Is the government doomed to repeat the lesson Paul Keating and the ALP received in 1996? This article is certainly cause for reflection: a summary of the major newspapers’ views on the parties leading into the 96 election.

For instance, The Australian (which didn’t back either side, oh how times have changed) noted

There is a feeling the Labor government has served its time

Looking at the startling graphs on Andrew Leigh’s blog, it seems that the public might well agree regarding the Liberals this time around. The Sydney Morning Herald, which backed the Coalition, said of the Keating Government:

It has drifted and so failed in several major areas of responsibility. These include industrial relations, microeconomic reform and communciations policy.

Industrial relations and communications policy sound familiar, with WorkChoices… sorry, ‘workplace relations‘ dominating the lead up to this election and high-speed internet access forming a focus for Labor.

The Age had this to say:

A re-elected Keating government would see a polarised community; it is another fact of long term administrations.

That statement seems to hold water today, as it no doubt did then . It’s also interesting to reflect on how the newspapers would see their own pronouncements of that period. The Age could perhaps see the dangers of a Howard administration, but in a move that sounds as unlikely to 2007 ears as The Australian not endorsing the government, took the punt anyway and endorsed the Coalition:

John Howard’s vision is not perfect. In many ways a vote for John Howard is a risk. There is a chance that under Howard Australia will go backwards. But we sense it is a risk people are prepared to take.

(via Mumble).