[Ahovking]

Entitled Abbott's Cuts to Come, the homepage features a menacing-looking shot of the opposition leader alongside the question: "What Will You

Lose if He Wins?"


Launching the site on Wednesday Finance Minister Penny Wong said it was "a snapshot of the cuts we know Tony Abbott plans to make should he be elected".

"We are being generous and we are using their numbers," she said.

"Australians will pay for Tony Abbott's signature scheme and his other unfunded promises through cuts to jobs, to services, to health, to education."

Does it stack up?

Rolling a cursor over photos of families, nurses, schoolchildren and workers on the site brings up claims of cuts that are sketchier than Senator Wong suggests.

Under the heading ''Health'' it says when Mr Abbott was health minister "the Liberals ripped $1 billion dollars from our health system – enough to fund over 1000 beds".

PolitiFact has previously found the claim to be false. Health spending climbed in each year Mr Abbott was minister.
Also under the ''Health'' heading it says: "Joe Hockey says 'no guarantees' on spending cuts".

It neglects to mention Mr Hockey's most recent commitment on Monday that "health and medical research is incredibly important and we have guaranteed that". (It is unclear whether Mr Hockey was guaranteeing not to cut funding for health as well as medical research or merely guaranteeing not to cut funding for research into health and medicine.)

Under the heading 'School Kids' it says: "Cutting billions from schools means that on average schools will have $2000 less per child".
It acknowledges that Mr Abbott has promised to match Labor's school funding commitment for the next four years, but says he has "refused to commit" beyond that.

Under the heading 'Jobs' it says: "Abbott will cut 12,000 jobs. That means families will lose their livelihood and local businesses will be hit."
It does not acknowledge that the 12,000 figure refers to the number of public servants Tony Abbott plans to lose through natural attrition over two years. The families of public servants who leave their jobs voluntarily are unlikely to "lose their livelihood".

A video on the site shows lights being turned out on pictures of workers in hard hats and fluoro jackets as a voice says: "Twelve thousand people will lose their jobs".

Hard hats are not typical of the clothing worn by public servants, and the video does not make clear that the 12,000 people who would "lose their jobs" are all public servants, all of whom would leave through natural attrition.

Under the heading: 'Those Depending on Penalty Rates' it says Mr Abbott "supports cutting penalty rates and overtime".
The claim pre-dates a commitment by Mr Abbott in Wednesday night's leaders' debate to protect both penalty rates and overtime.
The website is on safe ground on just three claims. Abbott would defer superannuation increases, abandon the low-income superannuation contribution and end the Schoolkids Bonus. Each is Coalition policy.
Finding

Senator Wong said the website was "a snapshot of the cuts we know Tony Abbott plans to make should he be elected".
The website is not a snapshot of the cuts Labor and Senator Wong "know" Tony Abbott plans to make. Most of the claimed cuts are suppositions, some of them erroneous.

A PolitiFact rating of ''mostly false'' applies a statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

PolitiFact finds Senator Wong's claim "mostly false".


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... z2cflJyevc

Why Labor Why lie , who's surprise? i'm not

[AVT]

Scare campaigns have worked well for Abbott, but Rudd has just shown he is an amateur in this arena. The whole thing with the '$10 billion black hole' has destroyed any traction they were making on the economic front and has all but ensured a Abbott victory unless there are some real nasties in the final coalition budget.

[pugsville]

THis Labour campaign is the worst Political campaign I can recall. It's short on substance, nothing about it seems well done. The Ads, the sound bites, the releases. I agree they sound desperate and possibly because they are desperate.

I never liked Kevin Rudd. Mainly because I never got a clear Idea of what he stood for. But this performance just makes me cringe, and really active dislike Rudd. The Ads are Kevin, Kevin, Kevin, Kevin, and the more he is pushed at me the less I like it, if the rest of populace feels the same it could be very very ugly for labour.

The Coalition Campaign isnt much, but that perhaps the intention, small target , say nothing, make ambient promises that more or less much the other side on most issues. It's a terribly boring vanilla campaign.

None of the campaign adds I've seen (and I've seen a surprising number of small party ads, maybe I watch TV late at night when it's cheap) have struck me as good.

[colliric]

The "Labor-Greens Spring Clean" is my favourite ad of this election so far.

[AVT]

THis Labour campaign is the worst Political campaign I can recall. It's short on substance, nothing about it seems well done. The Ads, the sound bites, the releases. I agree they sound desperate and possibly because they are desperate.

