Howard’s ascendancy has also depended on a deal with the electorate where in return for representing blue-collar conservative aspirations he has gained their support at the same time losing some middle-class supporters, often snidely, and inaccurately, referred to as “doctor’s wives”.
These blue collar voters, whom I call “values” voters, think Howard has now reneged on the deal. I call them “values” voters because this is a word they use when talking about their concerns, not because I don’t think that other voters have values.
They are Australians who have a strongly European sense of national identity. They don’t believe in the “black armband” view of history, they think that schools ought to teach facts, that rights ought to be matched by responsibilities, and that commonsense and intrinsic knowledge ought to prevail over academic theories. Many of them also possess a particular moral view of the world which is conservatively Christian.
Advertisement
Howard used to be one of them, but now they suspect he’s traded-in his chesty bonds and Y-front for some designer flimsies, and he’s no longer listening. What’s more, the constant opportunism and sharp practices are making them surly and undermine Howard’s integrity. Howard’s idea of the future is the next election, and a good budget surplus. After 16 years of continuous economic expansion they’re looking for something grander.
It’s possible that Howard’s aboriginal affairs policy may resonate with them. They are not anti-Aboriginal, but they do think that Aborigines ought to be more European in their behaviour. Policies to impose law and order, tie welfare to responsibility and reform land tenure might strike a chord. It’s also possible that they may see it as cynical politics, which would reinforce their unease. Initial polling suggests that the majority of Australians are taking the second line, but it’s possible that “values” voters will see it differently.
But while Kevin Rudd seems much more likeable, and is promising some upgrades, Australians aren’t sure that he has the experience, or the ability, to deliver. He’s also tarnished by his travelling companions - Labor and the Unions. Perhaps this also is a reflection of incumbency. With Labor in power in all the states there’s not too many who haven’t been irritated by them at least once. It is also a reflection of Labor’s support for minority rights which run counter to conservative Christianity.
It is difficult to tell from this sample whether the public has made up its mind to change the government, or whether they are stamping their foot in the hope that Howard will pay more attention to them. In 2001 they were desperately unhappy with Howard, but he changed direction on enough issues between losing Ryan and winning Aston for electors to forgive him. It’s possible that this could happen again.
If Howard can rebuild some trust with “values” voters and reinforce doubts about Rudd’s experience, and his relationship with Labor and the Unions, Howard may still win; particularly if the drought breaks. Conversely, if Rudd can prove that he can control his allies and keep talking about the future, he may be able to hold his lead.
In all of our studies of federal voting intentions since 2001 the underlying position has been this. Voters don’t like Howard, and don’t like what he stands for. They’ve liked his opponents, and they’ve liked their policies. But, they’ve believed that Howard will deliver, and they haven’t believed that his opponents would. Faced with a choice between certainty and uncertainty, they have always gone for certainty.
Advertisement
This election the same cards are on the table, but meteorology has distributed the suit of certainty differently. Howard’s a good card player, but even the best can’t take every trick.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
36 posts so far.