Along with the fracturing of the mass market for politics and a belief that one side is as good as the other, goes the trend for people to want to be entertained in whatever it is that they are doing.
News and current affairs has shown a tendency towards infotainment, which reflects a public preference for higher entertainment values in the arts in general. It is partly fed by general access to the best performing products via the media of
T.V., video, and recordings, and also by an increase in the numbers of people directly employed in entertainment. This has spilt over into areas that used not to be regarded as entertainment. For example, shopping centres now market an
entertainment experience rather than things like wet and dry groceries, clothing, hardware and so on. We have become a society that cares about how things look, and then confuses looks with substance.
Given no strong anchors of habit or ideology, insubstantial issues like which party or leader is more likeable become serious issues in the voting decision.
Advertisement
Paul Keating
Electors tend to vote against, rather than for, parties. One of the strongest reasons for not voting Labor at the last two elections was probably Paul Keating. In the late ’70s and early ’80s Gough Whitlam performed the same function. Malcolm Fraser successfully used Whitlam for 3 elections in 5 years. Howard
has used Keating for 2 elections in 4 years.
The next election is the first where he is unlikely to be a strong factor. That adds to the potential volatility of the vote. It also forces the parties to argue more about the future.
Marginal Seats
There are some structural things that make campaigns harder or easier. Incumbency brings with it greater resources. It also means that you do not have to win seats to stay in government, so limiting the workload and expense in terms of
campaigning in seats. Oppositions not only have to keep the seats that they hold, but to win fresh seats from the Government.
At a Federal level there seems to be a tendency for Governments’ votes to erode from the moment that they gain office, losing seats with each succeeding election until they lose office. But there is no inviolate law that says this will
always be the case, as Bob Carr demonstrated in the last NSW election.
Advertisement
However, a belief among journalists and observers that this is the case will have an effect on how the campaigns are framed and received. A more serious structural problem for the Government is that it holds twice as many seats by a margin of
three per cent or less than the Opposition. This negates some of the benefits of incumbency.
There is also a belief that rural and regional areas may rise up against the government. If there is an uprising, it is unlikely to cost the government many, if any, seats, because of the margins of safety involved, but that threat will spread
the defenses more widely, and therefore more thinly.
Conclusion
There are no steep mountains or deep ravines in the political landscape for this election. Both parties are reasonably evenly matched on the basis of the last election’s results. They need to put together coalitions of swinging voters on the
basis of issues, promising progress, if not reform, and arguing about the future more than past records. Likeability and personal performance are likely to be deciding factors in the minds of many electors who do not see strong differences
between the parties anymore, and are likely to vote in their own immediate interests. One Nation voters will be a factor, but depending on Indigenous affairs, are likely not to be decisive.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.