From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. This is inside politics. I'm Jacqueline Maley. US President Donald Trump has officially unleashed chaos on the world's financial markets. It's a strange time to be campaigning for election, but Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton must adjust and carry on. So how is this incredible international volatility impacting the election campaign? Will all this disruption be favourable for the incumbent PM? And do Australian voters really want a candidate promising change at this moment in history? Here to discuss all this and more, we have our very special guest, Sean Kelly, who joins us from Melbourne. Sean Kelly, of course, writes an excellent column for the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. Welcome, Sean.

From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. This is inside politics. I'm Jacqueline Maley. US President Donald Trump has officially unleashed chaos on the world's financial markets. It's a strange time to be campaigning for election, but Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton must adjust and carry on. So how is this incredible international volatility impacting the election campaign? Will all this disruption be favourable for the incumbent PM? And do Australian voters really want a candidate promising change at this moment in history? Here to discuss all this and more, we have our very special guest, Sean Kelly, who joins us from Melbourne. Sean Kelly, of course, writes an excellent column for the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. Welcome, Sean.

Thanks for having me on.

Thanks for having me on.

And listeners won't be able to see this, but Sean is wearing an excellent sort of tartan lined jacket, which I previously commented on. Anyway, let's get down to business. I just want to talk briefly about the developments that we've seen this week. So the week began rather badly for Peter Dutton, didn't it?

And listeners won't be able to see this, but Sean is wearing an excellent sort of tartan lined jacket, which I previously commented on. Anyway, let's get down to business. I just want to talk briefly about the developments that we've seen this week. So the week began rather badly for Peter Dutton, didn't it?

Well, yes and no. I would say he put into the newspapers the night before a massive backflip on work from home, essentially saying they would not be forcing public servants back into the office.

Well, yes and no. I would say he put into the newspapers the night before a massive backflip on work from home, essentially saying they would not be forcing public servants back into the office.

Look, I think we've made a mistake in relation to this policy, Sarah, and I think it's important that we say that and recognise it. And our intention always was to make sure that we're taxpayers are working hard and their money is being spent to pay wages, that it's being spent efficiently. And that, of.

Look, I think we've made a mistake in relation to this policy, Sarah, and I think it's important that we say that and recognise it. And our intention always was to make sure that we're taxpayers are working hard and their money is being spent to pay wages, that it's being spent efficiently. And that, of.

Course, now that was a back down from a policy that would have affected a fair few public servants. But the problem for him and the Liberal Party was that there was a sense out in voter land that people thought this applied to everybody, or at the least thought this was the beginning of a push by the coalition to get everybody back in the office. And I think the coalition really did miss a trick here. They underestimated the heat around this issue. I've found whenever I've written about this issue straying a little away from my usual politics, there's a really large reaction to it. And I feel all of the businesses that have been pushing people to get back to the office and the politicians who have been doing likewise, aren't properly aware of just how passionately people feel about this. So, look, it was bad in the sense that it chews up another day. It shines a spotlight on how messy his campaign has been on the on the messiness around the development of policy. But the reason I hesitate to say it was a bad start to the week is it has, or it potentially allows him a reset. When you have a problem in a campaign, when you have something that is damaging you, the worst thing a campaign can do is think, well, we can't change this. It's too late. You can always change things from the eye of the storm. And so they made the right decision, I think, to get out there and flip that. And that then should allow them to push the debate back onto topics that are a bit more helpful to them. It's important to remember that we're still really early in the campaign here. There are a number of weeks to go. A lot of campaigns start badly.

