Nelson's populist petrol gambit is a foolish gimmick
Date: May 16 2008
Peter Hartcher
BRENDAN NELSON has followed the Hillary Clinton playbook in how to rescue a desperate candidacy.
Just as the failing candidate for the US Democratic nomination proposed a populist gambit on petrol excise, so has the Australian Opposition Leader. Just as the dominant Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, shrugged it off, so will the politically unassailable Kevin Rudd. Just as it proved useless for Clinton, so it will prove quixotic for Nelson.
Nelson's tactic is transparent. He is trying to drive a wedge between Rudd and his "working families", the middle-income constituency that helped carry him into office.
And, for a while, his proposal to cut petrol excise by 5c a litre will put Rudd on the defensive.
Every media interviewer will demand to know why Rudd will not agree to this measure to help "working families" save 3 per cent on their petrol bills.
If Rudd still thinks he is electioneering, he may waver. But when he reminds himself that he is now governing, he will dismiss the idea persuasively, just as John Howard did for many years. Because the idea has not grown any smarter since Howard rejected it.
Nelson described the proposal as "modest but meaningful." Worse than modest, it's tokenistic, worth about as much as a Woolies petrol discount voucher. Yet Nelson represents the alternative government. Voters expect more from him than from a Woolies outlet.
And worse than meaningful, it's just gimmicky. It would make no real difference to family incomes, but it would be bad policy... etc