| Online
focus group research* conducted by Springboard Australia,
in conjunction with e-journal, Online Opinion, has found
an electorate tiring or tired of the Howard Government,
interested in a new direction and in Mark Latham, but
not yet convinced he is ready or right for the job.
Springboard
Australia’s Founding Director Tim Grau analyses
the research and its implications.
“Howard lies where Latham makes mistakes.”
That
simple statement from a swinging Labor voter in a recent
focus group may characterise the mood of many in the
Australian electorate.
The
research, conducted immediately after the recent Federal
Budget, was designed to find out what voters really
think about issues rather than relying on simple quantitative
polls which do not explain why people have certain views
or why they plan to vote a particular way.
Is Australia
heading in the right direction?
When
voters were asked if Australia was heading in the right
direction two overwhelming themes emerged.
First,
on the economic front Coalition voters generally believe
the country was heading in the right direction with
Liberal voters more upbeat. Australia was seen as an
“incredibly fortunate nation” with
“not everything right, but not too much wrong”.
“I
think in general the economic signs are pretty good
and we have weathered some global economic problems
pretty well.”
“I
think we’re in the ballpark of around 80-85%
heading in the right direction”.
“We
have the best economy in the world.”
Even
some Labor voters acknowledged “our economy
is in quite good shape”.
The
second theme that emerged across the political spectrum
of voters we spoke to was a strong concern about the
direction of the country in social and cultural policy
terms. Labor voters in particular raised these concerns.
The
loss of core “values”, a sense
of “a fair go” and “lack
of compassion” were regularly raised as concerns
of voters.
“I
think the country is … losing many of the values
that made us a great country.”
“I
am concerned by the effect this is having on the type
of people we are.”
When
asked what one thing would they change about Australia,
Labor voters quickly identified the Government with
both Coalition and Labor voters also raising the need
for improvements in social policy such as education
and health.
In
addition, a number of voters expressed a desire for
greater “vision” from politicians.
“no
vision, or hope that we can take control of our future.”
The
Election
As
could be expected from people who volunteer to participate
in this kind of research, voters were already very aware
of the impending election and the contest between the
two political leaders.
In
these voters minds the election campaign is already
well and truly underway.
A
Queensland voter in his 50s observed there are “two
boxers, the champ has been surprised, still isn’t
sure and the contender is starting to look like he’s
got strong legs.” While another noted “Mark
Latham is rising, Howard is stuttering” and
another said “Howard is a clever politician.
He will capitalise on whatever he has to hand.”
“I
think it will be very close” was another’s
observation on the forthcoming poll.
Many
voters we spoke to also had negative views of politics,
politicians and the current debates. “It’s
about winning at all costs”, “wedge politics”,
“we have to get ready for spin from both sides”
and “political point scoring rules”
were common sentiments expressed by voters.
There
was a view or concern that Howard might win the next
election again by stealth or trickery as some voters
perceived he did in 2001.
John Howard
The
views on the Prime Ministerial contenders were also
consistent across the groups we talked to.
Howard’s
strengths as seen by Coalition voters in particular
were his “leadership”, “experience”
along with his government’s economic management.
The
Government “can take a lot of credit”
for the state of the economy. One voter noted “they
have kept a tight reign on the directions”
and another stated “if you’ve been behind
the wheel you can take the lion’s share of the
credit” for the economy.
The
strength of the Australian economy and the Prime Minister’s
management of it are clearly recognised by Coalition
voters and remain core advantages for the Government.
Labor
voters were less inclined to give the Government credit
for the state of the economy with some noting the Hawke/Keating
reforms as the reason for its current strength.
The
Prime Minister’s negatives are, however, very
dominant with views strongly held. Most critically,
Howard’s honesty is sharply questioned with “lies”,
“deceit” and “cynical”
regularly raised by groups and even the Prime Minister’s
“nasty side” being raised.
“No
one lies in politics more than J W Howard.”
“Howard
is still able to out lie them all.”
“Oh,
let me count the ways … Lies, deceit, war mongering,
total lack of compassion, abusing children to ‘send
a message’ …. Need I go on?”
The
Prime Minister’s “lack of vision”
was also a frustration of voters.
“The
way he has taught Australians to fear rather than
hope.”
Mark
Latham
While
Howard’s negatives are pervasive and could lead
to the conclusion his time may have past, voters who
initially have been interested in his opponent still
believe Mark Latham has more work to do to make it to
the Lodge.
Mark
Latham is seen as “promising”, “definitely
having some good ideas”, “tough”,
a “new broom” and a “welcome
change”.
“Latham
is starting to dig out his own space which is starting
to appeal to people.”