Course, now that was a back down from a policy that would have affected a fair few public servants. But the problem for him and the Liberal Party was that there was a sense out in voter land that people thought this applied to everybody, or at the least thought this was the beginning of a push by the coalition to get everybody back in the office. And I think the coalition really did miss a trick here. They underestimated the heat around this issue. I've found whenever I've written about this issue straying a little away from my usual politics, there's a really large reaction to it. And I feel all of the businesses that have been pushing people to get back to the office and the politicians who have been doing likewise, aren't properly aware of just how passionately people feel about this. So, look, it was bad in the sense that it chews up another day. It shines a spotlight on how messy his campaign has been on the on the messiness around the development of policy. But the reason I hesitate to say it was a bad start to the week is it has, or it potentially allows him a reset. When you have a problem in a campaign, when you have something that is damaging you, the worst thing a campaign can do is think, well, we can't change this. It's too late. You can always change things from the eye of the storm. And so they made the right decision, I think, to get out there and flip that. And that then should allow them to push the debate back onto topics that are a bit more helpful to them. It's important to remember that we're still really early in the campaign here. There are a number of weeks to go. A lot of campaigns start badly.

Isn't it hard, though, for them now to talk much about their policy to cut back on the civil service, which they've already sort of walked back and they've said that they're not going to do any forced redundancies. I think they want to get rid of 41,000 public servants, which they say is the number that the Albanese government has put on since it's been in power. But they're now saying that they're going to do that via natural attrition. I mean, it's a major policy or one of the very few major policies that they have in quite a threadbare programme of policies. And that's tainted now too, isn't it?

Isn't it hard, though, for them now to talk much about their policy to cut back on the civil service, which they've already sort of walked back and they've said that they're not going to do any forced redundancies. I think they want to get rid of 41,000 public servants, which they say is the number that the Albanese government has put on since it's been in power. But they're now saying that they're going to do that via natural attrition. I mean, it's a major policy or one of the very few major policies that they have in quite a threadbare programme of policies. And that's tainted now too, isn't it?

Oh, look. Absolutely. And they have been confused and confusing on this policy for a number of months, giving different answers about how many public servants refusing to say exactly how those public servants would go. Whether it would be natural attrition, whether it would be forced redundancies. Peter Dutton was still refusing to answer this definitively in the last couple of months. So this absolutely pours a lot of cold water over that policy. Now, as you say this. The problem really is that this is one of very few policies that they have out there. I don't think that cutting the public service back is a tremendously important policy in terms of winning voters over. It was probably a little bit of a signalling policy in terms of suggesting that the coalition will always be responsible with money and that traditional conservative messaging. But I don't think you are ever going to get a huge number of votes by cutting back on public servants. The difficulty, though, and you see this in the backflip on work from home, and you see this on the change in the public service policy, is that there just aren't enough policies out there to hold Peter Dutton up as a solid candidate. Candidates. There just aren't enough policies out there telling voters exactly who he is. And I think this is a really important point to remember, and I've seen a few people write about it in the last couple of days, that politicians fundamentally communicate who they are, not just by whether they smile at the cameras or by whether they kick a football, but by the policies they put out there. And I think politicians who forget that and think that an election campaign or the three years between election campaigns can be won simply through rhetoric and making huge mistakes.

Oh, look. Absolutely. And they have been confused and confusing on this policy for a number of months, giving different answers about how many public servants refusing to say exactly how those public servants would go. Whether it would be natural attrition, whether it would be forced redundancies. Peter Dutton was still refusing to answer this definitively in the last couple of months. So this absolutely pours a lot of cold water over that policy. Now, as you say this. The problem really is that this is one of very few policies that they have out there. I don't think that cutting the public service back is a tremendously important policy in terms of winning voters over. It was probably a little bit of a signalling policy in terms of suggesting that the coalition will always be responsible with money and that traditional conservative messaging. But I don't think you are ever going to get a huge number of votes by cutting back on public servants. The difficulty, though, and you see this in the backflip on work from home, and you see this on the change in the public service policy, is that there just aren't enough policies out there to hold Peter Dutton up as a solid candidate. Candidates. There just aren't enough policies out there telling voters exactly who he is. And I think this is a really important point to remember, and I've seen a few people write about it in the last couple of days, that politicians fundamentally communicate who they are, not just by whether they smile at the cameras or by whether they kick a football, but by the policies they put out there. And I think politicians who forget that and think that an election campaign or the three years between election campaigns can be won simply through rhetoric and making huge mistakes.

Mhm. Yeah. Okay. So we're actually deeper than, than we give ourselves credit for perhaps that people, even people who are not particularly engaged with politics or only wake up to it when they're forced to sort of vote every three years, they actually look at the policies because they tell us something about the person that we're electing, if nothing else.

