Exclusive YouDecide2007 polling analysis shows that "crate gate" wasn't all Rudd's way. You agree with Lindsay that expectations are too high.
When Liberal MHR Peter Lindsay said that the mortgage crisis was due to “financial illiteracy” he opened a front which favours the Labor Party. Housing affordability is an issue which makes our 909 respondents less likely on balance to vote for the government and more likely to vote for the opposition. They also strongly disagrees with his view on financial illiteracy. No wonder Kevin Rudd used it as the basis for a question in parliament.
Yet there are wrinkles in the responses. Lindsay also said there was not enough supply of land and that state taxes and charges were also to blame. Respondents agreed with these propositions. And most of them said that the issue had no effect on their voting intentions, and that there were other more important influences on their vote.
Our research also suggests that if Lindsay had phrased his concerns differently he would have received quite a different response.
As usual there was a lean to the left in the survey with Greens massively over-represented – 25% - and Labor – 32 percent – and Liberals 20 percent both under-represented (although even randomised surveys are leaning to the left these days because the swing to Rudd has been so large). We also had a preponderance of respondents between 45 and 64 years of age.
The bald numbers are that 69% disagreed with the proposition “The mortgage crisis…is because young people today are financially illiterate.” This included 44percent of Liberals. Only 17% agreed with the proposition with Nationals – 39% - and Liberals – 36% - the most likely to agree. Things improved for Lindsay on his second proposition - “Reducing the $120,000 worth of mainly state taxes is a way that you could increase housing affordability.” Most respondents seem to correctly infer that this was per block and 52% agreed while only 30% disagreed. Maybe not a “head nod” but agreement nevertheless. You can’t ask all the questions that you’d like in one of these questionnaires, but I wonder what the results would have been if the concrete figure of $120,000 had been left off.
The proposition - “Another way you could increase housing affordability is to look at the amount of land being released onto the market” – didn’t do so well, but had more agreeing – 42% - than disagreeing – 38% - with close to two-thirds of Liberal and National voters agreeing.
What was most interesting were the responses when we asked for a paragraph answer as to “what you feel is the most important issue for solving the housing crisis.” The purists will say that we polluted the answer to this question be asking it after the first three, and we did, but we meant to. We wanted to know what respondents would nominate in reaction to the Lindsay propositions.
These answers were coded using a randomly chosen subset of the total sample of 400 respondents. The most popular issue – nominated by 13% - was what I coded as “down size”. This referred to the need for expectations of home buyers to be reduced. As one respondent said “I believe that young people today satisfy their wants and totally ignore their needs. They want large expensive homes and are prepared to go into deep debt to get them.” There was also much talk of McMansions.
So, if Peter Lindsay had said not that buyers were “financially illiterate” but that there needs to be a rethinking of priorities and a move towards smaller, more environmentally friendly homes, he could have been on a winner.
Next in importance was an issue I coded as “Tax system”. This referred to a grab-bag of things, such as high rates of personal tax, negative gearing, capital gains tax, and tax incentives for home ownership, but it did not include state taxes, which came in fifth. It’s deceptive in a way to lump these things together, because they are all quite different. The fact however that they are all to do with the federal government tells a story. When we get to the issue of whether voters are more or less likely to vote for the government because of the housing issue there is a small, but significant, shift against the government. This explains why. Many of the problems of housing prices are perceived to lie with the federal government. Some even blame them for running the economy too well causing prices to rise.
Supply of land was mentioned by 10%, almost all of whom had agreed with Peter Lindsay’s proposition on land supply. Closely following on 9% was a category called “Profit” which was the feeling that someone was taking too much money out of the housing market and this was forcing prices up. While Greens voters were most likely to nominate this, 9% of Labor voters did, and so did 6% of Liberal voters. Suspicion of property developers, real estate agents, bankers and governments is widespread. State taxes came in next at 7% followed by a lack of public housing on 5%.
Leximancer analysis of these responses gave some other insights. It produces four themes at 33% which are “land” (most closely associated with Liberals), “interest” (most closely associated with Labor), “should” (close to Greens) and “Issue” a theme which is away from all of the major parties and the Greens and is most closely associated with words like “crisis” and “problem” and “money”. The “land” theme incorporates concern for first home buyers, supply of land and state government imposts. “Interest” refers to interest rates, and contrasts high costs with low relative incomes. The “should” theme is associated with public housing, negative gearing, capital gains tax and investors freezing purchasers out of the market.
So Liberal voters are focused on a few issues and inclined to think that by taking some controls and imposts off, the problem will be fixed. Labor voters appear to be most likely to want to blame macro economic factors over which the government arguably has some control, like interest rates. Greens voters have a suite of proposals that they think will fix the problem, most tending towards re-imposition of taxes of some kind, higher tax rates, or government intervention in the market via public housing.
Arguably all of this is a side-show. When we asked respondents whether the issue of housing affordability made them more or less likely to vote for the government 37% said “Less likely”, 9% “More likely” and 51% “Neither more nor less”. These movements were not quite echoed on the other side. 28% were more likely to vote Labor, but 14% less likely. This partly reflects the Liberals’ reputation for being better with the economy, and partly reflects state Labor governments receiving some of the blame for housing problems. So, Labor ahead, but not by much.
The bottom line of this survey is that for most Australians, at least those of middle age, there are more important issues than buying a house. This may reflect the fact that they are more likely to be home owners and have benefited from recent price rises. But as I didn’t ask, I can’t be sure. What I can be sure of is that as the election gets nearer we’ll be asking a lot more questions about those other issues.
|
|
|
News Archive 
