35% of nothing is still SFA

Following on from my previous post about the Libs “rusted on” cheer squad being around 35% of the vote at Federal elections - here is some more.

As background, we know that over the past 20+ years the Coalition had a minimum primary vote of 35%. Psephologist - Possum has suggested that this 35% is the “rusted on” support base of the Coalition.

My question is - why is it so high?

It clearly can’t be because Coalition governments are always the same - because they have been demonstrably different over the past few decades. A bit of history.

In 1975 Malcolm Fraser was elected Prime Minister - he was then head of the Liberal party and formed a Coalition government with the Nationals. At the time this government was seen as conservative but not overly so and certainly not spectacular in any way. It was seen as a safe, relatively risk free government - albeit one that took few chances. It was middle of the road and at the time I remember thinking who cares. And mostly, no-one did.

Then in 1983 the Coalition lost to Labor’s Bob Hawke - arguably this was the most radical change in government in a generation - even given the Labor experiment between 1972 and 1975 with Gough Whitlam - but that’s another story.

It says a lot about the Australian people that they chose a Labor government in 1983 after many decades of conservative Coalition rule. Clearly the nation needed a change - and it got one. Hawke and his Treasurer Paul Keating were a breath of fresh air. Along with the rest of the Ministry they embarked on a hectic program of reform to ensure that Australia caught up with the rest of the world. Eventually Keating became Prime Minister - but the reform agenda never really slowed and was still underway in 1996 when the Coalition re-gained control.

In 1996 the baton passed to the conservative Coalition and Liberal leader John Howard. By that time the Keating government was tired - having been in power for 13 years. The early Howard years were unspectacular - even reformist in a minor way. The Port Arthur massacre allowed the new Prime Minister to undertake a gun buy back which was well received. There was even reluctant agreement when he introduced the GST in 2000 - the necessary Hawke-Keating reform agenda seemed to be continuing.

But that’s when something happened and it all stopped - toward the end of 2001. Of course 9/11 was the catalyst for an inward focus on security matters but nothing else even remotely reformist happened until after the 2004 election when WorkChoices suddenly appeared unannounced.

Australians had become relaxed and comfortable and then all of a sudden they discovered that their government was intent on shafting them. Now of course we know what actually happened - Howard became lazy and complacent, he was focussed on sucking up to George Bush - took his eye off the ball and big business took control of government.

And now we are in 2007 in the final days of an election campaign - between Howard and Rudd - who do you think deserves to win?

Anyway, my main point is that the Coalition is not a static thing - over the last 20+ years it has been a very different experience - mostly depending on who was Leader. We can’t just assume that it is a benign thing that is interested in looking after the interests of Australians. An important perspective is that in 2007 even Malcolm Fraser is critical of the Howard government.

The truth is that the Coalition was once quite harmless. In the Malcolm Fraser years it was benign and it didn’t do too much damage. But in the Howard years it has abrogated its responsibility to big business and has allowed them to screw the Australian people - big time. It is now further to the right than Genghis Khan.

So it might be that 35% of the voters still support the Coalition - but my guess is that this is because they are not yet paying attention. One day they will wake up to discover that their beloved Coalition is actually a rabid dog. Let’s hope that they get the message before it gives them rabies.