Gary,

I'd add that they also don't know which candidate leads which party, which is why the absence of John Howard's head on local campaign material is a double edged sword. They could very well want to vote Liberal but end up voting for the Scottish Ballet Party or something.

At least they like civility. The ALP should have recruited June Dally-Watkins.

Sorry don't buy that theory.
For the following reasons.
1."politics is dull, boring, and largely irrelevant to their lifestyle."
This ignores the fact that what these people experience is politics.
It's just not the party parliamentary politics that pundits like to unduly focus on.
"Politics is 'out of touch' with their interests and lifestyles."
This is more accurate.
If party politics actually dealt with the real issues that directly affect people then those people would be more interested, in the conventional sense, with what is loosely described as politics.
" Their catchcry is non-involvement'.
On the contrary they are involved, in the reality of their political experiences. But not with what is seen, accurately from the viewpoint of many, as the empty posturing of petty politicians playing parlour games.
Address their issues and they will be involved.

2.Various publications, polls, studies have repeatedly shown that what the Aussie public are interested in are issues such as health education and climate change, the basic bread and butter stuff, the essentials.
And what do they get?
An endless stream of spin and obfuscation around personalities and anything the parties can dream up rather than state straightforward policy.
How many people haveto ring up the shock jocks and tell them they would rather have services [as above]provision than tax cuts before they are listened to?

3.Today my local candidate was rebuffed by a standard issue polly hater ['they are all a waste of time'] complaining 'what do they do for me' and following with a long involved diatribe/complaint [about caring for a sick child, govt. welfare depts, laws etc].
Well it just so happened the candidate is an expert in that field and the polly hater was justified in her complaint and was being done over by govt..
And tomorrow she will be better off cos the candidate will point out to the appropriate govt.depts. that they are exceeding their authority.
Now a vote may not have been won, a polly hater may not have been converted to conventional political awareness, partly because the particular issue which is in question only directly effects several hundred thousand Australians and therefore is below the radar of the main parties which dodge or even cause the problem by indulging in rhetoric than has no relation to reality.

So overall what I am getting at is that the disinterested voter is possibly or even probably not disinterested in politics but making a valid assessment of what is loosely described as the political process as irrelevant.
It's a failure of our political system not a failure of the voters.

I've heard the term "sheeple" used by two different people this week. The motherload excuse behind it all, nourishing all subsequent aliibing is; "Well, we can't change anything, can we?".

Just realised I had only read half of the article. Yes, lazy buggers Australians are.
And cunning.
And given the circumstances of the First Fleet, perhaps self-preservation as the immanent motivation is not such an unreasonable symptom to expect. Consider the depth of the wounds left not only on the bodies of early Australians; white and black, but the national culture and psyche by way of the cat o' nine tails.

How does that opinion tie in with these graphs from the AES which paints a sophisticated and engaged voter who is more concerned about policy than the party or leader. Is Rod Cameron talking out of his arse or does he have empirical proof of what the swinging voter is?

I fall into the category of independent. I have voted for the Liberals, Labor, Democrats, Greens and Independents at different times. Before I became heavily politically engaged in 2001 when I discovered I didnt like the politics of the world around me, it was sloganeering and electioneering that turned me off. I was more interested in policy rather than the media hub-bub/circus/horse-race.

Cam,
Rod Cameron's work was done around 1980 so maybe the swinging voter profile has shifted and not just become a larger proportion of the electorate. I introduced it because it was one explanation for the remarkable policy convergence and rhetoric that we are seeing in this federal election. The differences are being blurred as the battle in the marginals intensifies, so I presume the rhetoric is being increasingly addressed to swinging voters in the marginal seats.

Rod Cameron does say that 1 in 4 are swinging voters---so that leaves 3 out of 4 who can be politically engaged. If 50% are interested in policy issues that still leaves 50% who are not. The latter graph shows 20% motivated by the leader which roughly fits Cameron's profile. of the swinging voter searching for a middle-ground party, a moderate leader who is strong...but can understand and represent their value system...

Your interest in policy rather than the media hub-bub/circus/horse-race, would disqualify you from Cameron's swinging voter profile that is describing a form of anti-politics.

Mcduff,
we are talking about elections campaigns not politics in general.I am starting from the consensus position, which I interpret as holding that parties have been more hard pressed to differentiate themselves from each other and have resorted to "targeting" the swinging voter rather than the electorate as a whole. This means that despite their rhetoric of providing for the majority in society, parties and their policies are often dominated by concerns which cater to and attract the small segment of the Australian society which we call the swinging voter.