I never liked Kevin Rudd. Mainly because I never got a clear Idea of what he stood for. But this performance just makes me cringe, and really active dislike Rudd. The Ads are Kevin, Kevin, Kevin, Kevin, and the more he is pushed at me the less I like it, if the rest of populace feels the same it could be very very ugly for labour.

The Coalition Campaign isnt much, but that perhaps the intention, small target , say nothing, make ambient promises that more or less much the other side on most issues. It's a terribly boring vanilla campaign.

None of the campaign adds I've seen (and I've seen a surprising number of small party ads, maybe I watch TV late at night when it's cheap) have struck me as good.

Labor were relying on Kevin's celebrity winning them votes, but I think that they have found that despite them trying to push a US style Presidential election on us most people have been turned off. For although people may like Kevin a little more than Tony they still intend to vote the coalition because they think the party in general will do a better job. That is a win for Australian democracy and a rejection of the constant push for personality elections.

[Igor Antunov]

Liberals are relying on a foreign media baron. Of course it works.

but I think that they have found that despite them trying to push a US style Presidential election on us most people have been turned off

That is precisely what this has devolved to, thanks to this media monopoly of an American corporatist our elections are starting to resemble the farce in the US.

[colliric]

Liberals are relying on a foreign media baron. Of course it works.
That is precisely what this has devolved to, thanks to this media monopoly of an American corporatist our elections are starting to resemble the farce in the US.

Technically not foreign, but instead an ex-pat, just like Kylie Minogue...

Interesting that they had no room for The Australian, and the highest selling paper in the country only rates one headline image in that pic. Daily Tele gets 5 and the Courier gets 6.... Murdoch's best selling Aussie Paper, the Herald Sun.... Only 1.

Bloody New South Welshmen thinking their papers are the only ones worth mentioning....

[pugsville]

While I think Indeed the Murdoch Press is running a very bias anti Rudd/Labour message in a heavy handed way. I just dont think it's a huge factor.

Labour Stinks right now with a lot of the electorate. For the past 3 years Abbot and the Coalition have managed to get their message out very effectively and most major news outlets reportage has worked very well for them. Number of different factors at Play, but NSW Labour Part Corruption, long running Labour internal struggles, and poor media handling by the Labour Government are big ones. Labour has served up some pretty juciy bad press for themselves, which most of the Media would have reported anyway, they have no sold any of their achievements when they did something good.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Scare campaigns have worked well for Abbott, but Rudd has just shown he is an amateur in this arena. The whole thing with the '$10 billion black hole' has destroyed any traction they were making on the economic front and has all but ensured a Abbott victory unless there are some real nasties in the final coalition budget.

This has so many echoes of the 1996 campaign. I remember a specific point during that campaign in which labor suddenly stopped talking themselves up and switched to a full-on scare campaign against Howard - and everything they said then is being repeated in this campaign - the inexperience on the world stage, the costings black hole, and of course the cuts. Admittedly this campaign has at least attempted to mould into one the "scary Abbott" message with "proven labour" message (as opposed to 96, when it was patently obvious that labor was actively trying to take the focus away from themselves), but it has been rather disjointed.

That said, I am skeptical that any election campaign (as in the campaigning during the last 4 weeks or so before the election) ever makes any difference to the polls. I have only ever seen the polls move significantly during the election campaign once - in 2010, and that was entirely due to Rudd's leaks - not from any traction Abbott was making.

Also, regarding scare campaigns working for Abbott in opposition - well thats how our system works. Oppositions really have such an easy ride -they are not accountable, they are not burdened with a complex narrative regarding their record like the government has, and as we are seeing, they don't even have to release policies or costings (save for a farcical last-minute con-job the night before the election - after the advertising blackout is in of course). They can literally just focus their time and considerable resources on catchy sloganeering that grap people's attention, while at the same time make them accountable for nothing. And both sides do it - its not exclusive to Abbott. Thus if you look at the history of federal elections - at least in the last couple of decades, government's either get defeated or have their majorities decimated - except in the rare instances where oppositions really shoot themselves in the foot (ie Latham 2004) or are defeated by extreme international events (2001).

[colliric]

Increased majorities do occur Gandalf. After winning 1999 as a minority government the Bracks state government won increased majority in 2002 and sustained it in 2006, followed by their defeat in 2010.

The Gillard minority government just didn't work out well at all.

[GandalfTheGrey]

I was talking federal elections only.

State elections are painfully predictable: one party is elected and stays in power for 10-15 years, then loses in a landslide.

[colliric]

I was talking federal elections only.

State elections are painfully predictable: one party is elected and stays in power for 10-15 years, then loses in a landslide.