“Latham
is building an alternative approach.”
It
is clear voters are now more prepared to consider Labor
than they were under Simon Crean, but Latham has not
yet secured their vote.
His
inexperience dominated voters concerns as did the need
for him to provide more detail on his ideas.
“He
states populist themes. I don’t think he has
the experience necessary to lead.”
“Latham
hasn’t said anything you could judge him on
definitively yet.”
“I
don’t trust him or his party to manage the economy.”
“I’m
really not swayed by anything he says at this point.
It’s all too shallow.”
The Budget – General Views
Despite
the post-Budget Newspoll bounce the Government apparently
received, our detailed discussions with voters did not
reveal similar overwhelming endorsement.
The
proximity to the Federal election clearly made voters
extremely cynical of the measures announced in the May
Budget.
“The
Budget is a carefully targeted vote-buying exercise.”
“It’s
a very cynical election ploy.”
“The
Budget is targeted at winning marginal seats in the
next election.”
Even
Coalition supporters, while acknowledging it was a “good
budget for the nation” and even “excellent”,
some claimed it was ”an attempt to appeal
to those people Howard and Costello thought will re-elect
them” and “was very targeted”.
More
critical voters described the budget as “bribery
on a large well aimed scale”, “a vote buying
budget” and “hideously populist
and short-sighted”.
When
asked what measures voters would include in the Budget
that was not included in the Costello Budget, the overwhelming
response from across the political spectrum was the
need for increase funding and support in the areas of
social infrastructure.
Education
and health were the dominant issues raised by virtually
all participants.
Similarly,
these issues were identified by participants when asked
what services government provides where there is room
for improvement. Other issues raised here were aged
care, roads, employment, regional services and communication.
Before
the Government’s advertising campaigns started,
most voters thought the Budget would have minimal impact
on them personally. Rather, most voters thought it was
more important for the Budget to be “good
for the nation”.
Notably,
no participants indicated that the Budget measures were
likely to change the way they intend to cast their vote
at the forthcoming poll.
Tax
Cuts
On
specific Budget measures, voters’ responses to
the Government’s tax cuts were not as positive
as the Prime Minster and Treasurer might have hoped.
The
failure to deliver tax cuts to those earning less than
$52,000 was criticised by both Coalition and Opposition
supporters as was the Government’s failure to
deal with bracket creep.
A
West Australian Liberal voter thought the tax cuts were
“a bit too restricted. I would have thought raising
the tax free threshold of first bracket, and a bit less
at the top end would have been better”.
Another
participant said “aside from the economic
arguments about whether it’s a sound policy, it
seems pretty skewed and a bit unfair. If there is such
a big surplus, why not share it around. I haven’t
heard a good argument yet as to why that level of income
was chosen as the cut-off.”
A
voter in his twenties when asked how the Budget affected
him declared “it doesn’t, I don’t
earn over $52,000, I’m not in a young family,
I’m not in aged care and I don’t contribute
to my super”.
A
number of Liberal voters were more positive describing
the cuts as “absolutely necessary”,
“good” and ”fine”.
Family
Payments
On
the family payments, including the $3000 for newborns
and the $600 one-off child payments, again voters’
views were mixed.
Even
those that welcomed the payment questioned its effectiveness
and the method of payment.
A
Liberal voter in her 50s said it was “probably
helpful, (but I) doubt it will encourage more parents
to have children”.
Another
Coalition supporter said he did not “think
that is absolutely necessary, but most will like it
I imagine”.
While
a Labor voter in her 20s said “no doubt it
will benefit in the short term and some pressures will
be eased”. She went on to raise concerns
that “there’s no guarantee that money
will help the child”.
Men
tended to be less supportive of the bonus payment across
the political spectrum with it being described it as
“patronising” and “smacks
of a bribe”.
Superannuation
Tax Break
There
weren’t strong views expressed on this measure,
but it was generally accepted as a “good idea”.
Latham’s
Budget Response
Our
participants were particularly keen for Latham to spell-out
in more detail his alternative Budget proposal.
When
questioned on his initial Budget reply announcements
of “earning or learning” and extended tax
cuts, voters were somewhat sceptical and wanted specifics
on how Latham’s policies would work.
“There
is absolutely no detail to be able to make judgements.”
Latham’s
commitment to provide broader tax cuts didn’t
receive the overwhelming positive response he might
have expected, particularly the promise to do so through
$8 billion in expenditure savings.
A
Victorian Labor voter described the Latham tax cut plan
as “silly” and another declaring
he “would rather (Latham) increased services”.
