It was Wayne Goss who said before the 1996 election that Queenslanders were waiting on their front porches with baseball bats for an opportunity to bash the Keating government. In 2004 our qualitative research into how Australians feel about the latest federal budget suggest it is now John Howard’s turn to be bashed.
In 1996 the community was sharply divided. The larger part of it felt that they had been shut out of public debate through “political correctness”. They also felt that they had been tricked into voting for Keating by the LAW tax cuts. Labor had been in power for 13 years and had presided over record high interest rates and rapidly escalating debt. While the economy was recovering from the “recession we had to have” it didn’t feel like a recovery a mood which Howard captured by characterizing the recovery as “5 minutes of economic sunshine”.
Voters had had enough, and it didn’t matter what Paul Keating said, they were just waiting to ditch him. All John Howard had to do was to avoid any significant errors, and turn up on the day. Despite that, and an expectation that Howard would win, there was a very real concern that Keating might sneak back in, which made voters even more determined to vote him out.
In 2004 a large portion of voters feel that they have been shut out of public debate. They see Australia as “defensive, inward looking…”; that there is a “real sense of fear pervading Australian culture”; and “no vision, or hope that we can take control of our future”. Their evidence for this is a perception that inequality has increased and that the government bastardises minorities for political advantage.
They see the Tampa, the “children overboard” affair, and the reasons for going to war in Iraq, as being Howard’s equivalent of the LAW tax cuts. While there has not been a recession for over 10 years, they do not give Howard and Costello the credit. This belongs in their view either to Hawke and Keating, or to circumstances. Fears about interest rates and debt are still there, this time caught up in the housing boom. These voters are concerned about the housing boom because it decreases housing affordability, and because if it bursts it may hurt the economy. They see the boom as increasing household indebtedness, and likely to lead to higher interest rates.
At the same time as a large number of voters despises and distrusts Howard and gives him no credit for anything, there is a smaller group of voters which is passionately loyal to him and which sees Australia as being “…an incredibly fortunate nation. Not everything right, but not too much wrong.”
What does this mean for the budget?
It means that it really doesn’t matter what Howard, Costello, Latham or Crean say, voters have bought their tickets and nothing is going to dissuade them from embarking for their chosen destination at the election. Every promise in the budget is seen as a bribe. Take the baby bonus. This could be seen as a type of maternity leave. Most of our respondents are in favour of maternity leave, but they are not in favour of the baby bonus, including even a number of Coalition voters. This is because they believe it was given in a lump sum, rather than as a regular periodic payment over time, to make it more effective as a bribe. This is evidence to them of bad faith, which is then translated into concerns that the government won’t continue to support parents of new borns if they win the next election.
The tax cuts leave voters unmoved. Most don’t believe that they will get a benefit from them, while worrying about the people on low incomes. Some are aware of the problems marginal rates of tax create for the welfare to work transition; and a number believe that tax brackets ought to be indexed.
The only budget promise they did like was the decrease in taxes on super funds.
They didn’t like too many of Mark Latham’s promises either. The “learn or earn” policy was regarded with suspicion by some and “so what” by others, although on balance the reaction was positive. Labor voters generally didn’t think that Latham should be passing the Government’s budget as is and saw this as showing a lack of imagination in setting a new course for the country. Others were more pragmatic supporting the promise because he would be “wedged by the media and the government”, if he didn’t.
There was outright disbelief at Latham’s pledge to cut government spending by $8 B, but it didn’t really seem to matter to anyone – it was an acceptable untruth.
This marks a change in the approach of the left. In previous polling we have found them to have a very idealistic “all or nothing and winning government be damned” approach. Despite concerns that Latham may just be a working class Tory, they seem to have decided to conciliate now that government looks to be theirs’. It may also be that their hatred of Howard has got to the point where they will do anything to get rid of him, just like the country had with Paul Keating in 1996.
What does this mean for the election?
It means that Howard has lost the traction to change people’s votes. Whatever he says will be discounted because it will be seen to be politically motivated – in Howard’s interest, not the community’s. It is no longer Howard’s election to win, but Latham’s to lose. To win well Latham needs to keep doing what he is doing now – making modest promises; doing a lot of listening; and keeping on his social policy agenda. He will only get into trouble if he makes the mistake of trying to match Howard with policies.
Labor tends to think that it can educate its way into office and must have a full-blown revolutionary agenda on the table. This would be a disaster. Voters vote for emotional reasons and all of our research has been showing for some time that voters do not trust ambitious promises. To win politicians need to under-bid, not over-bid. Voters also see so little real difference between politicians that they are going for style rather than substance. All this was pretty much the case in 1996 too.
The biggest thing that Latham has going for him is that he is not John Howard, just as in 1996 the biggest thing that Howard had going for him was that he was not Paul Keating.
To view the research on which this article is based go to www.onlineopinion.com.au/onlinefocus/federal_budget_2004/default.htm