Mhm. Yeah. Okay. So we're actually deeper than, than we give ourselves credit for perhaps that people, even people who are not particularly engaged with politics or only wake up to it when they're forced to sort of vote every three years, they actually look at the policies because they tell us something about the person that we're electing, if nothing else.

I think so. I think I think we often forget about politics is that it's not unlike the way we evaluate people in day to day life. You can make a first impression when you meet somebody and their manner will tell you something, but ultimately, how they behave over the next weeks and months is going to tell you whether you really can trust them and the types of things they're likely to do in particular situations. And I think we make very similar judgments about politicians over time. And Peter Dutton, to his immense detriment, I think has had three years and hasn't really taken that chance. You know, a lot of people are talking about the the last week and a half and how bad that's been for Peter Dutton, and it has been a bad start to the campaign, but it's actually hard to point to many massive mistakes he's made. It was clearly a mistake saying that he'd prefer Sydney over Canberra. I'd love to live at Kirribilli. That was a distraction, but he hasn't actually made a huge number of mistakes in the last week and a half. What he has failed to do is take opportunities. He didn't use his budget reply strongly enough. He hasn't announced dramatic policies that might shift the debate. His approach to Donald Trump wasn't sufficiently different from Anthony Albanese to make a real splash, to suggest to voters the ways that he might be a prime minister that would be different and superior to Anthony Albanese. And I think that if you are behind in a campaign and of course, the polls could be wrong, but right now they suggest that Peter Dutton is behind. You have to take your chances. And I think that's his major flaw in this campaign so far.

I think so. I think I think we often forget about politics is that it's not unlike the way we evaluate people in day to day life. You can make a first impression when you meet somebody and their manner will tell you something, but ultimately, how they behave over the next weeks and months is going to tell you whether you really can trust them and the types of things they're likely to do in particular situations. And I think we make very similar judgments about politicians over time. And Peter Dutton, to his immense detriment, I think has had three years and hasn't really taken that chance. You know, a lot of people are talking about the the last week and a half and how bad that's been for Peter Dutton, and it has been a bad start to the campaign, but it's actually hard to point to many massive mistakes he's made. It was clearly a mistake saying that he'd prefer Sydney over Canberra. I'd love to live at Kirribilli. That was a distraction, but he hasn't actually made a huge number of mistakes in the last week and a half. What he has failed to do is take opportunities. He didn't use his budget reply strongly enough. He hasn't announced dramatic policies that might shift the debate. His approach to Donald Trump wasn't sufficiently different from Anthony Albanese to make a real splash, to suggest to voters the ways that he might be a prime minister that would be different and superior to Anthony Albanese. And I think that if you are behind in a campaign and of course, the polls could be wrong, but right now they suggest that Peter Dutton is behind. You have to take your chances. And I think that's his major flaw in this campaign so far.

What do you think about his communication ability? Because we haven't seen a lot of it, as you say, in the last three years, we haven't seen a lot of him communicating to voters off the cuff or interacting with journalists in any kind of natural environment. We haven't seen a lot of him on the hustings, and we haven't really seen him in a toe to toe debate situation, like we're going to be seeing him this week. I mean, something like the the work from home policy, if that had been better communicated or better articulated by Dutton himself, because he really left the heavy lifting to Jane Hume on that. I mean, do you think he's very good at communicating from what we've seen so far?

What do you think about his communication ability? Because we haven't seen a lot of it, as you say, in the last three years, we haven't seen a lot of him communicating to voters off the cuff or interacting with journalists in any kind of natural environment. We haven't seen a lot of him on the hustings, and we haven't really seen him in a toe to toe debate situation, like we're going to be seeing him this week. I mean, something like the the work from home policy, if that had been better communicated or better articulated by Dutton himself, because he really left the heavy lifting to Jane Hume on that. I mean, do you think he's very good at communicating from what we've seen so far?