Hawke-Keating = Over 10 years(can't remember exact years), lost in a landslide
Howard = 11 years, Lost in a big way, even lost his own seat
Rudd + Gillard = 6 years(Still two terms, a significant number), set to lose in a landslide.

Pretty much the same.

I know NSW is a bit weird statewise, but Victoria seems to follow after the Federal system.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Pretty much the same.

in terms of the advantage of incumbency - yes, but not in terms of the predictability of the results. When was the last time a first term state government has ever had a reduced majority at their next election? But federally, its pretty much expected - regardless of how well the government performs.

At least that gives a silver lining in this election - Abbott should be defeated next election.

[AVT]

in terms of the advantage of incumbency - yes, but not in terms of the predictability of the results. When was the last time a first term state government has ever had a reduced majority at their next election? But federally, its pretty much expected - regardless of how well the government performs.

At least that gives a silver lining in this election - Abbott should be defeated next election.

I don't think we should draw too many conclusions from recent electoral history, the shear amount of new minor parties this election shows the electorate is maturing and moving away from just rusted on supporters to many more swing voters. There is only a matter of time before there is a real third party in Australian politics (maybe the Greens), after Palmers interviews today lets hope it is not him!

[colliric]

I don't think we should draw too many conclusions from recent electoral history, the shear amount of new minor parties this election shows the electorate is maturing and moving away from just rusted on supporters to many more swing voters. There is only a matter of time before there is a real third party in Australian politics (maybe the Greens), after Palmers interviews today lets hope it is not him!

The two party system will not change, it would require changes to the constitution that will Not occur.

The Labor Party and the Liberal/National Party are quite safe at least for another few decades. You just cannot form a stable government when there are three seperate major parties. A coalition must be formed between two of the parties, to form a majority government. Or else the smallest major will just plain die the death.

It's a dream to believe a three party system would work. Any "other party" gaining traction will eventually be "annexed through policy"(as Howard did to One Nation),have it's talent poached(As Labor did to the Democrats) or come under intense bi-partisan attack(Greens, 2010 Victorian State Election).

[GandalfTheGrey]

the shear amount of new minor parties this election shows the electorate is maturing and moving away from just rusted on supporters to many more swing voters.

The sheer number of minor parties this election just shows that people are cashing in on a ridiculous senate-voting system that desperately needs reforming. As it stands now, it is undemocratic, as a candidate can get in on less than 2% of the vote. No one is going to bother voting below the line, nor should they be expected to. If so many parties are allowed to stand, then reform is desperately needed so as to give the voters more of a say in who they preference. The best suggestion I have heard thus far is to not force voters to preference everyone.

[colliric]

I agree with Gandalf.

Although I voted below the line(So I could preference Julian Assange and Dougie Hawkins second to the Liberals as an indulgence vote... Greens were last), and also against the party preferences in the lower house(I put Mike Simon 6th because my Dad knows him well, so putting him second last felt wrong to me, He's been a good member, but obviously tied to Rudd, he'll be gone also at this election).

I would prefer Wikileaks to get a seat and steal votes from the Greens. They are old and stale as a left-wing extremist party, and I'd rather see Wikileaks(and the associated Anonymous group, who are more strongly tied to Wikileaks than they are to the Greens) have a presence in the senate with a new version of the ole Democrats ideal of "Keep the bastards honest", suitability updated for the Facebook era.

[Igor Antunov]

Sneaky: 36 hours before the Australian election and in the middle of an advertising blackout, the party in the lead declares they will filter the internet by default
http://www.zdnet.com/au/australian-oppo ... 000020270/

They've quickly redacted their vile filtering scheme...for now. But we caught a glimpse of the murdoch government in action.

[GandalfTheGrey]

I agree with Gandalf.

There's hope for you yet

I forgot all about wikileaks - and I didn't even look at who was listed below the line. Not that it matters - only three candidates in the ACT have any chance for the senate spot - one of which is an automatic shoe-in. So why waste your time below the line when all that matters is whether or not you voted 1 Green or 1 liberal?

[foxdemon]

Sneaky: 36 hours before the Australian election and in the middle of an advertising blackout, the party in the lead declares they will filter the internet by default
http://www.zdnet.com/au/australian-oppo ... 000020270/

They've quickly redacted their vile filtering scheme...for now. But we caught a glimpse of the murdoch government in action.

I read the article and some of the comments. I am prepared to bet good money that the Christian
Right is behind this. Who else would want to impose their morality on the rest of the community? This is similar to their push to ban various games, anime, etc.

Abbot and his goons will turn Australia into a tin pot theocracy.