A general community disillusionment with politicians is growing as a result. Targeting only a small proportion of society means that many in the community consider their concerns are unheard and underrepresented by political parties in general.So I would have thought that the political parties are addressing the interest and concerns of swinging voters.

Maybe my understanding of the consensus position is wrong, or the consensus position is wrong, but I couldn't think of any other place to start.

Lyn,
Compulsory voting in Australia means that the political parties can ignore their own supporters and concentrate on the swinging voters in marginal seats. This is a major difference from the way electioneering is conducted in the USA, where, under a non-compulsory voting system, getting your own voters to the booths is as important as convincing swinging voters.

Most voters in marginal seats are not swinging voters, so political parties in Australia are always seeking new ways to help target the few thousand voters who decide elections.

Mcduff,
the literature shows that voters with the lowest levels of prior political awareness are the most responsive to effects of overall television news exposure, and they employ those media cues in their vote decisions late in the campaign.

We get frustrated by the politicians' appeals to the hip-pocket nerve but it's hardly new. A few comments from a very decided observer (follow the link to find out):
1) swinging voters are not necessarily apathetic or financially motivated, just uncommitted or people who may change their votes
2) they have always existed in fairly significant numbers, look at Australian electoral History. They punish governments for all sorts of reasons, not just self-interest cf. Franklin Dam (both ways) and global warming
3) the difference between the House of Reps and Senate votes show a level of political independence which is rarely explained in terms of simple party loyalty.

Paul,
there is a strong current of anti-politics--in the sense of distrust of deliberative elections, competing political parties, and representative democracy--in Australia's liberal democracy. There is a fairly high level of contempt for the effectiveness of our political institutions and even more for the practitioners of the craft of politics.

Most commercial television news images, press headlines, cartoons, opinion columns, and radio talkback sessions are much more negative about politicians and the way the system works than they are positive. Good politics is not news. Bad politics is. Politicians are seen as liars, cheats, and scoundrels, interested only in working the system to their own advantage.

Sorry Gary, I still disagree.
The parties are only pretending to cater for voters in general, the so-called swinger in particular.
Latham, with his Seinfeld analogy is on the general track, but still subscribes to the orthodox wisdom, that which you call consensus, repeated above with allusions to sheeple etc, that voters are uninformed and unininterested.
In reality the parties are guilty of being out of touch and uninteresting.
There is no difficulty in parties differentiating themselves, again in reality that is precisely what they are trying not to achieve through fear of the hegemonic media crucifying them.Look at some of the issues that could be used to create real differences, offer real alternative policies and to engage the voters in debate and be relevant
Nuclear, industrial relations, climate change, water, welfare to work, public versus private education, similarly public versus private health....the list of neglected issues which have been ignored or subjected to blurring blandness is huge in significance. No wonder people turn off only to be labelled uninterested swingers.
Fear is the common factor.
The ALP, allegedly an opposition party, has deliberately failed to engage with voters instead trying to cash in on huge voter disapproval with the Coalition policies on the above issues but scared to offer real alternatives. Witness its silencing of 'controversial' statements from its members who have strayed from the bland party line eg McClelland, Garrett on nuclear and other, anybody on Gunns, silence and assent on Haneef and the indigenous invasion.
They are scared to enrage the power cliques that control debate in this country.
Scared of the coal industry, scared of business unions [they visibly backtracked on AWAs], scared or the farmers and irrigators, scared of offending the rich and powerful who support 2 worlds of education and health, scared of the redneck vote, preferring to allow the media to control the debate and silence dissent re racism.
Some such as Christine Milne, Carmel Lawrence, the Dems, even McClellands minor effort was worthwhile, have made superb speeches in the recent past that offered real alternative viewpoints but were ignored by the media and the major opposition.
Hence the ALP assumes a one size fits all cloak running on the personality of Rudd and avoiding anything that vaguely looks like a wedge and slipping into blandness and ambiguity and lovely slogans instead.
Some time ago Barry Jones gave a speech that outlined the failure of the ALP to actually present policy and to offer only style in its place. Appearance not policy is the keynote and whilst they continue in that vein people will increasingly turn off from the election charade.
I am talking about politics in general, you cannot expect people to be ignored, even victimised, for 150 weeks of a trimester and then suddenly turn on to what is essentially an empty media charade whilst pollies kiss babies, press the flesh and studiously say as little as possible that may lose votes after the media have screamed their spin.
People are not schizoprenics.
If you are anti-nuclear, want a sustainable future, desire a fair share of Australia's water, don't want second class health, disapprove of elitist public education, decry racism and xenophobia, expect justice in the workplace, are ashamed of the misogynism that single mums face.....you have nowhere to go [except the parties without wealth and media clout such as the Greens and Dems].
And if you have nowhere to go you leave the process judging it to be not a valid process.
A non-rusted voter, a swinger, one who has accurately assessed the value of the vote. One who knows they are being ignored.