Look, look, it's a great question. And in a way, it comes back to all of the problems with the shaping of Peter Dutton's campaign over the last few years, which is essentially that he's left everything very late. So he's left the announcement of policies very late. That means he's on the back foot now. The work from home policy. Yes, it's a mistake. Yes, he's reversed it. But imagine if he'd announced it three months ago and had reversed it two months ago. We wouldn't now be talking about it in the midst of an election campaign, and similarly with communication. He's deliberately, systematically avoided facing the press gallery in Canberra, the journalists who are going to be most knowledgeable about the details of any policies, he announced. He has avoided unfriendly media interviews to a very large extent. And those things mean that he's not match fit. He's not prepared to face anybody but the most amicable welcoming of interviewers, and I think you can really see that. I don't think he's a terrible communicator, by the way. I think he does a pretty good job of remaining calm. I think he does a pretty good job of barreling through an interview when he needs to, but he is not good at answering the detail of policies. And I think in a campaign that can really kill you.

Look, look, it's a great question. And in a way, it comes back to all of the problems with the shaping of Peter Dutton's campaign over the last few years, which is essentially that he's left everything very late. So he's left the announcement of policies very late. That means he's on the back foot now. The work from home policy. Yes, it's a mistake. Yes, he's reversed it. But imagine if he'd announced it three months ago and had reversed it two months ago. We wouldn't now be talking about it in the midst of an election campaign, and similarly with communication. He's deliberately, systematically avoided facing the press gallery in Canberra, the journalists who are going to be most knowledgeable about the details of any policies, he announced. He has avoided unfriendly media interviews to a very large extent. And those things mean that he's not match fit. He's not prepared to face anybody but the most amicable welcoming of interviewers, and I think you can really see that. I don't think he's a terrible communicator, by the way. I think he does a pretty good job of remaining calm. I think he does a pretty good job of barreling through an interview when he needs to, but he is not good at answering the detail of policies. And I think in a campaign that can really kill you.

Yeah. And just sort of articulating some sort of vision or even a sense of personality. In your column this week, you made an intriguing argument about Australia's appetite for change. You were basically saying that we often say that we want change, or we want a certain area or difficulty or challenge fixed, but when we get presented with an actual policy, we backtrack and say no. Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?

Yeah. And just sort of articulating some sort of vision or even a sense of personality. In your column this week, you made an intriguing argument about Australia's appetite for change. You were basically saying that we often say that we want change, or we want a certain area or difficulty or challenge fixed, but when we get presented with an actual policy, we backtrack and say no. Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?

Yeah, I think you've seen this in a in a number of areas over the years. I think you could see it in the debate around the indigenous voice to Parliament. Polls would say that Australians wanted something to be done about indigenous affairs, that they wanted the standard of living, of Indigenous Australians improved, even that they thought Indigenous Australians should have more of a say more broadly. But when a proposal came up to actually change those things, Australians thought about it and thought, oh no, not, not that change. We want change. Just not that one. I think the same thing happened on climate change. Australians were in favour, drastic favour of wanting something to happen on climate change. But a carbon price. No no no no no thank you. And I think this it's not just Australia. This happens around the world. People are broadly in favour of change. They're broadly in favour of fixing problems. But when you actually ask them, well what about this thing which is going to change society in some way or is going to change your life in some way, they suddenly get very, very worried about the changes, which is why some of the most successful changes over the years are governments have effectively sprung on people mid-term or early in their term, which means that they've been in place long enough by the next election for voters to have stopped worrying about them. You know, you could say Anthony Albanese changes to the stage three tax cuts. You know, there was an enormous uproar about them for a couple of weeks and broken promises. But nobody's talking about them anymore.

