Stripped to its core, every election boils down to a contest between two simple propositions: “it’s time for a change” versus “don’t risk it”.
External events, issues du jour and the personalities of leaders will dictate the flavour of the campaign, but the fundamental question the electorate is asked to pass judgment on is much more basic.
Challengers need to convince the electorate the incumbents have run out of energy and ideas justifying the disruption of a government change. Incumbents simply inflate the negative implications of that ever occurring.
We can see these dynamics at play in our current political debate.
A resurgent Labor party is differentiating itself on emblematic issues like housing, energy and inequality, building an impression that it is actually governing from opposition against a government that has run out of steam. Time for a change.
In response, the Coalition is building up its scare campaign, with Malcolm Turnbull last weekend channelling Menzies’ “Reds under the beds” to accuse his opponent of being “the most dangerous leftwing leader in a generation”. Don’t risk it.
But the truth is the winning argument is more likely to be determined by the receptiveness of the electorate to these two propositions, rather than the protagonists’ skill in presenting their version of their alternative.
History shows us that the public determines it’s time to take the risk of a change of government when they feel the economy stops delivering for them.
It may be a particular indicator like the runaway inflation that condemned Fraser in 1983 or Keating’s recession or Howard’s flirtation with WorkChoices, but the public won’t take the risk unless something is economically awry (Labor’s loss in 2013 can be seen as the suicidal exception where the opposition ran a successful “don’t risk it” campaign in good economic times).
In contrast, when the economy is delivering jobs, growth and stability even unpopular governments tend to hang on – think Hawke through the 1980s, Howard through the boom.
So the intangible factor is how are we feeling 12 months into the Coalition’s second term? Is it time for a change? Or are we so secure that a change seems too risky?
In a finding that should ring warning bells for the Coalition, a majority of voters see their household income falling behind over the past two years.
Unsurprisingly, the lower the income, the stronger this feeling, but even half of those earning over $100,000 per year feel like they are falling behind.
A separate question adds texture to that story.
One in 12 Australians say they don’t have enough money for the basics of housing, food and electricity, by implication: going without. A further 40% say they are covering the basics, but not saving anything at all for the future.
Just 7% of Australians can cover the basics and put significant amounts away, reinforcing the idea of a two-speed economy with a very few winners and a majority battling away.
And because it’s a lived experience, those battling know exactly what is driving their struggles – the combination of flatlining wages growth and rising prices across the board.
While dysfunctional energy policy is recognised as a key driver of higher living costs, it’s not occurring in isolation – a majority feel that costs for insurance, health, food, fuel, water and, of course, housing are all rising significantly.
These figures undermine the Coalition’s argument for maintaining the status quo – the electorate does not feel like the government is delivering rising living stands.
In the absence of credible policies to improve wages or reduce costs, the only viable strategy is to build the risk of Labor – not in wrecking a rosy garden, just in making the whole thing worse.
But the risk strategy itself carries the risk of hyperbole: if the public doesn’t accept that unions will take over the nation or that Shorten is a criminal or a rampant leftie, then all they are left with is their flatlining wages and rising living prices.
The other requirement for a successful “don’t risk it” campaign is that the party in power actually has its act together. If the government could find a cheaper way of surveying the public and stop losing cabinet ministers who forgot to check if they were dual citizens, it would have a better shot of pulling this off.
Our numbers suggest Labor is on stronger ground arguing it’s time for a change message – if half the population feel their living standards retreating and no sense they are getting ahead, then it’s hardly surprising they will be having a look for an alternative.
And so the battle lines are drawn. Again. Time for a change versus don’t risk it.