Lyn,
re your comments on swinging voters and leadership. The the language of political
leadership is interesting The connotations of the preferred term—the need for ‘strong
leaders’—are more in keeping with an autocratic regime, where leaders decide and
followers follow, than of a healthy democratic polity where good leadership is more a matter of listening, persuading, making compromises, and constructing a raft of policies that will appeal to both party members and the general electorate. The bias in the language is not a preference for this party over that, but a denial of the values of compromise and accommodation that are at the core of politics in liberal democracies.

Kevin,
I'm not sure Rod Cameron, in his profile, is saying that swinging voters are apathetic. What he says is that this section of the electorate is financially motivated in the sense that they have a:

far greater involvement and interest in matters concerning their personal and family's financial wellbeing, and their day-today interests (sport, family leisure) than in simple questions of ideology and government ... They are searching for a middle-ground party, a moderate leader who is strong ... but can understand and represent their value system...the value ideology of the swinging voter is self-interest: interest in the maintenance of personal wellbeing.

This sounds like the so called aspirationals to me--ie., the so-called ‘aspirational’ class— who are deemed to aspire to be prosperous and economically secure, but who have not yet attained those aims, despite their educational level or their purchase of good homes and cars. For such people a threatened incremental rise in interest rates is not just a necessary economic adjustment but a personal crisis.

These aspirationals are already most uneasy about the effectiveness of politics and politicians in protecting
their interests. So it is easy to make the connection that it is the existing political system and politicians who have caused the problem, and who are helpless to find remedies. Hence their strand of anti-politics.

Mcduff,
I'm not sure where we disagree.The consensus or orthodox view does need to be questioned as well as both the elite and majoritarian models of liberal democracy. I agree that the substantive issues are not being discussed; that the ALP doesn't present policy and offers only style in its place; and that people are increasingly being turned off from the election charade.

It doesn't following from that argument that I am saying that the people who turn off politics, should be labelled uninterested swingers. Far from it. I was giving an account of 'turnoff' in terms of an anti-politics, which is the way that I interpreted Camerons' profile.

Rod Cameron is talking about a specific segment of the electorate(25%) and he is arguing that the style of the political parties campaigns is shaped by the preferences of this segment, which I suggest includes the so-called aspirational class. The political parties have little option, given the nature of modern politics and electoral campaigns---as explained by Mark Latham's account of modern politics.

You have a different profile of the swinging voter to Rod Cameron: ie.,---a non-rusted voter, a swinger, one who has accurately assessed the value of the vote. One who knows they are being ignored. This account, I would add, gives rise to a healthy scepticism

However, it strikes me that the swinging voters in the marginal electorates are not being ignored in this election. They are being seduced with a bag full of sweeteners.

Gary,

As an ex ALP pollster Cameron would surely have done his research with electoral politics, as opposed to governance, in mind. Brett and Moran's more recent and less purpose-specific research suggests that people are disengaged from electoral politics as opposed to the political decisions that touch their lives. Like the difference between the big economy and the lived economy. There's a lived politics but we just don't call it politics anymore.

You can't imagine young parents discussing the politics of daycare thinking of their discussion as political.

It's true that elections are staged for the disengaged audience, but is policy implemented with them in mind? Cam refered to the AES which suggests that Australians are more politically engaged than we give them credit for, but when you ask someone their opinion on euthanasia they're not thinking of it as politics which is, in Cameron's description, about politicians hanging shite on one another and violent protests.

McDuff seems to be describing the AES, Brett and Moran voter who is plenty concerned with issues of the lived political, but expects to be left out of the electoral and theatrical political. Plenty of pork and promises, but doctors don't bulk bill anymore and the price of petrol still goes up every Friday like clockwork.