Yeah, I think you've seen this in a in a number of areas over the years. I think you could see it in the debate around the indigenous voice to Parliament. Polls would say that Australians wanted something to be done about indigenous affairs, that they wanted the standard of living, of Indigenous Australians improved, even that they thought Indigenous Australians should have more of a say more broadly. But when a proposal came up to actually change those things, Australians thought about it and thought, oh no, not, not that change. We want change. Just not that one. I think the same thing happened on climate change. Australians were in favour, drastic favour of wanting something to happen on climate change. But a carbon price. No no no no no thank you. And I think this it's not just Australia. This happens around the world. People are broadly in favour of change. They're broadly in favour of fixing problems. But when you actually ask them, well what about this thing which is going to change society in some way or is going to change your life in some way, they suddenly get very, very worried about the changes, which is why some of the most successful changes over the years are governments have effectively sprung on people mid-term or early in their term, which means that they've been in place long enough by the next election for voters to have stopped worrying about them. You know, you could say Anthony Albanese changes to the stage three tax cuts. You know, there was an enormous uproar about them for a couple of weeks and broken promises. But nobody's talking about them anymore.

No. No one probably notices them very much at all. You also talk in your column. It was a great column. I urge people to go and read it if they haven't already. But you talk about the effect of Trump 2.0 on our domestic election campaign, and it seems like that effect is absolutely inescapable, particularly this week. There's been so much volatility in the financial markets, and it really feels like the global order is being rearranged in a way that we haven't seen since the Second World War. You talk about how that volatility might affect Australians appetite for change, and how it might favour incumbents like Anthony Albanese. Can you elaborate on that?

No. No one probably notices them very much at all. You also talk in your column. It was a great column. I urge people to go and read it if they haven't already. But you talk about the effect of Trump 2.0 on our domestic election campaign, and it seems like that effect is absolutely inescapable, particularly this week. There's been so much volatility in the financial markets, and it really feels like the global order is being rearranged in a way that we haven't seen since the Second World War. You talk about how that volatility might affect Australians appetite for change, and how it might favour incumbents like Anthony Albanese. Can you elaborate on that?

Yeah. Well, I think this is the most dramatic example of the phenomenon I was just talking about people around the world, and certainly people in Australia, especially young people, have been saying for quite some time that they want really dramatic change, they want the system shifted, and Donald Trump is providing a version of that, and suddenly people are saying, oh, well, yes, we want dramatic change. We want the system torn down, but we don't want it torn down exactly like this by this exact person in this exact way. And I think what's really interesting about that in the context of this election, is whether this drives people away from that idea of change more broadly, or whether they do just limit their reservations and their reluctance to Donald Trump. So in the context of our election, whether that pushes people to Anthony Albanese, just as in a direct head to head comparison with Peter Dutton, or whether, yeah, sure, they might in this particular environment choose the incumbent over the opposition, but whether they actually still like the idea of change more broadly and still flock to the third parties the Greens, the community, independents, various other independents. And I think that's a really interesting question. Obviously, we're not going to get a sense of that until election night. Possibly even the days after, depending on how close the election is. But that, for me, is one of the most fascinating things about this election. Whether people turn away from the idea of change more broadly, or whether they just turn away from the idea of change as wrought by Donald Trump.

Yeah. Well, I think this is the most dramatic example of the phenomenon I was just talking about people around the world, and certainly people in Australia, especially young people, have been saying for quite some time that they want really dramatic change, they want the system shifted, and Donald Trump is providing a version of that, and suddenly people are saying, oh, well, yes, we want dramatic change. We want the system torn down, but we don't want it torn down exactly like this by this exact person in this exact way. And I think what's really interesting about that in the context of this election, is whether this drives people away from that idea of change more broadly, or whether they do just limit their reservations and their reluctance to Donald Trump. So in the context of our election, whether that pushes people to Anthony Albanese, just as in a direct head to head comparison with Peter Dutton, or whether, yeah, sure, they might in this particular environment choose the incumbent over the opposition, but whether they actually still like the idea of change more broadly and still flock to the third parties the Greens, the community, independents, various other independents. And I think that's a really interesting question. Obviously, we're not going to get a sense of that until election night. Possibly even the days after, depending on how close the election is. But that, for me, is one of the most fascinating things about this election. Whether people turn away from the idea of change more broadly, or whether they just turn away from the idea of change as wrought by Donald Trump.

What do you think of the Peter Dutton argument that he is the better leader to deal with Donald Trump in the white House, that Albanese has shown himself to be weak and ineffectual and, you know, famously can't even get sort of Trump on the phone to argue Australia's case about tariffs. Do you think that's a persuasive argument for voters?

