There has also been an international financial crisis that has re-ordered the priorities of citizens in other countries, although not so much in Australia.
What part does Australian politics play in the decline? Does the election of Tony Abbott change the views of Australians or does a change in view make his election possible? How does it affect Kevin Rudd? If he can't win votes from it, can he lose them?
Our latest poll at On Line Opinion suggests that in fact he is losing them, but not necessarily because of climate change. It is emblematic, but not causative.
Advertisement
The poll sample on January 27-29 was 1,737. We analysed the 3 per cent of our sample who voted Labor last election but intend to vote for the Coalition next election: that is a small proportion of the sample but a huge potential swing in electoral terms.
Overwhelmingly they were greenhouse sceptics. Only 24 per cent thought humans were having a significant effect on the climate, while 41 per cent disagreed, and only 10 per cent thought global warming could be catastrophic.
Yet in most cases global warming wasn't the reason they had changed their vote. For some it was issues-based, frequently citing border protection and immigration. For most it seemed to come down to a perception that the Labor government is incompetent - “most inept since McMahon” - and is all talk.
Dislike of the Prime Minister, who personalises the faults of the government, is visceral with these voters. They give Abbott the benefit of the doubt. They have reservations about him (and politicians in general), particularly his Catholicism, but think he is unaffected, “at least he might do something” and he is not “KRudd”.
Ominously for the government 41 per cent of defectors are traditional Labor voters and 34 per cent swinging voters. And lest it be thought these are blue-collar conservatives, 26 per cent are employed in education, 17 per cent are retired and 26 per cent earn $75,000 or more a year.
So rather than being a swing issue, attitudes to global warming are a marker of a particular culture. These voters are practical, rather than theoretical. They are self-reliant, egalitarian and don't like being patronised. They value actions over words, tradition over innovation. A policy to fix a thing that might happen, where they are told the “science is settled” so they should shut up and listen because they are not qualified, summarises everything they think is wrong with the government. Especially when it threatens to cost them money for no tangible return.
Advertisement
Which means that the government's global warming challenge is not how it can fashion a more effective policy or even walk away from it. It is about how to change its substance and appearance. If it doesn't it will lose seats this year, not win them.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
44 posts so far.