leetom
there's too many of them!
Depressing, but probably accurate. There is a perception that the Liberals are economically superior to Labor. This perception, no doubt bolstered by the Howard Government's positive history in economic management, and the continued economic prosperity most likely to prevail between now and the next election will serve to greatly aid the Government in holding power.erawamai said:
Combatting the Liberals on the economic front is necessary- we know what happens when an Opposition Leader decides to leave it alone and hope for the best. And since, as era has pointed out, strong economic peformance almost guarantees election victory, the Labor Party must address it.
And the Labor Party is not without ammunition for the economic front. Current economic prosperity is largely attributable to reforms implemented back in the Keating era. (Becoming Labor propagandist briefly, the reforms were visionary and a massive credit to Keating's Government as they had the nation's long-term economic benefit in best interest). To become a recognised contender on the economic front, I believe that the Labor Party must staple itself to current economic prosperity. To what extent this is achievable I don't know. It would depend upon how many aspects of current economic prosperity can be attributed to the Labor Party and how many are attributable to the Howard Government, and how easily this can be simplified for electoral consumption.
There is unfortunately one problem with this concept though. The Keating reforms had short-term negative impacts on the Australian family- indeed Keating was removed for his reforms and their initial consequences. As I see it, by the time the Keating reforms bore fruit, Howard had taken government and was able to claim the credit.
So ultimately while I think the ALP can take some ground on the economic front, it is impossible for the Party to hold it over the Libs, especially with the Libs in Government and continued economic prosperity.
However, the most important line in erawami's observation of the Australian electorate's voting motivations is
This is where IR reforms comes into play. Since the ALP cannot hope to win voters on the economic front, it must successfully convince the electorate that with Howard's reforms job security is compromised. Essentially, this boils down to scaring people into voting ALP.
Individuals operate on a 'hierarchy of needs', the foundation need being an income. 'Lower order needs' have to be largely satisfied before an individual can pursue 'higher order needs', and if the lower order need of income is threatened the individual will place his vote so as to best ensure the security of his lower order need.
Which, in an Australian context is the income (ie earned salary from work). The ALP needs to peg the threat to income to the Howard Government. A basic theory of income>economic management.
Ideally, I would rather see the ALP return to power through a victory on national identity, which would involve putting the Republic back on the agenda and promoting it with healthy amounts of nationalism and defined Australian values, seeing an ALP Republican triumph over Howard-monarchy traditionalism.
But referring again to erawami's central line, the majority of Australians don't care for a sense of modern identity, but for monetary prosperity.
Last edited:
