Debt versus jobs: battle lines drawn for next election

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

by Tory Shepherd

110
Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

by Anthony Sharwood

210
There’s no one Thomson won’t burn to save his skin

by Tory Maguire

310
Animal experiments won’t cure me from cancer

by Helen Marston

410
If you want to get promoted, laugh at the boss’s jokes

by Kate Southam

510
Need someone to do your dirty work? Try God.

by Tory Shepherd

610
Gina Rinehart’s the least interesting thing on this list

by Lucy Kippist

710
I’ve rocked out of my generation’s la-la-loop

by Jason Tin

810
Punch on: Open thread 24/05/2012

by Daniel Piotrowski

910
If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win

by Anthony Sharwood

1010

by Peter Lewis

02 Jun 04:10am

Must Reads

If sports movies have taught us anything, NSW will win

Schapelle has done her time

182

Do women need to know when to walk away?

Filed under: Debt, Federal Election, Politics, Unemployment

6 comments

The battle lines in national politics have now been drawn along a fault line summed up by two four-letter words: debt and jobs.

Sacked Kleenmaid worker Bek Wall, one of the latest victims of the GFC

In the one corner we have the Rudd Government, justifying an audacious program of pump-priming in order to protect jobs; in the other we have the Opposition, telling us it’s all about debt.

The key to understanding the jobs versus debt debate is that this is not an argument about economics – it is a battle to manage the national agenda.

And the stakes are high, as this weeks Essential Report shows,

the performance of the rival political parties is largely determined by the ground on which the battle is joined.

Ask the population which political party is better at protecting jobs and Labor is ahead by 13 points. But switch the question to who is better at managing Australia’s debt and the Coalition is up by 22 points.

What this means is that the debate on economic management really depends on the question that is being asked. This is entirely consistent with political research conducted by US pollster Vic Fingerhut all the way back to the 1960s.

Whenever the question is who ‘is better at handling the economy’, right of centre parties romp it in. But when the question shifts to which party is better at ‘handling the economy in a way that helps ordinary working people’, parties of the Left prevail.

It’s a simple but potent distinction – if the economic debate is an abstract like debt – put your money on the Tories; put people into the economic equation and Labor is back in the game.

That distinction is also backed by this Essential Report; despite awful polling in recent months the Liberals are still up eight points on handling the economy; but when we ask about handling the economy in a way that helps the punters, Labor is up by 10 – that’s an 18 point switch.

The point here is that in establishing a debt versus jobs debate both political parties are playing to their strengths; the Liberals by turning the debate into an abstract number; Labor in trying to turn it into a job that means something to someone like you.

What the Fingerhut theory suggests that no matter how smart he is, Rudd will struggle to win on debt; and no matter how worldly Turnbull tries to be he will always lose on jobs.

So the battle becomes one of agenda management – the dark art of convincing the public your issue is the one they should really be concerned about..

In this regard, I think the Liberals start with a natural advantage – figures on debt are released regularly and every time it provides an opportunity to highlight the high levels of debt as Labor battles to keep the economy ticking.

In contrast, Labor is trying to win a debate based on saving a job that you haven’t lost yet – the sort of intangible that is a little hard to illustrate.

At present Labor is combating this by highlighting the long line of nation-building projects that its stimulus package is creating, and casting the Liberals as being hypocritical by opposing these investments even when they welcome them at a local level.

This is a good debating point for Labor, but a more potent line of attack will emerge when work actually starts on this projects and the photo of the school is joined by a photo of the worker in the hard hat who is spending their time building the school hall rather than lining up at Centrelink.

Until we see the faces on the jobs created, Labor can be expected to struggle, in the meantime they could do more to prick the Liberals’ debt balloon by comparing it to the levels of debt in other comparable nations.

This debate will be a long haul and by year’s end we are all going to be so sick of these two four-letter words that we will be throwing our own expletives at them.

But don’t under-estimate the importance of making the two issues important – at the end of the day, the party that establishes its frame as the indicator of economic competence will have the rails run to the ballot box.

Share post:
Print page:
- Print Article

Most commented

427Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself

371There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin

353"Gifting", "journey" and other words we hate

313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking

300Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer

262Who murdered the Arts degree?

246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...

231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.

6 comments

Show oldest | newest first

- Bob says:
  
  02:31pm | 02/06/09
  
  There is no doubt that the next election will be the most viscious election ever held in this country. The liberals are already engaged in a “Fear” campaign that can only become more and more extreme as their desperation level increases. The difference between “Fear” and “Terror” is degree, a statement which only instills mild fear in one person may well instil terror in another. In other words, a “Fear Campaign” is a strategy to intellegently stage-manage terror in order to secure a political outcome.
  
  Any organisation which uses Fear or Terror as a political tool should be declared a Terrorist Organisation, we do not allow Hamas or Hizbullah to field candidates for election because of that radical element within the group that is prepared to utilise the power of Fear to achieve their goals.
  
  Reply
- Paul says:
  
  12:48pm | 02/06/09
  
  I think that there will be a DD election before Copenhagen.
  
  Consider the state elections next year: SA, Tas & Vic
  
  Reply
- Shannon says:
  
  10:31am | 02/06/09
  
  Fascinating look at the underlying battle of ideas that happens every day around us. I agree that defining the ‘frame’ of the debate is just as important as getting the message right.
  
  Very similar to the ideas George Lakoff puts forward in his book ‘Don’t think of an elephant’.
  
  As far as the article goes, it would be useful to link back to the actual Essential Research results - I assume they are publicly available somewhere?
  
  Reply
- Tim says:
  
  09:39am | 02/06/09
  
  I’m guessing an early election is not on the table then, yeh?
  
  I mean, why would Rudd go to an early election until he had his photo of ‘the worker in the hard hat’ building his ‘school hall’??
  
  Reply
- Steve Atkins says:
  
  09:32am | 02/06/09
  
  Peter I would argue that Labor ,far from being able to use job creation as an underlying strength , has a serious Achilles Heel on that front. Specifically their rigid adherence to an ETS, (hereafter known as an Employment Trashing Scheme).
  The Nationals are taking a hard line on the issue in support of those in the non metropolitan /smaller communities which depend on mining and farming where the scheme will hit hardest. While this has little traction and is (as usual), held up as an illustration of how backward the Nationals are in the capital cities , their position is at least representative of those most affected. Peter I note the deafening silence from the Unions representing the Miners on the subject of an ETS. Hardly representing the interests of their members it would seem. More like those of the ALP Govt.. No green-lite airy dressing up the predicament of a 55 year old miner or cattleman to be easily retrained to knit energy efficient renewable socks while overseeing a solar powered wind turbine’s operation will alter that fact.
  Jobs will be the logical casualty if Labor’s ETS policy is passed. To bring debt under control less spending will need to be undertaken. How this will do anything other than decrease jobs is a mystery. To suggest that Labor’s strength is on the jobs front is based on a pretty dodgy premise.
  
  Reply
- delperro says:
  
  09:03am | 02/06/09
  
  Nice article, and a great summary of where we are in the current political debate.
  
  I’d just like to offer a few points by way of historical precedent, debt has worked to nail ALP government’s before, think the debt truck.
  
  As for the jobs argument, the way they are running it at the moment is a bit like pissing into a strong breeze. If the economy gets worse, jobs won’t be saved, and people will continue to blame the government.
  
  I wonder if we can put down the recent hit the government has taken in the polls toward this discourse.
  
  It is interesting to also note that Turnbull has abandoned the whole “jobs, jobs, jobs” mantra of a few weeks ago.
  
  Maybe the reason the government are pushing for an early election is that the have seen their argument is taking water.
  
  Reply