In the end, people vote essentially on what matters to them, in their day-to- day lives, but they have to believe the promised benefits can be delivered. Illustration: Simon Letch With the mounting distrust of politicians and political processes since the early '90s, the likes of Trump have been able to further develop essentially the same simple message, focusing on jobs and living standards, but extending the "change" and "anti-establishment" thrust by highlighting threats to jobs and living standards from globalization, free trade and immigration. While voters may still have had some doubt as to what Trump will ultimately deliver, they gave him the benefit of the doubt – he surely can't be any worse? I fear our political leaders still don't get it. They say they "listen". They say they "understand". To be fair, Shorten did try in the last campaign, by attempting to concentrate on health, education and jobs, while Turnbull simply prattled on about "jobs and growth". However, neither provided any detail sufficient to convince that they could actually deliver.

Moreover, since the election both sides have stumbled from one distraction to another – from gay marriage, to 18C, to the Omnibus Bill, to renewables, to life-time visa bans, to incomplete refugee resettlement deals, to Brandis and back to Brandis, and so on – mostly as short-term opportunistic attempts to "wedge" the other side, rather than to govern and deliver against electoral concerns and aspirations. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said on Tuesday he had never supported a carbon tax. Credit:Andrew Meares While the government claims Big Wins with the passage of the double dissolution triggers, the Registered Organisations and ABCC legislation, these are very much "beltway" victories. The electorate really doesn't relate, still seeing these as just more of the same political "game-playing", not governing on issues that matter to them. The significance of such measures is not well explained, and voters can't see the jobs, or improvement in their living standard. As our economy slows, against a very flat, risky, and unpredictable global economic and political environment, voters are increasingly concerned about job security, and about the cost of living, at a time when wage increases are as small as they have ever been. Basically, the electorate sees power and communications companies, supermarkets, health and other insurance companies, and banks, "ripping them off" by exploiting their market dominant positions. So much for all the political rhetoric about "competition policy"! Add to this the struggle with mounting health, school, and childcare costs, and probably a majority of the electorate is living from hand-to-mouth, week-in-week out.

Our relatively low measured unemployment rate masks the reality that we have been losing full-time jobs rapidly, as various companies, and in some cases industries, close, underemployment is mounting, and, in some particular regions, youth unemployment is severe. What's more, we could be on the cusp of losing many more jobs as power costs rise. While we are still digesting the collapse of the car industry, and its ancillary industries, all gas and electricity dependent industries are under threat, particularly steel, smelting, glass, paper, and many mining operations. Yet, what is clear to the electorate is that governments have no answers, just sitting like wood ducks waiting to be hit. There is no medium-term strategy. Indeed, setting aside the merits of various responses, for example, as gas prices rise, rather than have a clear strategy, governments are banning development of coal seam gas, delaying any further exploration for conventional onshore gas, as our globally significant gas fields are committed to offshore markets, and simply scoring short-term points about renewables, and more, that to many defies both logic and responsibility. It is essential that governments, as a matter of urgency, develop a national, deliverable, energy strategy. We can't exist with the NEM, a "market" developed on the basis of the British system 20-odd years ago, since jettisoned by Britain, that didn't contemplate today's realities of renewables, storage, disseminated distribution, and the rapid advance of technologies in relation to power generation and energy efficiency.

Our governments say they are listening but, obviously, with a "tin ear". Loading We enter 2017 with the Turnbull government having absolutely no policy agenda. John Hewson is a professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, and a former Liberal opposition leader. He has business interests in the renewables area.