In an effort to get myself off post-election Twitter on Sunday morning, I walked my dog through streets I am now less likely to one day live on. These are streets largely populated by baby boomers, many of whom voted to ensure they don’t have to share anything more with the rest of us.
Upon Bob Hawke’s death last week, Guy Rundle wrote “to be young and left during the rise of Bob Hawke was to be in heaven”. Well, to be young and left under the surprise reign of Scott Morrison is to be in hell, with little sight of even purgatory. We now face Hawke’s corollary — regressive short-termism, determinedly kicking the can down the road for my generation to one day clean up.
We were told this would be a generational election. It was, but not of the kind widely predicted by pundits. Commentators hoped for a “youthquake”, buoyed by all-time high youth enrolments after the same-sex marriage survey. But such predictions were blinded by hope, overlooking the inconvenient fact of our rapidly ageing population.
Grattan Institute’s Danielle Wood tried to remind us that boomers hold the keys to the Lodge:
If Labor is relying on a surge of younger voters to deliver it victory then its hopes may be misplaced … Electoral success will depend on persuading enough older voters that Labor’s proposals can provide future generations with the same standard of living that they have enjoyed.
They were not convinced. As The Age reported,“internally, Labor’s polling showed it was being hammered in the over-65 age bracket, particularly in Queensland. ‘Two words: retiree tax,’ said one Labor source.” Queensland, the Land of the Self-Funded Retiree, returned our ruling scaremongers via an intermediary assortment of fascists and trolls.
Australian progressives are now learning, as Democrats did in 2016, that the winds of demographic change will not structurally advantage us; that we are not on the Right Side of History™. Demographic change is structurally advantaging a cohort that has proven largely hostile to minimal sacrifice for modest redistribution.
Some contend that Labor must abandon its taxation agenda to assuage grey-haired defections. But regardless of whether Labor retains its franking credits policy, it should not avoid confronting the perceived self-interests of asset-rich retirees. The policy imperative for unwinding Howard’s wasteful, inequitable upper-middle-class welfare will only increase as demand for public services and the cost of climate change adaption rises.
Others contend that Labor’s issue was poor marketing. A more popular salesman with clearer messaging could cut through the cacophony of lies and assure the greying majority that they wouldn’t be adversely affected, no matter what Tim Wilson says.
Rhetorical persuasion is surely possible, but as the current backlash shows it would require Hawke-esque charisma to dismantle Howard’s Retiree State. Elderly voters — even those not impacted by proposed changes — have a perceived collective interest in maintaining the slew of concessions they receive. These are seen as rewards, not absurd bonuses based on ingrained generational myths of aspirational achievement.
Perhaps the only way to convince the electorally dominant boomers to part with their tax concessions is to beef up compensatory benefits. The sweeteners Labor offered, such as free dental for seniors, were not enough. My suggestion? Raise the pension. One third of Australian pensioners live in poverty — a fact often lost in the so-called “age wars”. Furthermore, inequality between retirees will markedly increase in coming decades.
Offering struggling pensioners higher living standards by de-feathering their asset-rich neighbours’ beds would blunt the conflation of modest, targeted redistribution with broad demographic attacks. A new intergenerational bargain could be struck — one that offers aggregate improvements in exchange for the elimination of unsustainable excesses.
As disappointed as I am with our electorate rewarding the Coalition’s cynical scare campaign, I refuse to wallow. The warming of the planet, the deterioration of working peoples’ lives and the persistent denigration of our First Nations people will not wait for indulgent complaints.
We must organise. But to proceed without accounting for the voting bloc that will decide our nation’s future would render our efforts futile.
To achieve progressive governance for the sake of my generation’s future, we must bridge this growing generational divide today. Your franking credits will be of no use to us, your children or grandchildren on a barely habitable planet.
How can Australian political parties bridge the generational divide? Send your comments to boss@crikey.com.au.
Nice work. Are there any published figures on how the vote went by age group? I’m just wondering whether young folk are as left leaning as was suggested before the election.
Given that only 10% of the voting public were directly impacted by the Franking credits fiasco, the general tactic of the “retiree tax” scare campaign seems to have flowed on to all Boomers, whether impacted or not. Flaming Drongos.
Is there a way for the senate to question Tim Wilson’s obvious electioneering on our dollar?
Or the AFP for investigation as to whether he committed fraud because he obviously was demanding signatures in exchange for a seat at his enquiry?
