| $22,000 Reasons to vote Liberal |
| Sunday, 07 October 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Page 7 of 11 What will it take for the Liberals to win this election? Is it possible that through carefully targetted spending, the Coalition could win back enough support to just hang on?  Firstly, let us consider the present state of the polls as far as voting intention is concerned. Aristotle's latest summary gives us a 2 party preferred result of 56.3 / 43.7 for the ALP over the last 3 months. Let us then assume that the Coalition requires 50% of the 2pp vote to retain government. In reality it may actually need less, but for the purposes of this article we'll run on this assumption. On these figures, that means the Coalition needs to win back 6.3% of total electors over the course of the campaign. In the 2004 election, there were 11.7 million total formal votes cast. Here we will act on the assumption that there are 12.5 million formal votes to be cast this election. Thus, on these figures, the LNP needs to win over approximately 800,000 voters to hold on to government. So now, the question is - how can they win back these voters? Well, they've got a very large war chest to work with. $17.3 billion in fact . If there was some way of giving each of these voters a share of that surplus they would each receive $22,000. That's right, $22,000 per voter. Would you sell your vote for $22k? I think many people would. Of course, it's not that simple. You could never simply hand out cash to voters, could you? Well, actually, what about that baby bonus? Oh and the pensioner bonus... that first home-buyers grant.. and most recently - $150,000 to leave your unproductive farmland. If the Coalition can identify specific groups of people in need of financial assistance (of which there are many) and come up with inventive (read politically saleable) ways of administering these handouts, then they could potentially win this election. It is my belief that there will be the biggest attempt at vote-buying this country has ever seen once the election campaign proper begins. By leaving most of this type of spending for the election campaign the Coalition may avoid having to answer the really hard questions - like the economic responsibility of such increased spending. This brings me to my next point - the inherrent risk in such a strategy. With the Coalition keen to portray Labor as inexperienced on the economy, how could they possibly justify such spending? It would most certainly be in a form that is inflationary even if they claim it isn't. If their supporters in the press help them out they might be able to fudge over this. Of course, there is a big chance that they'll be seen as reckless and desperate. Finally, we mustn't forget that Labor also has access to this large surplus. However, it is not as easy for them to spend it. They will be far more susceptible to criticism as far as economic and fiscal responsibility is concerned. If Labor is to limit damage from a spending spree, they may cherry pick the least economically responsible handouts by the Coalition and support them. Once the election is called, expect to see carefully targetted bailouts, handouts, allowances, funds and co-contributions. Much of this spending will be targetted at families living in the mortgage belt areas. A fuel excise tax cut will likely be on the list too. The government narrative will probably follow a line like - "Rudd keeps talking about all these enquiries and committees. We're actually making the hard decisions and reducing the cost of living for Australia families. The only reason this is possible is due to our superior economic management." The path is frought with danger for the Coalition. It will certainly be an interesting campaign to watch. You may comment on this article here or in this thread at the Oz Election 2007 forums. - JJ Views: 695
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Last Updated ( Sunday, 07 October 2007 ) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Comments (51)
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