Leadership means a bunch of things doesn't it? The pop celebrity leader who looks good on the telly. The leader who makes the 'hard decisions' - the Freudian equivalent of Daddy. The leadership of Hawke who consulted and accommodated until it drove everyone mad. None of these are about party leadership and why should they be? We don't elect them to lead their party but to lead us, though where to is anyone's guess.

Nan,

There's an interesting article in the Monthly (I should send them a bill for promotional work) that talks about the American Republicans falling apart because the appeal to the religious right which gets them elected is all garbage as far as the Neocon economics side is concerned. Their focus on cultural conservatism is losing them the economic conservative half of their support.

Always nice to agree to agree Gary.
Seems the focal point may be the definition of a swinging voter.
Given a large chunk of the populace are rusted on, about 35% each to the big 2, you would presume its what is left over.
But that may consist partly or even largely of people who are, in their daily lives politically aware and informed and recognise the limititations of the big 2.
Most of the people I meet and know [now there is a truly inaccurate survey for you] see the realpolitik of the Libs as contemptible and that of the ALP [Alternative Liberal Party] only marginally better at best.
Keep the bastards honest has failed, One Nation and Family First and variants are boutique parties for extremists.
Where to go?
Peter gave a link [thank you I will peruse later] about 'lowest levels of prior political awareness' and the glaring weakness in that is that it uses the orthodox definition, and a subjective one at that, as the basis of its analysis.
I think it was Peter Martin recently who rejected the orthodox catchcry of the major electoral issue being the economy and instead presenting the case for an alternate analysis with the words "Its the PERSONAL economy stupid'.
Politics is what people experience.
And if you are a disenfranchised member of our society, one of the many minorities that are victimised but together add up to a disempowered and silenced majority then your experience tells you that that the apparent political process of being allowed to have 1/13 millionth of a say every 3 years is irrelevant.
I have spoken to hundred of indigenous people recently and most are not enrolled or are making a deliberate decision to not vote.
They see no point.
Given their treatment by the parties in recent times stretching way back into the past can you blame them for this negative attitude?
We have about 11% of our population living in poverty.
We have women and children living in terror daily with domestic violence rates of about 30% and related sexual abuse of about 20-30% of all children.
Major election issues?
Nope.
But the victimised, disempowered, silenced majority [?} do vote, its sort of compulsory as you know, so of course you can see a correlation, but not necessarily a causal relationship, with what the media has been describing which is essentially pork barrelling and vote buying.
But people tell us that they would prefer service delivery to tax cuts, they consistenly place issues such as health and education on the top of their priority lists, but the pollies take no real notice.
Too scared of the powers that be.
I have been on the campaign trail for months now [similarly in years past]and frequently meet people who tell me they "don't trust politicians, they are all the same, they don't care about us."
That is a valid, informed viewpoint whether others agree or not.
What are the parties and our political system going to do about it?

Gary, you have noted the current of scepticism flowing through the electorate.
A good thing I'd suspect, given what the wretches have been trying to panhandle off onto us over the last generation.
But I absolutely and utterly agree with you, as to the folly of ascribing these failures solely on local politicians.
Another problem is "Globalisation" and the erosian of local(e)-based government.
It would be true that many would blame politicians for inactivity in dealing with problems, unaware of the influence of factors like FTA's and "harmonisation", in collusion with transnational corporatism in action, as occurred recently with the media stage-managed attempt for Qantas.

Mcduff,
Mark Latham's analysis was that electoral success depends on satisfying aspirational voters. It does look as if this is the case by the way both parties are acting in the marginal seats in terms of which is essentially pork barrelling and vote buying.

The aspirational voter is very different from your

disenfranchised member of our society, one of the many minorities that are victimised but together add up to a disempowered and silenced majority then your experience tells you that that the apparent political process of being allowed to have 1/13 millionth of a say every 3 years is irrelevant.

What Latham is arguing that the centrality of the aspirational voter and the tendency of Australians to become less egalitarian and more selfish than in the past ledas to poverty and social exclusion being ignored.

mcduff,
re your comment:

But people tell us that they would prefer service delivery to tax cuts, they consistenly place issues such as health and education on the top of their priority lists, but the pollies take no real notice.Too scared of the powers that be.I have been on the campaign trail for months now [similarly in years past]and frequently meet people who tell me they "don't trust politicians, they are all the same, they don't care about us."That is a valid, informed viewpoint whether others agree or not.