LOL. Don’t count on the AFP, they will be the Coalition’s private police force until such time as a future Labor Government can purge the leadership of all the Howard-era appointees.
The AFP….prrlease!
I wouldn’t trust that mob to wash my dog.
My daughter showed me a post on YouTube, appearing to come from the AEC, suggesting that if you haven’t bothered to understand the election material, that this was the way to vote informally.
The informal vote this time was 10%.
Is ASIO or the Signals Directorate looking into the origin of this?
I scrutineered at a booth and was appalled at the number of idiots who didn`t fill out their ballot paper or just scrawled some deranged gibberish on it, no wonder we get screwed by our governments time after time, we deserve another 3 years of scummos economic illiteracy to punish the politically uneducated illiterate dumb bastards that inhabit this once great country.
Bloody baby boomers!
Lived the life of riley off the hard work of their Depression- and War-era forebears, rejected the old while they were young, then spent their middle age dismantling the Welfare state, now living high off superannuation and pensions that the rest of us won’t get.
And many – like here on Crikey! – whinge that the young aren’t politically responsible!
These myths about the life of Riley seem to be gathering credence.
Some old and some young are in favour of the franking credits so as to maintain inheritances. Many retired beneficiaries would prefer the funds spent on essential services.
The retired people should be encouraged to spend their capital. That’s what was envisaged by the superannuation tax exemptions.
I think many see their bequest as a sort of monument sculpted out of cash and cheques. What an absurd vanity project it really is.
For the record.
The fear campaign in Warringah included Liberal volunteer at a central polling precinct twice mentioning, once to me, imminent proceedings against Bill Shorten for alleged rape with the possibility of his being” behind bars” by the next week. One of that volunteer’s older colleagues later in the morning raised with me the probability of the ALP introducing death taxes at the behest of the Greens. I was handing out material for GetUp. eEffectively that leaflet recommended a vote against Tony Abbott but promoted open voter choice between one or other of the 4 most favoured candidates for addressing climate change action, one of whom was Zali Steggall.
Over the many years I have stood at various polling precincts in Melbourne and Sydney, I have never before encountered such direct propagation of lying falsehoods between volunteers at polling precincts. I believe that on this occasion the spreading of stories of the kind was systemic to the Coalition campaign. My belief is reinforced by the headings of the widely and repeatedly circulated brochure claiming “Vote Stegall Get Shorten”. Ostensibly authorised for the Liberal Part by Chris Stone with address supplied, the leaflet made 6 other claims: You’ll pay more for power; Higher investment taxes; Retiree tax; Housing Market Crisis; Electric cars means your car off the road; Higher income taxes”. On any fair analysis each of those claims is a misrepresentation.
That leaflet and the rumour-spreading did not achieve its objective in Warringah; but it is most unlikely that lying misrepresentation was confined to that electorate.
The effective force of such material was magnified by the massive advertising expenditure by Palmer in print and other media; heavily benefitting News Ltd who reciprocated by its own beating -uo of propaganda lines against the ALP and Shorten.
For almost the whole term of his leadership, Shorten has been targeted, first by the Royal Commission TURC and then by the Kill-Bill attack lines. Benjamin Clark’s article notes that other industry players joined that assault on the credibility of Shorten or the ALP platform.
In the circumstances, it puzzles me that thus far, Michael Seccombe for the Saturday Paper apart, I have seen no commentator make the point that the benefit for Clive Palmer from his massive expenditure lay not in his gaining a seat in either House or Senate. Most comments I have seen make the light weight dismissal for the gullible: ‘all that expenditure came to nought–he didn’t win a thing’. What in truth he won was his objective, the entrenchment of as much of the rightist elements of the Coalition as possible. In that he succeeded, perhaps beyond his highest hopes. Seccombe pointed to a possible motive, suggesting that Palmer had already stablished interest in coal mining options in the Galilee Basin once Adani secures approval and gets under way. The sheer weight, ubiquity and multiplier effects of the Palmer barrage aligned with the LNP and News Ltd campaign falsehoods is a factor that should be indelibly endorsed over the glib commentariat analysis of why the ALP failed to win an “unloseable election”. Those forces , now waxing more than ever, emboldened and against the institutional checks and balances of of a free mixed economy and democracy, should generate much more fear for our future polity than will ever be gleaned from the searches now being conducted into the entrails of the ALP campaign.
Paul…what you describe is outrageous. Surely there must be some form of criminal activity there…and if not there should be. Fraud perhaps???