What do you think of the Peter Dutton argument that he is the better leader to deal with Donald Trump in the white House, that Albanese has shown himself to be weak and ineffectual and, you know, famously can't even get sort of Trump on the phone to argue Australia's case about tariffs. Do you think that's a persuasive argument for voters?

I thought the not being able to get a phone call argument sounded persuasive. I don't think it was real in the sense that I don't think Donald Trump was really giving anybody the time of day at that point. But I thought it sounded like a pretty strong line. It is a common sense appeal. But I thought Peter Dutton ended up sounding a little bit silly after the tariffs were actually announced, when he briefly suggested he could have got a different deal that was clearly patently false to anybody following it. And I think in a way the government really benefited from being able to say, look, it's 10%. It's the it's the lowest of all of these crazy tariffs you're seeing around the globe. I think this is another really interesting aspect of this campaign, the way things have shifted in various ways. And some of this is entirely luck. Circumstances which you might have thought would play against Anthony Albanese, like the imposition of tariffs, have ended up playing quite well for him. And some sometimes that's just momentum, sometimes that's just the way events play out. And I think this is a more broadly an interesting question about this election, whether it is being driven much at all by what Anthony Albanese says or what Peter Dutton says, or whether we're really we're looking at a political situation that's driven by external factors. First, you had inflation driving people away from Anthony Albanese, making it look like Peter Dutton was a very effective campaigner. And as inflation has come off the boil a bit and you've got an interest rate cut, you saw people coming back to the government. Now Donald Trump is driving voters back to incumbents across the world. You know, I think we need to be wary of saying, well, Anthony Albanese has played this brilliantly. It's happening everywhere. Now. All that said, a week and a half in Anthony Albanese is having a better campaign than Peter Dutton. But as I said, it's a week and a half in.

I thought the not being able to get a phone call argument sounded persuasive. I don't think it was real in the sense that I don't think Donald Trump was really giving anybody the time of day at that point. But I thought it sounded like a pretty strong line. It is a common sense appeal. But I thought Peter Dutton ended up sounding a little bit silly after the tariffs were actually announced, when he briefly suggested he could have got a different deal that was clearly patently false to anybody following it. And I think in a way the government really benefited from being able to say, look, it's 10%. It's the it's the lowest of all of these crazy tariffs you're seeing around the globe. I think this is another really interesting aspect of this campaign, the way things have shifted in various ways. And some of this is entirely luck. Circumstances which you might have thought would play against Anthony Albanese, like the imposition of tariffs, have ended up playing quite well for him. And some sometimes that's just momentum, sometimes that's just the way events play out. And I think this is a more broadly an interesting question about this election, whether it is being driven much at all by what Anthony Albanese says or what Peter Dutton says, or whether we're really we're looking at a political situation that's driven by external factors. First, you had inflation driving people away from Anthony Albanese, making it look like Peter Dutton was a very effective campaigner. And as inflation has come off the boil a bit and you've got an interest rate cut, you saw people coming back to the government. Now Donald Trump is driving voters back to incumbents across the world. You know, I think we need to be wary of saying, well, Anthony Albanese has played this brilliantly. It's happening everywhere. Now. All that said, a week and a half in Anthony Albanese is having a better campaign than Peter Dutton. But as I said, it's a week and a half in.

You've worked for Kevin Rudd and you've worked for Julia Gillard, both of whom were prime ministers, you will recall. Can you tell us a bit about what it's like to be inside a campaign, and when that switch is flipped from, you know, government mode to campaign mode. What changes what what does a day look like? What, you know, how many meetings are held. And you know, how much does sort of the campaign HQ, the party machine take over?

You've worked for Kevin Rudd and you've worked for Julia Gillard, both of whom were prime ministers, you will recall. Can you tell us a bit about what it's like to be inside a campaign, and when that switch is flipped from, you know, government mode to campaign mode. What changes what what does a day look like? What, you know, how many meetings are held. And you know, how much does sort of the campaign HQ, the party machine take over?

