Campaigning on fear is not new technique and has been used extremely effectively as a campaign strategy by many special interest groups.

"Despite the lowest unemployment rate in over 30 years,"

It is not possible to compare the current rate of employment between today and 30 years ago, because the government has changed the way that unemployment is measured.

The only time it is possible to compare the rates of employment is when the same calculation methods are used.

Writers title this as "artistic licence" a euphemism for telling "porkies."

The negative campaigning is due to the fact that there's no real difference to the parties. When the issues that matter can't be debated because there's no real difference of opinion then the only option is to distract voters from that fact and attack character. And, of course, the media is all too willing to play along and get sucked into the stupid game rather than ask questions that matter.

It's all very laughable since, as far as I'm aware, people generally think all politicians are liars; what's it matter who's the bigger liar?

I find reason to fear the lies more than fear, can anyone truly think that both party's are the same?
And just how many who vote do not have an understanding of the issues?
Yes some will fall for the fear tactics and some for the lie but most are no less able to think clearly than you or me.
And that old lie both party's are alike.
It surely is clear that each is trying to sell its product to voters?
And equally clear that they must have a product voters want to buy?
Then the fence around our leading party's is put in place by the voters not the party's.
We see true minority party's that will forever be just that get all upset with this and make claims that are untrue.
Labor and Liberal have far different policy's but must maintain contact with the voters or drift into small party never to be elected land.
Just look at workchoices as an example.

JamesH is right: "Campaigning on fear is not new technique and has been used extremely effectively as a campaign strategy by many special interest groups." And over many years - 'the yellow peril' comes to mind; so too do 'reds under beds', nationalisation of the banks, native title will steal your suburban house, and more.

Alan Renouf used the term, "Frightened Australia" as the title of a 1979 book. He argued that Australians have always been frightened of someone or something. And the fear was not always based on rational analysis of the threat.

Interestingly, in the context of the forthcoming election, a 2006 poll showed that more Austrralians are afraid of global warming than Islamic fundamentalism - climate change is perceived as a greater threat than international terrorism. Little wonder the pollies on both sides have been changing gear - and grating the gearbox.

Patrick Baume's article, however, is glib - the sort of fluff you'd expect from one who confesses to being a member of the Liberal Party for one year when he was 18, but never attended a meeting. And works in PR.

A much more insightful analysis can be found in Peter Harcher's monograph, "Bipolar Nation: How to Win the 2007 Election (Quarterly Essay, 25, 2007). A condensed version was on OLO on 23/3/2007.

Reverting to a personal attack eh, Frank? No chance you're a longstanding member of a political party, is there?

Thanks for proving my point.

Patrick.

I must say your regurgitation of conventional wisdom re Liberal and Labor is a little slip-shod.

I think that you will find the the Labor advertising in NSW did have some positive ads and that they were not focussing "entirely" on negatives, the same cannot be said for the Libs.

" The government has plenty of economic positives " shows that you must believe the media you analyse. What Govt. policies have given us the "Best Ever" scenario we now have. Not the GST, not Workchoices, not Tax non-reform, I can't think of one.

How about 53% of people say they are worse off under workchoices, Wages as a share of GDP the lowest in over 30 years, I could go on.

I suggest this piece from your blog is a staggeringly lazy approach to analysis.

It is in the Liberal Parties best interest not to run a scare campaign, only because they are the party who we should be scared of.

"Despite the lowest unemployment rate in over 30 years, unprecedented levels of prosperity...the Labor Party will try to convince people that their job security and very way of life is falling down around their ears as we speak."

Show me the link between how workplace flexibility offered through these reformed IR laws are creating a more productive workforce? Id rather prosperity through a well educated, trained workforce than marginalised, untrained casual workers whom are only useful when asses are needed on the production line to match demand. These laws based on economic imperatives are undermining the foundations of the employment relationship and for what? This view that flexibility is somehow intrinsically tied to productivity?

I liken elections to competitions between snake oil salesmen whipped to hysteria by a salivating media.
Both sides showing the mental ages of a junior school in the middle of a playground brawl.
Where is the dignity? The intelligence needed for the most responsible jobs in this country?
I remember one election, it may have been Hawke who stopped all the stupidity by declaring media silence before the actual election. It was blissful. It was how it should be.

gonginalong,

Why do people make unfounded assumption about me based on nil/zilch/zero evidence? I belong to no political party. None. Not any. (The repetition may be necessary - I find some OLO posters take a lot of time to comprehend.) What's the point I have proved for you, gonginalong?

You then accuse me of 'reverting to a personal attack'. Now what part of my post was personal?

I've read my post again. It's not long so I can run through it again.

I agreed with JamesH's idea. I added some examples of fear campaigns. I refereed to Alan Renouf's 1979 book and indicated that both sides of politics have changed gear on climate change.

I thought Peter Harcher's monograph and article was more insightful than Patrick Baume's glib article and gave a gloss on the bio-note at the foot of Baume's article. I presume Baume wrote that piece himself or at least assented to it. So where's the personal attack?

"put a gloss on" eh Frank? That's a wonderful bit of doublespeak. You stated that a glib assessment was all that should be expected from someone who has worked in PR.

You were saying that anyone who has worked in public relations should not be expected to be able to provide an intelligent and considered contribution.

If that's your view that's your view, and you're certainly not the only person who holds it, but at least be man enough to own up to what you have said Frank. With that amount of spinning clearly you have a future in the dark arts of public relations yourself.

Its a shame that all the posters (so far) have been strongly partisan, but I suppose that both reflects and reinforces why the vast majority of Australians are so politically indifferent.