Are you not describing part of the swinging voter profile as outlined by Rod Cameron? He says that for them:

politics is dull, boring, and largely irrelevant to their lifestyle. Politicians are held in low esteem. Politics is 'out of touch' with their interests and lifestyles. Interest in political philosophy, ideology, is very low. There is far greater involvement and interest in matters concerning their personal and family's financial wellbeing, and their day-today interests (sport, family leisure) than in simple questions of ideology and government.

It's what Gary has called an anti-politics--they are anti the way the compromise politics is conducted by the two major parties.

Lyn,
I accept your distinction between an electoral politics and a lived politics made in your comment:

people are disengaged from electoral politics as opposed to the political decisions that touch their lives. Like the difference between the big economy and the lived economy. There's a lived politics but we just don't call it politics anymore.

It's one that Mark Latham would also accept. I'm not sure where the apathetic or uninterested swingres account of Australian citizens comes from, but it is misleading.

Though the core of elections are staged for the disengaged audience, policy is not implemented with them in mind---the climate change targets-- eg., 20% of eneregy coming from renewables by 2020---are what is best for the country not for swinging voters in marginal seats.

Lyn,
I see that Dennis Glover, a former speech writer for Mark Lathm, has criticized Latham's "Seinfeld election" article in Friday's Australian Financial Review. Writing in The Australian Glover says Latham is inconsistent, inaccurate and devoid of hope and that he has intervened in the federal election campaign to try to damage his old rival, Kevin Rudd.

1 inconsistent because Latham used to think aspiration was good and witheringly dismissed those who disagreed as out-of-touch, inner-city elites. Now he thinks aspirationalism itself is the problem.

2.inaccurate because Latham overstates the similarities and understates the differences between Labor and the Coalition.The former are tax, interest rate and private school funding policies; the latter are Iraq, ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and repealing Work Choices.

3.devoid of hope because while Latham has moved philosophically to the Left, he has also, unfortunately, adopted much of the Left's pessimism. Latham has nothing to offer but despair. Glover says that a government with different values will eventually lead a different country. A Rudd Labor has different values on education and refugees. Rudd offers progressive Australians nothing but despair and the consolations that come from principled opposition.

I find it odd that Glover, presumably a man of left of centre, would repeat use the conservatives claim about the pessimistic Left as a weapon. Strange.The Labor Right must really hate Latham.

Nan,

Latham seems to be far more fragile than previously thought. It's probably past the point where we should be expecting coherent arguments from him, which is a waste in my opinion.

I tend to be optimistic on the Rudd/progressive stuff so the pessimistic left thing goes over my head a bit.

Given the first two points it's odd that Glover locates Latham's pessimism in the apparently pessimistic left, rather than where it probably belongs - in Latham's head. But I guess he couldn't do that and treat the rest of it seriously.

Lyn,
Latham is using the election to ask some good questions about Australia's political system:

The nation state has less work to do, but the political class needs to keep itself in work. When no issues exist politicians have an interest in manufacturing them, creating an artificial sense of crisis. All political representatives and candidates do it. I certainly did it. It is the nature of the system. The media, with its propensity for exaggeration and hysteria, is happy to play along. It is worth asking, however, are we really a nation in crisis or does the political system have a vested interest in spinning misinformation to this effect?

Strikes me as a good question. His personal fragility has little bearing on whether we sshoudl engage or not engage with such a question.Dismissing this as pessimism, as Glover does, just evades the question.

Gary,

The growing redundancy of the nation state is a common theme in globalisation studies. Nation states get in the way of free trade, free communications and the free movement of people.

Nation states have tended to respond by talking up nationalism and restricting the movement of people and information wherever they can. And being belligerent with other nations of course.

The political class stuff is an offshoot of the old 'new class' fraction which we now see variously described as cosmopolitans (global citizens), inner city elites (invariably leftist) and knowledge workers. Of course, knowledge workers are indistinguishable from symbolic analysts, who we tend to associate with the communication sector in both news and entertainment.

The political class fall somewhere between politics and Hollywood, managing the theatrical side of it all. But they also manage the social research that informs policy (in theory) and campaigns.

The trouble with Latham making these statements is that it's Latham making them. It's one thing to stand up for the aspirationals, it's another to do it via right wing culture warrior logic.

The other thing I find objectionable about that paragraph is the assumption that media consumers are so stupid they can't spot a manufactured crisis when they see one. In the lived politics/lived economy sense people do seem to have a sense of crisis and there's not much point telling them there is no crisis, as in, you've never had it so good.

Our system has problems, but I'm not planning to move to Britain or America in search of a better one.