“We
need to see the fine print”, “he has to
show where the funds come from”, “how does
he plan to save $8 billion” and “what’s
Latham going to cut and where?” were typical
responses.
“I
would love to know where the savings will come from.
Everything has already been cut to the bone. What
is he going to do?”
His
“earning or learning” policy was more positively
received with one Queensland National Party voter describing
it as “great” and a Queensland
Liberal voter saying “I think it is a good
idea.”
But
again voters crave the details.
“I’d
need to know how it worked.”
“It’s
another airy fairy Latham waffle.”
Notably,
Labor voters were sceptical and concerned about how
this measure would work in practice.
Latham’s
announcement on pneumococcal inoculation was met with
a generally muted response with voters seeing it as
symbolic.
The
message for Latham is that voters are listening to him,
they are prepared to consider him, but he quickly needs
to put flesh on the bones of his policy ideas and agenda
to convince them he has the substance and experience
required.
The
War in Iraq
On
the war in Iraq, participants’ views tended to
be negative with even some Coalition supporters critically
describing it as “disastrous”, “all
very bad”, “a real mess”, “it’s
not going brilliantly” and “not
good” to such strong statements from a Labor
supporter saying:
“Who
could have ever thought such a disaster would be assisted
by our very own Government. It’s utterly depressing.”
Across
the board, however, participants indicated that the
situation in Iraq was not likely to change their vote.
Conclusion
As
the published opinion polls have indicated, our independent
research has confirmed the forthcoming Federal election
is going to be tightly contested.
The
Prime Minister facing re-election for an historic fourth
term, while having considerable personal negatives and
the “it’s time” factor in play, is
not a completely spent force. It could be argued his
“use by date” if not already upon him is
certainly much closer now than it was six to twelve
months ago.
Potentially
most ominous for the Government is that resentment towards
Howard is much stronger than any uncertainty about the
Opposition Leader.
Damaged
from a range of scandals over time leaving voters questioning
John Howard’s honesty and integrity and not seen
as having a strong vision for the future, the Prime
Minister is more vulnerable than ever before.
Despite
this his experience, management of, and the healthy
state of, the Australian economy are the Prime Minister’s
and the Government’s clear strengths, particularly
among conservative voters.
The
Liberal Party’s private focus group research will
be telling them similar things.
It
will be telling them that to be re-elected the Government
will increasingly need focus on these issues.
The
Prime Minister’s and Treasurer’s constant
reference to Mark Latham’s inexperience, Labor’s
economic record when last in Government and that the
good management of the economy does not happen by itself
are a demonstration of this approach.
In
addition, they will continue to try to address the desire
among voters for greater attention on domestic social
policy issues in the areas of health, education, housing,
aged care and the environment.
The
Prime Minster’s announcement that he will be making
a series of 10-year plan policy statements in coming
weeks will be designed to demonstrate a vision for the
nation and a commitment to implement programs to meet
the social needs of the electorate.
Mark
Latham’s elevation has clearly drawn voters’
attention and increased their interest in Labor. His
initial fresh approach and ideas has put Labor back
in the race.
The
Opposition is now seen as an alternative, offering the
change and vision many voters are seeking.
Strong
early support for Latham and his leadership is, however,
soft. Voters are not yet completely convinced Latham
has what it takes.
They
welcome the new leader and his focus on issues that
are of interest to them, but there is a strong desire
for him to provide more detail on his plans. His lack
of experience also continues to be an area of concern
for many of them as have been some of the early mistakes
made by the new leader.
There
is little doubt Labor’s focus group research is
showing stronger levels of support than last year, particularly
among its base.
However,
an aggressive campaign to demonstrate policy substance,
credibility and experience will need to be undertaken
before this early support, particularly among swinging
voters is eroded by the Government’s attacks.
In
this sense, Mark Latham’s formal tax policy announcement
and other policy statements in the lead up to the election
will be critical to demonstrate he has what it takes.
Ironically,
the dislike of Howard is so intense combined with the
“it’s time” factor may mean that the
detail of Latham’s policies may not be that important.
That they stand up to scrutiny and are mistake-free
may be enough to convince voters Latham is worth a try.
*Research
Methodology: Springboard Australia conducted the focus
group research in conjunction with e-journal On Line
Opinion through a private internet chat room on the
evenings Tuesday 18 May and Wednesday 19 May, 2004.
The script was constant between the groups. Some additional
questions were asked to probe responses further were
necessary and appropriate.
Subjects
were randomly selected from the database of people who
have responded previously to our internet surveys. Participants
were from Western Australia, Queensland, New South Wales
and Victoria.
Print
this article |
Email
this article |
