As the government prepares a budget that is reportedly set to entice older voters through guarantees on tax rates for superannuation, it is increasingly clear that generational conflict will be a defining motif of the next federal election.
With precious little else going right for it, it comes as no surprise that the Turnbull government should conclude that Labor’s risky gambit on dividend imputation presents too good an opportunity to pass up. This was foreshadowed during the Batman byelection campaign, when some in the government could be heard sharpening their rhetoric in anticipation of a rebuff to Labor and its new showpiece policy.
History records that things didn’t quite play out that way, but Labor’s opponents have nonetheless kept the dream alive by pointing to the fine print of the result. While Labor picked up substantial swings of 5.2% against the Greens on pre-polls and 7.4% on postals, the swing on votes cast in the traditional fashion on polling day was only 1.6%.
Since a great many of the pre-polls and postals would have been cast before Bill Shorten announced the policy five days out from polling day, the theory goes that it was followed by a backlash that might yet have cost Labor the seat if the issue had more time to gain steam.
In truth, this level of detailed electoral entrail-reading is often less illuminating that it’s made out to be.
Confounding factors in Batman may have included the fact that the 2016 election was held during mid-semester break, increasing the number of Greens-voting university students among the pool of early voters. More tangibly, Newspoll’s finding that only 33% of respondents supported the policy, with 50% opposed, suggests the public is, at a bare minimum, yet to be persuaded. If that can indeed be weaponised by the Coalition during an election campaign, a number of dicey seats rich with older voters might yet be saved, particularly in New South Wales.
These include Liberal-held Robertson on the central coast and Nationals-held Page on the north coast, which were among the handful of Coalition gains from 2013 that were retained in 2016; and Gilmore on the south coast, where the Liberals have struggled since Ann Sudmalis succeeded Joanna Gash as member in 2013.
All told, it’s not hard to see why those in the government who dare to hope that a third term can still be achieved would wish to put the grey vote front and centre of their election strategy. However, to make it work to the necessary extent would require an expert demolition job on Labor’s policy on the scale achieved by Paul Keating against the goods and services tax in 1993, and Tony Abbott against the carbon tax in 2013.
Given his record to this point, nervous Liberals might very well feel cause to wonder if Malcolm Turnbull is the right man for the job.
The Libs are going to go after the grey vote? What a shock!
I mean, the Liberal Party’s election hopes ALWAYS hinge on the grey vote. If over 60s weren’t allowed to vote, the Coalition would either be permanently out of office or else would have to reinvent itself as a genuine centrist party to have a shot.
Close. I believe they will be going after the dementia vote, as the only group which has forgotten how truly bloody awful is the damage done to the country by an LNP government.
As an official geriatric myself but not quite demented yet in spite of the best efforts of the state and federal confederacy of dunces in the LNP, I have to agree with your sentiments Graeski.
Yeah, no, yeh – I’m well into that cohort and would/could not vote COAL were I hanging by the more pain-producing appendages.
The trouble is most of that age group only reached that percentile because they were not grubbing for every cent during their previous 50yrs.
Good one.
If Labor wants a go at the grey vote they could have a campaign pointing out the disaster that is aged care in this country. Like most things it has been completely privatised and the remorseless search for profit is the rule. Hence nursing homes (they were called that because the people there need proper nursing care) or aged care facilities as they are now called, have been progressively ridding themselves of actual nurses and employing carers, who have minimal training, and even with the best will in the world, which is not always the case, they are unable to provide the level of care required. It is a system designed by bureaucrats for bureaucrats who have no actual knowledge apart from accounts and the ability to make ever more ridiculous policies and procedure requirements. The purpose of all this is arse-covering, not providing a good, or even adequate, level of care. The staff are overworked, underpaid, and totally unappreciated even when, as many do, they go the extra mile every shift. If it were up to me I would be putting emphasis on the many failings of a system that needs a complete re-vamp. Get the discussions out of boardrooms and onto the floor where the people who actually do the work can provide good input. We spend more money each day to feed a prisoner in one of our jails than a frail elderly inmate of a nursing home. I am not advocating starving prisoners, but most of these old people need a high protein and appetising meal, precisely because they are frail, have little appetite and need to be tempted.
I reckon that there is a gaping hole for aged care in the years of retiring Boomers who will want rok’n’roll rather than Vera Lynn, with lots of nubile, well paid attendants of various proclivities and a well stocked pharmacopeia.
They will control the majority of assets, with automation the only employment will be personal care, private security & financial advice and their voting power will be hard to counter.
When Labor does policies for the elderly, it is genuinely doing so out of principle and not for votes, because no amount of good policy for the elderly wins Labor a significant increase in the vote in that age group. It happens time and time again.
There is a similar problem for Labor when they (used to) improve the lot of the workers.
Once they got a few quid in their kicks they began voting for tories.
Happened in olde Blighty as well – hence Thatcher who, remarkably, survived for a decade on working class voters, those who voted for her and those who eschewed voting as a waste of time… not to mention the forlorn hope of avoiding the poll tax which was linked to the electoral roll.
shorten has run his opposition campaign with a closed gate, content to let first Abbott, then Turnbull destroy themselves , now he`s opened the gate with his ill thought out policy on the franking credit issue, the idea was good but the policy design bad, as its designed now it only impacts on the little self funded retiree with small super balances and still rewards the millionaires with large super and will actually cost money, not save it as these retirees are forced to sell down their base assets to maintain their income at sustainable levels after they lose 30% of their income from the franking credit cuts and then go onto part or full aged pensions to sustain themselves, these people have done nothing wrong and in fact saved the taxpayer millions of dollars by supporting themselves and not taking pensions.
“set to entice older voters through guarantees on tax rates for superannuation,”
As it seems that the slide towards senility is the principal reason for Liberals to hold on to the grey power vote, I wonder if those same people are aware that there is no legislation that can ever guarantee anything, and is therefore a promise that cannot be kept, and in good faith cannot be made.
The LNP preying on the fears of the elderly. For ‘low as you can go’, that is pretty much up there.