Report the volunteer to the electoral commission, the Liberal party and the AFP.
Yes, nice work Ben.
I knew ending the exhausted franking credits handout was an Albatross months ago after talking to a close friend. He though it meant all franking credits were to go. After that many others were convinced it amounted somehow to double taxation. Yet others said it couldn’t be a refund on unpaid tax because tax had been paid. Others believed the bald faced lie that it was an extra tax. It really didn’t matter how many times or different ways I explained it, many otherwise smart, mature people couldn’t or wouldn’t get it. Many did of course and chose to keep quiet. I’m pretty good with numbers and to me it’s simple arithmetic not even real mathematics. And the issue is important to me. And I went to some lengths to check the prooosal from a range of reliable sources.
Clive got two great results. The unfettered continuation of coal mining and more importantly an almost firm guarantee he won’t end up in jail for the financial stripping of his failed nickel plant to avoid paying workers, creditors and the ATO.
But we did get rid of Traitor Tony. I’d thought this would give the LNP some clear air to move into the 21st century but others have reminded they’re still riven with factional tensions. It’ll be three more years of the last three. It’ll be interesting to see what new alarming climate events happen though. Last year – winter bushfires in qld and unprecedented fires near the Arctic circle. It was at least worth a mention.
Bob Brown is copping it for his qld tour. He was campaigning for the Greens not ALP and they got a solid boost. More than the LNP.
I’m also pretty hood with numbers mark, and I can read. Your synopsis is exactly right.
I’m a business analyst who did well in 3 unit maths 40 year ago. No other formal qualifications.
I too have been amazed how quite well credentialed and successful people haven’t got a clue and were so easily seduced by misinformation campaigns, and it ain’t even mathematics, it’s arithmetic.
Have to disagree with Mark E Smith on his comment about Bob Brown. The average QLD voter sees Brown and Shorten as slightly different sub-varieties of the same species, and Brown’s tour was never going to be anything other than a negative for the ALP in that part of the world. The fact that both men are loathed in rural areas of northern NSW and QLD just added to the failure of the exercise, and the now near-certainty that Adani will get the go ahead.
Dog’s Breakfast, from your questions to my posts elsewhere I’m clearly one of the innumerate, and I’ll cop to that and am trying to catch up. Some questions remain for me. The first is relatively simple and really comes from what mark e smith has to say, but perhaps one of you can provide the answer.
Mark says, “Yet others said it couldn’t be a refund on unpaid tax because tax had been paid.” My understanding is that the company has paid tax at company rates, before earnings are distributed via dividends. As part-owners of the company, all share holders have already participated in the payment of this (i.e. company) tax. Where am I getting this wrong?
My other questions are more time consuming, so maybe you can direct me to some more reading that answers them.
My second question is, how was this going to recoup $8 billion, if pensioners got compensated, and the tax concession (but not rebate) remained in place? Are there really so many SMFs of small to middling size? And don’t they pay 15% (at least) when they draw down?
Assuming that you have the answer, and yes there are that many in the category, then I can see that at least part of the problem is people preserving wealth to transfer to the next generation.
My third question: Isn’t the removal of the rebate going to put added pressure back on the family home as a vehicle for achieving this end? So taking house prices even further away.
If I am still left asking questions such as these (and I concede I should have been more diligent before the event) perhaps it was too much to ask, notwithstanding lies and scare campaigns, for potential SMF swinging voters and their families. The boomers might be a selfish generation, but they do tend to want to look after the future of their own children and grand-children. And they might conclude that in today’s radically transformed labor market and economic climate, that in itself is going to be pretty hard to do.
My final question: would grand-fathering have been possible?
My retrospective wish is that Labor had grand-fathered the policy, but then also abandoned it if the Tim Wilson campaign had still taken effect. One step at a time.
In the end, in the future, I think I would like to see not only the rebate go (for those with zero tax) but also the concession that reduces tax. SMF holders saw unfairness in that difference. It might be an unfairness only in degree of entitlement, but it is understandable, and I don’t think it can be argued out of existence for those affected.
I think they’re concerned with protecting the future of their wealth, in and of itself, into perpetuity more so than any real concern for the well-being of their descendants, they don’t want it used, they don’t want it to enrich or enlighten, they just want it to continue on.
It’s a futile and vain concern. The memory of everything is soon overwhelmed in time.
“And I went to some lengths to check the proposal from a range of reliable sources.”
OK mark e smith, I get the picture. Can you point me to these sources so I can have a (belated) read?