There’s been a lot to unpack during this year’s federal election campaign, namely because there are way too many candidates who didn’t realise wiping their social media footprint is definitely a thing you should do before entering politics.
With two weeks left of an already exhausting five week (and two day) long campaign, we’ve already seen lots of bright yellow billboards for Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party and acted a tiny bit surprised when One Nation candidate Steve Dickson was caught saying horribly sexist and racist things while out at a US night club.
But there is one thing that this election campaign is missing (and it becomes even more glaringly obvious when you look across the Tasman Sea).
Everything you need to know about political scandals, such as those that have plagued this election, come to be. Post continues below.
There are two men hoping to lead their parties to election victory. Two men who are fighting, as leaders of the two major parties, to be Prime Minister.
And they’re both a bit… meh.
Scott Morrison and Bill Shorten are two men-in-suits who elicit excitement in precisely no one. ABC‘s Vote Compass, which compiles data about the election, ranks them both below 5/10 for likeability and trustworthiness – with undecided voters unable to see much of a difference between the two.
No matter how many times they engage in a bit of ‘beer and banter’, hang out with sports teams or smile with babies, no one is going to the voting booths yelling “I JUST REALLY LIKE SCOTT MORRISON” or “I JUST REALLY LIKE BILL SHORTEN”.
There’s certainly no ‘ScoMomania’ here.
But look, while it's a bit disappointing to know Australia's next prime minister is going to be rather bland no matter how voting pans out, it's not the worst thing.
Hear us out.
Although neither Morrison and Shorten provoke a flurry of excitement among Australian voters over their leadership, what this means is there's no personality politics, because there's, uh, no personalities.
Voters, particularly undecided voters who are not attached to one specific party, are forced to look beyond the (lack off) charisma on display.
What issues matter most to me? What parties policies most align with my values? Where does each party stand on climate change? What are they actually going to do?
In turn, the parties actually have to give voters more than just a smiley leader.
Party leaders stand out only if they're very good or very bad. And both very good and very bad get the pubic fired up and active.
Without that, voters must fall back on what, after all, should matter most in any election: Policy.
And that can only be a good thing.
For more on this topic:
Top Comments
It’s almost like they are cut from the same cloth. Blame compulsory voting and Tony Blair, who introduced the, “the third way” so popular if you look at the Canada, UK, Germany or the gentle burning streets of Paris, in all of which the current leaders are less popular than Donald Trump according to the polls.
Basically you go high taxing authoritarian government and then throw a few social Left issues in as compensation.
We will make you pay more, import more people to squeeze into the big cities, decide what you can read on the Internet, but hey, we gave you SSM so be happy. That’s one example.
In clambering for the middle, you have Labor and Labor light to pick from and as a result the minor parties grow as people seek an actual alternative.
I suppose that’s a good point, but it would be nice if one of them had a bit of charisma. Or was a really great public speaker. But as you say, when you look at some of the ‘personalities’ out there, perhaps we should be careful what we wish for!
That got me thinking - I can't recall the last political leader we had with charisma or was a rousing orator.
The best I can think is Bob Hawke 2800BC, and that was more an outspoken personality than charisma.