Oz Politics Blog

I have resisted the 1996 versus 2007 election comparison for some time; largely because they feel like very different elections to me. My other comparisons with 2001 and 2004 were to test whether Howard would repeat his earlier performances and “come from behind to win” in 2007. I thought there was not much to learn from a 1996 -v- 2007 comparison. As it turns out, I was wrong. However, the big lesson was not in the similarities (which are superficial), but in the underlying differences with the attitudinal polling.

I will come to that lesson shortly. First, let’s look at the similarities.

When you consider the primary voting intention polling in the lead up to the 2 March 1996 election and compare it with the lead-up to a hypothetical 15 December 2007 election, there are strong similarities. Both opposition leaders were installed around one year out from the election date. John Howard, in 2007, is polling close to but a bit below Paul Keating in 1995-1996. Keven Rudd, in 2007, is polling close to but a bit better than John Howard in 1995-1996. This can be seen graphically.

Notwithstanding these similarities, the attitudinal polling tells a very different story, and suggests a radically different dynamic is at work in the two election campaigns. Let’s begin with the satisfaction ratings.

John Howard’s satisfaction rating in 1995-1996 is very similar to his satisfaction rating in 2006-2007 thus far. The big difference is in Rudd’s satisfaction rating, which is much higher than Keating’s for the same period.

With the dissatisfaction ratings, Howard’s is around 10 points higher in 2006-2007 than it was in 1996-1997. But the big difference is between Rudd and Keating. Rudd is some 40 to 50 points ahead of Keating, in the lead up to this year’s election.

These satisfaction and dissatisfaction ratings can be combined into net satisfaction (ie. satisfaction minus dissatisfaction) ratings as follows.

It is in the net satisfaction ratings that we see the big difference between 1996 and 2007.

In 1996, John Howard was essentially neutral with the electorate in net-satisfaction terms. Yet in 1996 Keating was a big negative. The 1996 election was not so much about buying Howard, it was selling Keating. Consequently, I am going to categorise the 1996 election as a selling or disposal election.

In 2007, John Howard is still essentially neutral with the electorate in satisfaction terms. But Rudd is a significant positive with the electorate. This suggests that 2007 is shaping up as a buyer’s election. The electorate looks like it might just be in the mood to buy a new prime minister (rather than sell the old one). If there is a change of government in 2007, the motivating factor in the trade will be the purchase and not the sale. For the sake of the argument, I will categorise 2007 (as it looks so far) as a buying election.

This is a new and different dynamic in comparison with 1996. While the 1996 election may have been about taking to Paul Keating with a baseball bat, the 2007 election campaign (so far) is not about baseball bats. If the motifs for 1996 were hate and vengeance, in 2007 the motifs are love and attraction. Coalition supporters who take comfort from the absence of a baseball bat have missed the new dynamic at work.

If I can overload the metaphor, commentators should focus on the pick-up and not the “ex-” being dropped. They should focus on the exchanges of flowers and chocolates, and not the absence of baseball bats.

The scale of the new dynamic can be seen by subtracting the net satisfaction rating for the opposition leader from the prime minister’s net satisfaction rating. I have called this value the bias to the prime minister in satisfaction. In both the 1996 and 2007 campaign it was and is negative. That is to say, the satisfaction bias ran in the direction of the opposition leader. In 2007, the satisfaction bias against the prime minister is much starker than it was at this point in the 1996 election campaign.

There is one final graph I want to look at, largely to note that it offers little explanatory power. It relates to the polling question on who would make the better prime minister. That question favoured Howard in the first eight months prior to the 1996 election and Keating in the last four. But it had no impact on the primary voting intention. I suggest we ignore the question this year as well.

Interesting question: if I have called the new dynamic correctly, what can the Coalition do to woo back the electorate?

• Should the Coalition simply do nothing and wait for the wayward electorate to return to its first love?
• Is it a fear campaign along the lines of, “be careful with Kevin, you know he has the pox”?
• Does John show some more of his policy leg in an effort to outshine Kevin’s allure? Or,
• Should the Coalition opt for the complete makeover with Peter Costello as the new suitor?

Or is it all beyond repair with the electorate saying, “it’s over John; but don’t blame yourself — this is not about you, it’s about me”?