Keeping Fears in Cheque

The Labor line that has been getting the most running of late is "Don't give Barry a blank cheque".


It's a multi-faceted slogan, and I think it is a very effective one. Like all the best slogans, it seems like it will be effective with every category of voters who Labor are still courting.


Best of all, it hits those voters right where they need to be hit.


I'm not going to try and predict the effect on dead-certain Labor or Liberal voters, because they are not going to change their vote at this stage.


First of all, disaffected Labor voters - people who have always voted Labor but now think "It's Time". To these voters, the slogan says "The Coalition are going to win - if they win both houses, they will destroy the state." For someone who is perhaps not comfortable with voting Coalition in the first place, this is a powerful fear, and one likely to bring some people back across.


The true swinging voter, who has no affiliations? Judging by the polls, just about every single one of these voters is already in the Coalition column. This slogan suddenly gives them something tangible to fear from the Coalition. When combined with the "What isn't he telling us?" line, it is capable of provoking some significant fear for these voters.


It's almost a devil you know argument - "We don't really know what this guy stands for, and you want to give him BOTH houses?"


The swinging voter probably isn't voting Coalition because he/she doesn't like Labor policies. Just because the swinging voter is sick of Labor being in power doesn't mean that it wouldn't be nice to have them providing some balance to the Coalition.


How about people who usually vote Liberal? There is nothing positive that Labor can say to these people that will have any effect as they hate Labor already. This slogan, however, might give this group of voters a moment's pause about their vote.


On one hand, it may give the voter a chance to think about voting for a different party. Not the Greens, presumably, but maybe a minor party - given that this slogan is all about the Upper house, it may push the Liberals a little further down the preference list, at least among those voters who actually take the option to preference their Upper House Ballot.


I haven't seen anyone mention Howard's time in control of both houses, but I would have that many people would go straight to that. And, before you know it, we're finessing some WorkChoices memories.


Even more so though, the slogan is saying to those Coalition voters "The Coalition has this one wrapped up. Why not just stay home and tidy up the garage rather than go out and stand in that queue. A $55 fine? Money well spent."


For me, the above paragraph is the real genius of the slogan. Everyone wants to back a winner, so for Labor to explicitly concede defeat would seriously damage their vote.


This slogan will bolster and encourage Labor voters ("Even though we're going to get creamed, your vote could not be more important"), quietly encourage apathy in Coalition voters ("We're going to lose, so why should you bother with voting?") and gives swinging voters a very tangible fear from the Coalition ("Just imagine what they'll do!").


Of course, the real question is whether it's going to make any difference. You can have the best slogan in the world, but if no one is listening anyway then it's not going to make a bit of difference.


PS This will be my last post pre-election. Get out there, exercise your democratic right, then tune into Anthony Green on the ABC and watch the carnage. Hopefully there'll be enough time for dinner and some red with friends before they resume normal programming.

A Good One-Liner

Campaign slogans are an odd science. 

The 2010 Federal Election was a case in point. The Coalition went for the infamous "End the waste, repay the debt, stop the new taxes and stop the boats".  Whilst it was ruthlessly negative and devoid of any real content, people seemed pretty clear on where the Coalition stood.

Labor went for "Moving Forward" which was cryptic and ineffective. The slogan was the eternal proof that something that has been focus grouped to death and then repeated ad nauseum is going to grate within about 15 minutes, and that was exactly what occurred.

NSW elections have been no different.  In 2007, the Coalition went for the impossibly bland "Let's Fix NSW".  Labor's slogan was the endlessly derided "More to do, but we're heading in the right direction".

"Let's Fix NSW" seemed to be a pretty good summation of the Coalition campaign, and is a positive message that reminds the voter about the inadequacy of the opposition, but it's hard to imagine it drumming up any sort of emotional response.

The Labor slogan was, if memory serves, almost instantly mocked for its clumsiness and the fact that to any neutral observer it was flagrantly untrue.  It's impossible to know for sure unless you were in the room, but I wonder whether someone cobbled together 30 different slogans on this theme, sent them out to be tested, and this one came back as having the strongest positive reaction.

Having said that, history tells us that Labor won that election easily, so perhaps I'm being unkind.  Of course, I think most people would attribute that win more to the extremely effective attack ads on Debnam's business history rather than people favouring Labor.

Labor's election launch today had as its centrepiece their slogan "Fairness for Families", a slogan as bland as it is inscrutable.

At the Federal Level, the concept of "fairness for families" usually takes the form of middle-class welfare - a world where a family of three can earn an enormous sum of money before the amount they pay in tax exceeds the benefits they receive.

At the state level, it is a little difficult to relate such a slogan to concrete policies.  The Labor website says this: "If re-elected, I will introduce a new law – the Fairness for Families Act. This new law will cap increases in public transport fares and many taxes, fees and charges to the rate of inflation.  We will also provide a new $250 Energy Rebate to all households earning up to $150,000 – taking the sting out of rising energy prices.  We will also pass a new law to keep Sydney Water, Hunter Water and State Water in public hands."

Unsurprisingly, this has nothing to do with families at all - it's a cost-of-living policy.  But I suppose "We'll ease the cost of living" didn't test well.

On a sidetone, and as a lawyer who has to work with legislation every day, "Fairness for Families" Act is a ridiculous name for an Act - the fact that it fails to describe the contents of the act can actually make it incredibly difficult when you think "I know there is legislation on this issue, but I'm buggered if I can remember what act it was in."

Another great example of stupid names for a law is the GST legislation, which is still lumbered with the moniker "A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act".

Ultimately, of course, it doesn't matter a bit that the slogan has little to do with the actual policies - my tip is that the people influenced by simplistic slogans are not the kind of people to have any detailed knowledge of the policies of a party.  

The Liberal Policy for this election is "Make NSW Number 1 Again".  Of course we aren't told who we are to be ranked against, on what criteria or indeed why it matters that we are number one, but again, those questions aren't really the point.

It's simple, it's a positive message, it has a good dose of parochialism.  All the boxes.

It's also easy to use well visually - have a look at the first page of the Liberal's "Action plan": http://bit.ly/h9gjVh

It's easy to deride overly-tested slogans.  They are usually plucked from a focus group, and are so light on detail. But as I have said above, the slogans are only going to have an impact with people who are light on detail anyway, so it's probably fairly canny politics.

If a voter is only going to vote based upon the slogan they have heard on TV, then there's probably some sense in picking the slogan based only on how they test.

It's another great example of the multiple layers that every campaign must possess to have any effect at all.