There are lots of different places you can work in a campaign. I did one campaign in campaign headquarters. I remember the air conditioning was broken such that it was freezing. It was. It was spring, verging on summer, and I was wearing a gigantic jacket every day. Which just goes to show, campaigns often get the tiniest things completely wrong in that environment. There is an enormous amount of pressure on you not to stuff up. I think that's the dominant thing. It's almost less about making gains for for most people working on a campaign because they're not making the big decisions. But what they are doing is doing is preparing press releases or answering media calls or checking policy details. And if you make an error in any one of those, you could end up being the person who derails the party's campaign costs your party government. So that sense of constant pressure is immense. And then you have the travelling team who are out there with the Prime Minister or the opposition leader. And that's a very, very different situation, because again, yes, you have immense pressure on you not to make mistakes, but mistakes are going to be made across a 5 or 6 week campaign. In a way, the pressure is on that other end, that entrepreneurial element, if you like the, um, you need to know when you have to make shifts and when you can try to grab advantages. For example, Peter Dutton backflipping on work from home. You know, that is a a massive call that you can you can take input from everywhere. But ultimately that is a decision that is going to be made by the leader and that means the leader in consultation, probably with party headquarters, but also with the small travelling team of people that he trusts.

There are lots of different places you can work in a campaign. I did one campaign in campaign headquarters. I remember the air conditioning was broken such that it was freezing. It was. It was spring, verging on summer, and I was wearing a gigantic jacket every day. Which just goes to show, campaigns often get the tiniest things completely wrong in that environment. There is an enormous amount of pressure on you not to stuff up. I think that's the dominant thing. It's almost less about making gains for for most people working on a campaign because they're not making the big decisions. But what they are doing is doing is preparing press releases or answering media calls or checking policy details. And if you make an error in any one of those, you could end up being the person who derails the party's campaign costs your party government. So that sense of constant pressure is immense. And then you have the travelling team who are out there with the Prime Minister or the opposition leader. And that's a very, very different situation, because again, yes, you have immense pressure on you not to make mistakes, but mistakes are going to be made across a 5 or 6 week campaign. In a way, the pressure is on that other end, that entrepreneurial element, if you like the, um, you need to know when you have to make shifts and when you can try to grab advantages. For example, Peter Dutton backflipping on work from home. You know, that is a a massive call that you can you can take input from everywhere. But ultimately that is a decision that is going to be made by the leader and that means the leader in consultation, probably with party headquarters, but also with the small travelling team of people that he trusts.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And I think that travelling team, um, you know, there's camaraderie there, but it's very lonely. For that reason, there is, because it is really a very small group. You're talking about who can completely shift the dynamics of the campaign. And if you are behind. And I remember this in 2010 with Julia Gillard, we were behind the the Labor Secretariat had either stopped polling or stopped advertising, I can't remember which, but it was an indication of how absolutely stuffed the campaign was at one point. You might remember this is when Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard still seemed to be warring. There was an awful photo opportunity between them both to try to declare a truce. I think maybe it did more damage than help. Uh, there were awful leaks coming out, and, you know, there was a small group of us who had to try to figure out what needed to change, and dramatic changes were needed. And that's and nobody else can really tell you what to do in that situation. They can provide very, very valuable advice, particularly, you know, those people who are very good at polling can provide very useful advice during a campaign. But ultimately it's a small group of people. And of course, ultimately it comes down to the leader themselves. And I think that's that's something people forget a little bit. When we watch a campaign play out. We think, well, the leader is under pressure because they have to answer questions at a press conference. If they have to not make mistakes and they have to say the right thing and prosecute the message effectively. But the real pressure is in making those decisions every day, because ultimately there's only one head on the chopping block.

