he Election

[http://www.aussieseek.com]

THE declining share of preference votes flowing to the Liberal Party
could prevent it from regaining office, party director Brian Loughnane
has warned.

In a post-mortem of the coalition's election loss today, Mr Loughnane
nominated several factors as responsible for the Howard government's
defeat, including perceptions about Work Choices, cost of living
pressures on families, and voters' belief that the government cared
more about its own future than theirs.

An electoral redistribution had eroded the coalition's buffer against
a swing to Labor, particularly in NSW and Queensland.

Mr Loughnane said he was concerned about a strong deterioration in
preference votes flowing to the Liberals at the ballot box.

"The coalition's share of preferences deteriorated in each of the
three elections between 1998 and 2004," he told the National Press
Club.

"Although the figures for this year are not yet final, it would appear
as though our share of preferences has deteriorated for the fourth
election in a row.

"This is a significant strategic problem for the coalition and it will
make it difficult for us to win office in the future unless it's
addressed."

Mr Loughnane said the coalition had lost the election because it had
lost the voters who had backed John Howard since 1996.

"A range of factors came together which led the electorate to conclude
that while the government had done a good job, it had run its race,
and change - while having some risks - was worth a go," he said.

"This sentiment for change resulted in the coalition losing support of
some of the key groups in the electorate that had supported it since
1996."

The most crucial of these, he said, were parents in outer-suburban and
regional areas aged 35 to 49 who came to see the government as
internally-focused and not responsive to their priorities.

Voters also believed continuing speculation about the Liberal
leadership had distracted the government from its real priorities, he
said.

Mr Loughnane said although very few people had been personally
adversely affected by Work Choices, many were concerned their work
negotiating position had been eroded.

"The unions fed this anxiety with unsubstantiated claims and
generalisations that the government would go even further if it won
the election."

He slammed the ACTU's $14 million television campaign against Work
Choices, saying it was more than either of the two major parties spent
on TV ads in the campaign.

"This development has profound significance for the Australian
democracy," Mr Loughnane said.

"For the first time in our history, a third external force has
intervened in our political process with resources greater than either
of the major political parties.

"I believe this is an extremely unhealthy development."

However, the ACTU spend was a tiny fraction of the $121 million in
taxpayer dollars the Howard government spent promoting Work Choices.

Mr Loughnane said Work Choices had "united and activated the labour
movement".

"Union leaders saw it as a make or break for their own survival," he
said.

"Unprecedented resources were devoted to reversing it and to defeating
the Howard government."

AAP