Aspiration (noun): a drawing of something in, out, up, or through by or as if by suction.

In political terms, Labor’s decision to oppose the government’s three-stage tax bill is eccentric. It exposes Labor to a campaign about denying workers tax cuts. It defies Labor’s history — Labor under Kevin Rudd fell into line with the Howard government’s pre-election tax cuts in 2007. The whole rationale for the government’s single bill is to try to wedge Labor. And the alternative would hardly have been unpalatable — decline to oppose the government’s bill but warn the later stages of the tax cuts would be replaced with Labor’s tax cuts, targeted at low and middle income earners, if it wins government. Instead, once again, Labor took the “brave” option. That saw the third stage of the tax cuts knocked off in the Senate this morning and the possibility that stage two will be as well, although the government might yet muster the crossbench numbers for the bill before Parliament rises for winter next week.

Labor keeps making these decisions to invite scare campaigns. Negative gearing and capital gains tax reform; superannuation concessions; trusts; dividend imputation refundability. Now this. At some point, you’d figure, their luck will run out and even a government as inept as this one would land a serious punch. So far, however, the only damage has been a two-point drop in its 2PP polling lead, from 53-47 to 52-48, in the wake of dividend imputation refundability and scare campaigns from both the Coalition and the Greens. Otherwise, Bill Shorten — once upon a time derided as believing in nothing but his own ambition — continues the political equivalent of a pro-wrestler’s “bring it” gesture.

Shorten, too, is supposed to be under pressure. Losing Longman or Braddon will damage him — oppositions never lose by-elections — and losing both might engender a leadership crisis. Playing small target on income tax would have been the percentage play.

Labor under Rudd — the last Labor leader to win from opposition — played small target. It minimised all areas of difference with Howard except a small number of carefully selected issues, led by industrial relations. That had its sequel both in Rudd struggling to identify what he wanted to do as Prime Minister once the financial crisis had passed, and in voters liking Rudd, but not understanding what he stood for. But such was Labor’s fear of Howard’s mastery of wedge politics, it thought it had no choice, especially on income tax. Howard’s wedge politics left deep long-term wounds on Labor, but Chris Bowen, backed by Shorten, is refusing to let that dictate Labor’s approach.

Helping is that Turnbull is no Howard. The government’s response to Labor’s decision was to portray itself as the supporter of aspiration — a word familiar from the Howard years, primarily to political insiders, because it’s doubtful how many voters know exactly what “aspiration” means. Nonetheless, the government used “aspiration” or “aspire” nearly sixty times in Question Time yesterday — reminiscent not so much of Howard as Rudd, under whom choice phrases like “working families” had to be used at least once a minute.

One of those usages, however, came unstuck for Turnbull when asked by Shorten if “a 60-year-old aged-care worker from Burnie [should] aspire to be an investment banker from Rose Bay.” Sometimes it’s the bad ball that gets the wicket. Turnbull replied “the 60-year-old aged-care worker in Burnie is entitled to aspire to get a better job.”

Oh dear. 

“Working in aged care is a good job,” Turnbull scrambled. Too late. No aged care worker in Australia will be left unaware of the gaffe in coming months.

Scott Morrison also stuffed up with what has become so rehearsed a Coalition tactic as to be almost kabuki-like: the dodgy modelling of Labor policy handed to News Corp’s Simon Benson for a front-page “exclusive” trumpeting a disaster for Labor. This week, such an effort elicited not merely a snarky response from the Parliamentary Budget Office that it stood by its modelling of Labor’s policy, but Treasury ‘fessed up that it had only modelled a confection dictated by Morrison’s office, not Labor’s policy.

More than the tactical bungling, however, is that Labor’s decision guarantees the election will be on the kind of territory Labor wants it to be on: with the Coalition backing tax cuts for high income earners, and Labor backing low and middle-income earners. Shorten and shadow cabinet think they can best their opponents because that battleground suits them. But Turnbull and the Liberals think that too. It will make for an enthralling policy and political battle.