And I think that travelling team, um, you know, there's camaraderie there, but it's very lonely. For that reason, there is, because it is really a very small group. You're talking about who can completely shift the dynamics of the campaign. And if you are behind. And I remember this in 2010 with Julia Gillard, we were behind the the Labor Secretariat had either stopped polling or stopped advertising, I can't remember which, but it was an indication of how absolutely stuffed the campaign was at one point. You might remember this is when Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard still seemed to be warring. There was an awful photo opportunity between them both to try to declare a truce. I think maybe it did more damage than help. Uh, there were awful leaks coming out, and, you know, there was a small group of us who had to try to figure out what needed to change, and dramatic changes were needed. And that's and nobody else can really tell you what to do in that situation. They can provide very, very valuable advice, particularly, you know, those people who are very good at polling can provide very useful advice during a campaign. But ultimately it's a small group of people. And of course, ultimately it comes down to the leader themselves. And I think that's that's something people forget a little bit. When we watch a campaign play out. We think, well, the leader is under pressure because they have to answer questions at a press conference. If they have to not make mistakes and they have to say the right thing and prosecute the message effectively. But the real pressure is in making those decisions every day, because ultimately there's only one head on the chopping block.

What's the atmosphere like in a campaign that's not going well? Um, you know, within that small cabal of people who are travelling with with the leader and, you know, have you I mean, how much sort of psychological bolstering is required of the leader, him or herself, how much comfort is required on a personal level for that person?

What's the atmosphere like in a campaign that's not going well? Um, you know, within that small cabal of people who are travelling with with the leader and, you know, have you I mean, how much sort of psychological bolstering is required of the leader, him or herself, how much comfort is required on a personal level for that person?

It's a really good question.

It's a really good question.

I don't think there is a one size fits all answer, because every leader is so different from every other leader. But you point to a really important issue, which is that it does come down to psychology to a very large extent. And I think you can see that in this campaign. I think in the last week and a half, Anthony Albanese has looked much sharper and much more confident than he has for a long time. And I don't think that's because he's suddenly figured out how to campaign better. I think a huge amount of that is momentum, is the sense of confidence he would be feeling from the polls suddenly going his way. And I just don't think you can overstate how important those mood shifts are.

I don't think there is a one size fits all answer, because every leader is so different from every other leader. But you point to a really important issue, which is that it does come down to psychology to a very large extent. And I think you can see that in this campaign. I think in the last week and a half, Anthony Albanese has looked much sharper and much more confident than he has for a long time. And I don't think that's because he's suddenly figured out how to campaign better. I think a huge amount of that is momentum, is the sense of confidence he would be feeling from the polls suddenly going his way. And I just don't think you can overstate how important those mood shifts are.

Yeah. No, I totally agree. And it does come down to psychology. It's absolutely fascinating. We're recording this before the debate, the first debate or the People's Forum, I should say, which is on Tuesday night. So it's going to be fascinating to see how these two men face up against each other, because we've never really seen that before. So I'm sure we'll both be watching. Sean, it's been so fascinating to have you on, and I will hope that you will come back again before the end of the campaign.

Yeah. No, I totally agree. And it does come down to psychology. It's absolutely fascinating. We're recording this before the debate, the first debate or the People's Forum, I should say, which is on Tuesday night. So it's going to be fascinating to see how these two men face up against each other, because we've never really seen that before. So I'm sure we'll both be watching. Sean, it's been so fascinating to have you on, and I will hope that you will come back again before the end of the campaign.

Thanks so much. It's been great to chat.

Thanks so much. It's been great to chat.

And bring your tartan lined bomber jacket with you. Thanks very much.

And bring your tartan lined bomber jacket with you. Thanks very much.

Thanks, Jackie.

Thanks, Jackie.

Today's episode of Inside Politics was produced by Julia Katzel with technical assistance from Josh towers. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills. Inside politics is a production of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. To support our journalism, subscribe to us by visiting The Age or smh.com.au. And sign up for our Inside Politics newsletter to receive a comprehensive summary of the most important news of the week, including analysis and insights, in your inbox. Links are in the show notes. I'm Jacqueline Maley, this is inside politics. Thank you for listening.

Today's episode of Inside Politics was produced by Julia Katzel with technical assistance from Josh towers. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills. Inside politics is a production of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. To support our journalism, subscribe to us by visiting The Age or smh.com.au. And sign up for our Inside Politics newsletter to receive a comprehensive summary of the most important news of the week, including analysis and insights, in your inbox. Links are in the show notes. I'm Jacqueline Maley, this is inside politics. Thank you for listening.