What if voters no longer attach significance to budget surpluses as a barometer of economic management? What if they simply see this as their money that should have been distributed to them by way of better schools, hospitals and meaningful infrastructure?
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
What if voters "can't be bought" and are now more cynical about cash handouts, and cost of living "promises" at election times? They will take the cash and hope the promises are real, of course, but they would prefer to see the causes of major cost-of-living increases directly addressed and "solved" - direct action with workable policies on the cost of housing, electricity and gas, child and aged care, insurance, school fees, etc.
What if voters have already made up their minds about Morrison and his government? While they don't like Shorten, indeed accept him and his team as a "risk", what if they have come to the view it is simply time to move on. It seems that the overwhelming political "vibe" is against the re-election of the LNP government.
Two very strong shifts are now well under way in our politics - the sustained drift against the two major parties in favour of independents and minor parties, and voters no longer listening to, or relating to, the day-to-day media noise. They are making up their minds early and pre-polling, rather than seeing out the campaign - some 20 per cent in the recent NSW state election.
The Morrison government's strategy is to attempt to capitalise on their perceived "edge" in the polls as "better economic managers", announcing this week's budget as its re-election platform, claiming we're "back in the black" by foreshadowing a return to surplus next year, and forecasting the repayment of debt over the next decade.
This basic pitch was "sweetened" by targeted tax cuts, and directed expenditure, especially on infrastructure. It's as if some advisor/strategist compiled a list of key issues where they felt the need to "neutralise" Labor, and key marginal seats to be protected, with the budget task just to go down that list attempting to tick each box.
This is very "old style" politics, and may well have misjudged the changing electoral mood.
Nevertheless, Shorten will also be forced to play the game this way, against the perception that Labor are a "risk" in economic management, by foreshadowing even bigger surpluses, and quicker debt repayment, while offering "better" tax cuts, and more spending on education and health, claiming he is able to do this because he will remove unjustified tax concessions such as negative gearing, capital gains tax, cash refunds to people who don't pay tax, and by making the "top end of town" pay more.
What if, after nearly 30 years without a recession, under the management of both major parties, and through three major crises - the Asian crisis, the "tech" crisis, and the GFC - voters have now mostly discounted the significance of differences in economic management?
What if they have come to expect, indeed taken for granted, that there will be "good" economic management from whomever is in government, thereby effectively discounting the budget commitments from both sides?
If this is the case, the May election may turn more on other social, and even moral, issues. Where's their "moral compass"?
As background, Morrison is hard up against the "It's time" factor, especially after the demolition of the Turnbull government, and all that disloyalty and disunity. But then, Shorten carries the legacy of having been the principal instigator of the knifing of Rudd for Gillard, and then of Gillard for the return of Rudd. Both have negative "net satisfaction" ratings.
The voters are sick of "short-termism", and the indulgent political games. They crave some longer-term direction on key policy challenges in the national interest.
Principal among these are the lack of an effective energy policy after a couple of decades of "climate wars", and a clear commitment to a transition pathway to a low carbon society across all industries and sectors.
While Labor has made a rudimentary move in this direction, Morrison doesn't want to "get it", immediately attacking Shorten's climate package as "a big new tax".
Morrison's problem is essentially that while he wants economic management to be his "differentiator", issues such as climate, and housing affordability may, and should, dominate the campaign.
John Hewson is a professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, and a former Liberal opposition leader.
The voters are sick of "short-termism", and the indulgent political games.