compelling story that ties together the government’s various policies and actions has left voters feeling that the Labor Party is lacking the boldness and clarity that is expected from progressive governments.

The struggle to balance principles and political strategy

These difficulties are also compounded by the apparent attempts to appease conservative forces within and outside the political landscape, allowing these operatives to unduly influence the government’s agenda. This approach, which seems driven by a desire for bipartisanship and a misguided sense of political civility, has resulted in a dynamic where Dutton – despite his overtly divisive and often uncivil tactics – has been allowed to control much of the narrative around key issues. In attempting to achieve a level of cooperation with Dutton, Albanese has compromised on the very principles that should define his government, weakening its position and alienating significant portions of its base. When the Coalition is in office, they rarely take notice of Labor or progressive policies and are often dismissive and hostile towards the interests of working people. If that’s the case, when Labor is in office, why is it always so keen to accommodate the interests of conservatives when that action is never reciprocated?

This disparity has led to a situation where Dutton sets the terms of the debate – with the assistance of a dutifully obliging mainstream media – while the Labor government struggles to assert its own narrative. Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ forceful critique of Dutton exemplifies the kind of rhetoric that should have been a consistent part of the government’s strategy.

Chalmers: “Dutton is a divisive figure, and I believe he is too divisive to be the prime minister of a great country like ours – divisiveness is his defining and disqualifying characteristic. When most people look around the world and see the divisiveness in politics overseas, they want to reject it, and he seems to want to embrace it. His focus is on dividing people, and that’s because that’s all he knows, and it’s all that he does.”

Yet, this kind of firm stance has been the exception rather than the rule, with the government often appearing hesitant to confront Dutton and the opposition directly.

The lack of courage displayed by the Albanese government is not just a matter of political strategy; it reflects a broader failure to stand firm on issues that are crucial to its supporters. This reluctance to take bold positions has been evident in various areas, from foreign policy to social issues. On the issue of Palestine, for example, the government’s fear of offending the conservative Israel lobby has led to a cautious and, in many eyes, morally compromised stance. This has not only alienated pro-Palestine advocates but has also fed into the perception that the government is more concerned with appeasing powerful interest groups than standing up for justice.

Similarly, the government’s decision to initially exclude questions on LGBTQI+ issues from the 2026 census, only to reverse course after a significant backlash, highlights its tendency to fold under pressure from conservative elements. The initial decision seemed to be driven by a desire to avoid conflict with the Australian Christian Lobby and other socially conservative groups, even though this meant breaking a promise made to the LGBTQI+ community and an issue that is specifically contained with the Labor Platform. This kind of backtracking not only damages the government’s credibility but also creates unnecessary division, undermining its own stated goal of avoiding such conflicts.

This trend of sidelining and unnecessarily antagonising important constituencies is dangerous for the Labor Party, especially as it prepares for the next election. The party’s left flank, which includes many of the voters who helped secure its 2022 victory, is increasingly disillusioned with a government that seems to be drifting away from the progressive principles it championed from opposition. While it is true that governing often requires difficult decisions and compromises, the Albanese government appears to be losing sight of the need to maintain the support of those who brought it to power in the first place.

This is particularly problematic given the rising threat from the Australian Greens, who are increasingly positioning themselves as a progressive alternative to Labor. The Greens, with their distinct political and policy agenda, are already looking to outflank Labor on the left, capitalising on the dissatisfaction among voters who feel that Labor has failed to deliver on its promises.

The danger for the Albanese government is that it may squander the political capital it came into office with, leaving it vulnerable to a the Liberal–National parties on the right, and a growing challenge from the left. While some Labor supporters argue that the government needs more time to undo the destructive damage of nine years of Coalition rule between 2013–2022, there is a growing sense that the current trajectory is leading to disappointment rather than the bold reforms many hoped for.

The next election will be a critical test of whether the government can reclaim its narrative, reconnect with its base, and deliver on the promise of change that brought it to power. If it fails to do so, the Albanese government risks being remembered not for its achievements but for its missed opportunities and its failure to stand up for the very principles that it once championed.