The election campaign brings with it an onslaught of political advertising, as well as all other sorts of efforts by the candidates to talk directly to the public rather than relying on media commentary. The Spin Cycle is the thread for discussing anything coming from the mouths, web sites, typewriters and advertising agencies of the parties or their candidates. See anything you think is shonky? Tell us about it. Has someone made a good point that cuts through effectively? Let us know.
Let’s kick off with some of the election ads that have begun appearing on our screens — and I’m particularly interested in the contrast between Labor’s ads. Here’s a nice positive one that has Julia Gillard all over it, talking to the electorate about how great she wants to make this country and which direction she wants to move us in (I won’t spoil the surprise):
And then there’s this attack ad, getting very negative about Tony Abbott. And there’s no sign of that nice Ms Gillard anywhere near it:
It even has its own web site, Abbott Facts, which has no Gillard or Labor branding other than the authorisation from Karl Bitar at the bottom of the page. Because you wouldn’t want your negative message to affect how pleasant and positive your candidate seems, would you?
ELSEWHERE: On the topic of political advertising and candidates, keep an eye out for the ABC’s Wednesday night campaign line-up, starting next week (July 28) — Gruen Nation at 9pm followed by the Chaser’s Yes We Canberra! at 9:45.
8 Comments
I’ll add something from the weekend in here — Tony Abbott’s guarantee to keep interest rates low, and his attack on the government because we’ve had “six interest rate rises since late last year and it looks like more are on the way”. Apart from the fact that he seems to be recycling an awful lot of Howard-era ploys, let’s look at the numbers:
1. When the 2007 election was held, the cash rate was 6.75%. Today, it’s 4.5%, with some possibility that it will go to 4.75% before the election.
2. Although lending margins have tended to widen over that period, mortgage rates are still lower than back then – as Peter Martin notes:
Abbott neglects to mention how far rates were cut before those six recent rises. He fails to mention why they needed to be cut so far — the global financial crisis. And he fails to acknowledge that the fact that our interest rates are returning to the normal range is because most of our economic indicators are looking pretty good.
This sort of tactic really disappoints me — aside from being so logically flawed, it appeals to voters’ self-interest above anything else. It leaves me questioning whether voters genuinely are foolish enough to fall for it, or whether it’s a sign of the unreasonably low regard political parties appear to have for their target audience. Or could it be both?
It’s both.
This is a seriously uninspiring election campaign. I’m only 30, but have followed politics since I could crawl and the vista has never been so drab.
The biggest event so far in the campaign has been Abbott’s alleged gaff about ‘tinkering’ with IR. As much as I’m no fan of Work Choices style IR (and certainly no fan of TA!), this whole incident was ridiculous. He was essentially being asked to promise not to govern in that area for an electoral term. IR is a complex area governed by a lot of regulations as well as legislation that is constantly being tinkered with as anomolies arise. It is perfectly reasonable for a politician to promise not to make any large changes to the essential framework while maintaining the capacity to make neccessary tweaks to keep the system running. The reaction to Abbott’s comments by Labor pollies have been every bit as misleading and deceptive as Abbott’s re-hash of tired old lies about intrest rates.
A pox on both your houses indeed….
In regards to your article ‘Who profits from our foreign aid?’
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Hiding_Africa%27s_Looted_Funds:_The_Silence_of_Western_Media
{Um, this would appear to be completely off-topic – you’re referring to a series of articles Crikey published but this thread is about election content. If anyone does want to respond, please do so in the open thread – Tobby}
Agreed Bogdanovist.
It’s disturbing to find myself in full agreement with Akerman’s assessment last night on Q&A and dismayed that Phil Coorey and Jacob Saulwick ran with the front-page headline and shameless distortions.
The fact remains that Abbott’s heart is not in the rejection of WorkChoices, and that’s what the media in its inadequate way is trying to highlight. Abbott deserves to be dogged by this issue because he is not telling the truth of what he really believes on IR. He should be hounded in exactly the same way on climate change, and for exactly the same reasons.
Ben Pobjie sums up the lessons to be learned from the campaigns ads so far:
The rest of his article is equally funny (i.e., in my opinion, very).
At the risk of carrying on a conversation with myself, here’s something else — a site has launched where people can upload the election leaflets received in their area. It’s from the very good people who developed the useful OpenAustralia site.
I’m interested to see how some issues about disputes over authenticity are going to be handled — and this disgusting leaflet might serve as the case study. Whoever made it should be ashamed — but it doesn’t carry an authorisation (unless it’s cut off in the pics), only a “how to contact” section. Was it published by the Australia First Party or someone associated with the party? Was it submitted by the person who claims to have submitted it? Could it be a fake intended to damage a party’s reputation? It seems impossible to know for sure based just on what’s uploaded to the web site.
They are encouraging people to send in the printed copies, and arrangements have been made for the National Library to archive those hard copipes.
But why in Riverina FFS? If there are any African immigrants there, they’ll be doctors or pharmacists.