“It’s still a close election. It’s still amazing that Dutton has got this close so soon. But the tangible in all of this is that a few percent is all there is between oblivion and reward,” writes political columnist ANDREW HUGHES.

Ask any candidate who talks to you what three tangible things they will do to make your life better. 

Let’s give them one on broad issues: so, for those on the left this is usually climate change; on the right, the economy or being safer in some way.

The next two need to be actual tangibles linked to issues that are affecting us. This is where the power of incumbency provides a massive advantage, assuming they’ve been effective. A party in government can demonstrate tangibles everywhere and provide even more.

If you’ve engaged with the electorate correctly, then these tangibles should be very direct and specific. So, $25 on PBS. Or tax cuts which will give you $500 a year. Or more bulk billing. Or batteries (still expensive) for the solar panels on the roof. 

Throw in some very localised tangibles, such as shiny new buildings co-announced with the (hopefully) friendly local government, and now your candidates have plenty of talking points on tangibles. 

But notice the way the message is delivered here. Like retail marketers, dollars off to distract from any real cost of the tangible. Not a mention of percentages. 

Contrast that to how the Coalition is doing tangible. Percentages. If I asked  what would you prefer, 15 per cent off something that you don’t really know the figure on (could be more or less) or $500? A tangible in the hand is worth two weeks of campaign narrative. 

So much of tangible delivery depends on clarity on messaging. Simplicity so it can be easily digested. Or when you are in a leaders’ debate. It’s a subtle difference, but it is a difference and one that is noticeable in this campaign. 

The Coalition just hasn’t had enough simple tangibles to get the momentum back that was won over summer. This is the disadvantage of being a small target for too long – people don’t believe your promises when you do make them in a campaign because (a) you are a politician, (b) you are behind on the polls and (c) why now? 

People want immediate as well with the tangible. Energy subsidies tick that box, but cost of living and greed has seeped into everything now. 

PBS ticks that box. For both sides. The Coalition needs differentiation. To be like Trump, who made a promise not to tax those on social security or tax income from tipping, and do something “so Labor” that they wouldn’t say no, but claim ownership of. Dental in Medicare would have done that. 

In Australia it is nuts we don’t have it considering its importance, yet also the figures show how many of us can no longer afford to see a dentist. The Greens got there first though, but still, it gets momentum and narrative back. Tangible and immediate ticked. Plus it appeals to the moderate liberal vote. 

“Immediate” in campaigns also can have a different, darker dimension. It’s that external factor that dominates a campaign narrative regardless of how hard you try to get some space. Trump’s tariffs will be that in 2025. 

In 2001 Howard got 2001. Goodnight Beazley who until then had been ahead on all poll metrics. 2010 Gillard got the GFC, which blunted the spill on Rudd. 

You can’t stop these things but knowing they could happen, and having the tangibles announced early helps. It lowers risk and uncertainty in a world that is anything but.

In a way, Labor has borrowed Howard’s 2001 campaign strategy, using the appeal of lowering your risk and uncertainty by voting for what you know will definitely happen, not what may. 

It worked in 2001 for the same reasons it will in 2025: a hard-working and financially stressed middle wants something that gives them a bit more oxygen. Call it middle-class welfare. It works. 

And to be clear, Labor isn’t running a spectacular campaign. They don’t need to be now that momentum is with them. Instead, the Coalition is left with no choice but to take more risks through going bigger on noise, tangibles and immediates. That runs the added messaging risk of framing them as desperate, negative and Trumpists. 

It’s still a close election. It’s still amazing that Dutton has got this close so soon. But the tangible all of this is that a few percent is all there is between oblivion and reward.

Dr Andrew Hughes lectures at the ANU Research School of Management, where he specialises in political marketing.