Thread by @Vic_Rollison

There seems to be a narrative forming in my Twitter feed suggesting Labor can't win elections and need to try harder. In fact at State level, Labor do exceptionally well at forming and keeping government. So why is it more challenging at Federal level? I have a theory. A thread👇

This graph from Wikipedia compares national governments to States across Australian history. Plenty of red there historically and recently.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premiers_…

I believe voters, led by media narratives, hold cultural assumption that Liberals are better economic managers, due to Liberal Party representing capital class. The assumption is basically that boss manages the books better than the workers. Thread here👇
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premiers_…

This bias is particularly potent in Federal elections because voters tend to believe Federal policies have the greatest impact on the economy. Tax cuts happen at a Federal level. Welfare/redistribution is mostly paid for at a Federal level. Major economic policies are Federal.

There is actually no factual evidence that Liberals are indeed better economic managers. The fact Australia is sliding into recession after six years of Liberal govt should be enough to prove the cultural bias wrong. But it won't, because cultures take a long time to change.

At a State level, voters tend to think more of education and healthcare. These are core Labor issues. The same cultural assumptions are at play - even though the worker party isn't trusted to manage books, they are trusted to develop social policies that have their basis in care.

In my research, I've identified ideological master narratives which create these cultural biases. I've found Liberals benefit from a master narrative of authority - they are seen as legitimate, natural leaders of a neoliberal economic system where they make smart money decisions.

Labor benefits from the opposite master narrative of empathy. Labor is viewed as better able to manage the social needs of the people - to look after society - to nurture, care and develop policies that provide a social safety net within a capitalist economy.

Importantly, I think these master narratives are so prevalent in the minds of journalists, that they tend to judge the major parties on how well they are delivering on their ideological story. This tends to advantage Liberals, but not advantage Labor as much. Let me explain why.

Both parties are advantaged in some policy areas through assumptions about their master narratives - Labor seen as better on health and education, Liberals seen as better on economics and national security. But, Labor's disadvantage is greater than Liberals' overall.

First reason is Labor are expected to be kind, empathetic, look after society, but when they do this, their social policies are also viewed as bad economics - as costs, not investments. Remember, economic policies are seen through neoliberal frame which says govt spending is bad.

Secondly, if Labor do something that contradicts their master story of empathy, such as when Gillard adopted Howard's single parent pension changes, she is judged far more harshly than Howard, when he did it first. This is because Liberals are not expected to be empathetic.

Thirdly, Liberals also benefit from the assumption that they hold authority, but not empathy as there is an expectation that they will treat people more harshly, such as Centrelink Robodebt, but that this is just their natural character so it's not something worth scrutinising.

Fourthly, when Labor implement policies such as climate action, the dominant frame they are judged by is through eyes of capital class (media is almost entirely owned by capitalist class and therefore dominate framing). Climate policy is reported as a 'cost', not an investment.

Lastly, and probably most importantly, at a Federal level at least, and to many at State level, economy is viewed as the most important voting issue. Think of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - people need a livelihood before they care about any higher order needs.

Since many voters believe (through cultural bias), that Liberals are better economic managers, and that this management means there will be more jobs and pay rises under a Liberal govt, they vote first for economy, and worry about social policies second. Not all, but many.

Labor actually do have excellent economic stories to tell: society that is cared for works better. Society with less inequality spends more. Society with fair wages consumes more. Society where healthy people are educated is more productive. Govt investment is good for jobs. etc.

Labor have been trying to tell this story (I can hear them!) but is still massively disadvantaged by cultural frames of authority and empathy, as these stories restrict media frames and voter assumptions. These are just my theories, but I think explain this situation well. End.

@threadreaderapp unroll please