The re-election of the Albanese Government seems to stem from a mix of their record and the perception that they’re the best bet for the country’s future, though the latter appears to have been the stronger driver.
On their record, the Albanese Government had some tangible wins that likely resonated with voters. Inflation was down, interest rates started to fall, and real wages were growing again, as highlighted in Labor’s campaign messaging. They created jobs – enough to fill the MCG ten times over, according to Albanese himself. Policies such fair tax cuts, cheaper childcare, electricity bill relief, and increased rent assistance provided real cost-of-living support, which was a key factor for voters. Their focus on Medicare and healthcare improvements, symbolised by Albanese’s victory speech with his Medicare card, also struck a chord, especially against the backdrop of the Coalition’s perceived plans to weaken it. However, their record wasn’t flawless. The failed 2023 Voice referendum was a major setback, creating division and leaving some Indigenous communities feeling overlooked. Plus, Albanese faced criticism over cost-of-living pressures early in his term and for buying a pricey beach house during a housing crisis, which didn’t help his image.
Now, looking at the future-oriented angle, this seems to have been the bigger pull. The election happened against a backdrop of global uncertainty, heavily influenced by Donald Trump’s tariffs and erratic policies, which rattled markets and Australia’s sense of security as a US ally. Albanese successfully positioned himself as a steady hand, emphasising “optimism and determination” in his victory speech and framing Labor as the party to tackle global challenges “the Australian way.” His campaign leaned hard on progress – education, housing, renewable energy – appealing to younger and future-focused voters. Labor was seen as “safe hands” for Australia’s future, especially on health, energy, and international relations. The Coalition got bogged down by comparisons to Trump, with their nuclear energy plans and “Trumpist agenda” rejected by voters. Dutton’s loss of his own seat in Dickson underscores how poorly the Coalition’s vision resonated.
Labor’s landslide – securing at least 86 seats (at this point), up from 77 – suggests the electorate wasn’t just rewarding their record but buying into their vision. The fact that they defied the global “incumbency curse,” where most governments lose after one term, points to a belief in their ability to navigate what’s next. Swings to Labor across nearly all states, show a broad rejection of the Coalition’s future plans. Albanese’s focus on unity, fairness, and opportunity for all, as he stressed in his speech, likely sealed the deal for an electorate craving stability over the Coalition’s “cuts and chaos.”
That said, it’s worth questioning the narrative. Labor’s win might also reflect the Coalition’s failure rather than a glowing endorsement of Albanese. Dutton’s campaign was chaotic – policy reversals, late releases, and a failure to counter Labor’s attacks on his character left the Liberals in disarray. Some have criticised Albanese for achieving “nothing” beyond cost-of-living pressures and a failed referendum, suggesting his victory might be more about the lack of a compelling alternative than a mandate for Labor’s future vision. Still, the scale of the win – Albanese being the first PM in over 20 years to secure a second consecutive term – leans toward the electorate seeing Labor as the better choice for what lies ahead, especially in a turbulent world.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
The Australian media has operatives from the (near) sublime to the (below) ridiculous. Even lower are the paid prattling political perverted peasants under Merde Dog’s obsessive regime of Scribble. A. Bolt, a diabolic dildo of dropout dysenteric debowelling, long ago dropped out of sufficient educational training to assist his colonic showering, for Bolt is and will remain a foulskulled goat, eternally irritably wrong, and paid to be so, just for effing fun. What a beastly brown dropping. Bolt is encouraged by coprophagous colleagues…
Do you really think people were put off by Albo buying an expensive house? Once everyone knew that Dutton owned multiple properties including his farm estate replete with horses, Albo’s one property that he bought with his fiancee after a long career as a politician shouldn’t raise concern. His wealth is a drop in the ocean compared to Dutts.
It is probable that more votes came out of rejecting Dutton’s negativity and Trump lite campaign.
As for the voice, the shrinking numbers of the boomers will have a major effect on that. If Albo plays his cards right and gives the voice another go (albeit under another moniker) later in this term the racism and bias of the elderly should play a smaller part in a referendum. I speak as a senior having seen my parents attitudes to Indigenous Australians that could hardly be classed as neutral let alone positive. Now their cohort is shrinking a Voice will be more palatable to younger voters whose opinions are more inclusive and generous.
“Do you really think people were put off by Albo buying an expensive house?”
Personally, not me, Kerri. I was just noting what had been reported.
the whole buying a fancy house thing was Liberal attempt to show Albo as being elite and not the working class man. Failed miserably.
Personally I disagree vehemently with the negative gearing policy that allows many MPs to have multiple properties to reduce their tax. One other house, just one. And after that you’re a property developer
I believe Albo is a smart operator. He has a long history of being a political strategist, with strong Labor values.
I think he outsmarted Dutton by not taking the bait. Dutton has a long political history that is not pleasant.
Albo and Labor were able to highlight their better economic management, the lack of scandal, and presenting a cohesive rational team.
When Angus Taylor delivered the Coalitions policies and costings Chalmers and Albo couldn’t believe their luck.
Dutton taking up the Nazi evoked objection to Welcome to Country, stirring up the racists outrage, did not work like it had in the past. Australians decided to reject the racism and bigotry that was so effective in the past. Australians went with a more inclusive Albo and Labor (loved the acknowledgment of Country in Albo’s victory speech).
Then of course there was the Trump factor, that held the mirror up to people to decide if Trumps values were something they wanted for Australia. Dutton and co with their wannabe Trump lite boosted Labor’s historic win.