Well, I think this article summed up my attitude pretty neatly.

Part of the problem, for me at least, is that I don't really have the time to carefully examine policies or to research what effects certain policies might have, etc.

Because I'm too busy paying off my mortgage, sharing household duties with my wife who also works full time, sharing the upbringing of our two preschool children etc.

So its all just too hard. Maybe looking into political promises should have a higher priority than, say, posting on OLO - but I've got to have some fun in my life!

Cheers!

gonginalong/Patrick.

Your article puts forward some facts that in my view do not stand up to scrutiny. I suggest many Australians do not agree with your assumptions.

Yet the best you can do is to give Frank a serve. I suggest that you try to back your assumptions and argue your case. Which I consider to be flawed.

Are you looking for a consultants job with a politcal party?

Of course we have to be treated like idiots by the political parties. The reasons are obvious. Some are:

1. The difference in perceptions by politicians and the people. All most politicians want is power, whereas the basic expectation of all politicians by the people is that they be perfect, but like all people they expect a bit more than the basic.

2. In addition, all spouses, friends, children and other current and former associates of politicians are also expected to be perfect.

3. The only policy platform that would be really acceptable by the people would be:
(a) treble government spending;
(b) eliminate all taxation, with any deficiency in government finances being made up from the sale of politicians' assets;
(c) balance the budget;
(d) pay off any inherited government debt;
(e) double all salaries;
(f) halve working hours.

4. The manifest impossibliity of implementing what the people want means that politicians have to humbug us as much as is required to secure their election.

5. It is compulsory to vote, so they won't be embarassed by a low turnout.

I cannot see this changing in any way as the forces behind it are so strong.

It is a depressing indictment of the electorate that a fear based federal campaign is likely from all sides of politics. Politicians are constantly searching for a means or topic of engagement with "ordinary" people, but seem to get confused. We are confronted with some juicy issues - climate change; population expansion; economic participation and wealth sharing imbalance; culture and ideology clashes; managing health and education with tomorrow in mind rather than today; how to turn Defence into Co-operation .......... but what do we get ?? Politicians are lazy enough to form groups they call parties ..... and sign up to inoperable agendas generated by the franchisors. So, no-one actually owns anything but the shared vision of winning (at all costs). We are cynical, because that is a natural enough response to what we have in front of us. And to get us to pay attention at all, politicians have to be outrageous which makes them look tricky, ugly and fearsome. But the major issues cannot produce easily discernible differentiating policies - because there is so often only one main common-sense solution to articulate, and only the wrapping paper provides the opportunity to show Red or Blue (or pink ......)as if one offering is different from another. But Fear evokes the fright or flight response, and gives something like an adrenalin rush, even at the end of a long day. What MUST stop is the almost universal failure of governments to deliver once they are elected .....

Am I living in a different country or what?
Isn't the unemployment rate among kids around 18%?

Probably because they couldn't get into a TAFE course?

The Libs have always historically done well on fear campaigns. Why stop now? Maybe labor can learn from them; all politics might as well be in the gutter.

My 89 YO MIL is terrified that terrorists will bomb her.
If I could jam her "Shock Jock" radio station I would.

It seems for some the act of openness in saying you are a member of one party or the other is a sin?
And for others being part of the majority and voting for one of the main party's is a form of madness?
Could it just be being part of a minority is no proof of sainthood?
It is time for a change of government, it would take a miracle for this dysfunctional mob to be elected again.
If the majority think as I do it will happen if not? we live in a democracy.

Thought I might mention the campaign of fear being waged by the Greens.

Fear of climate change(previously global warming until the last few years when temperatures averaged lower than before) promoted by the zealots who promulgate the one sided argument of Gorites. In the seventies we were harangued about the coming Ice Age, that didn't happen so now it is the opposite. Ice on Mars is depleting due to the activity of the sun but no matter, the Bachelor of Arts lefties continue to scream the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

After 40 years of bleating about the destruction of mankind they are able to achieve just over 8% percent of the vote.

Fear is considered a marketable strategy for all sides of politics.

Goinalong/Patrick, from my little corner of Australia I can't see that Workchoices or Malcolm Turnbull's environmental vision will produce a good future for the tertiary students in my family.

I want ot repeat Belly and Steve Madden's comments about the unemployment rate. The Australian Bureau of Statistics also publishes an underemployment rate which hovers around 15%. see http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/6265.0Main%20Features2Sep%202006?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=6265.0&issue=Sep%202006&num=&view=

I see that Workchoices will lead to low pay and casualised work encouraging them to work overseas as other Victorian graduates in the twenties are forced to. Under the Liberals we will pump money into coal and nuclear industry while starving innovative sustainable energy and forcing more bright young graduates overseas.

Suggest you continue lotus eating in the twilight zone but if you showed an interest in your neighbours you would find that as the coal mines and BHP closed the older residents have found their employment is casualised and insecure forcing them to depend on the public health system. You will also find that after 5 or so years of lean living they have retrained for jobs that were threatened by Peter Debnam's promise to slash 20,000 state public service jobs.

re JamesH, Monday, 2 April 2007 9:13:24 AM agree totally on "It is not possible to compare the current rate of employment between today and 30 years ago, because the government has changed the way that unemployment is measured." Also how great is our economy when we have the greatest foreign trade deficit ever, and personal debt in
Australia is massive.

one reason unemployment may be low is because of the aging population retiring and opening up a big hole in the labour market.
Also the failure of government and Business to train people.

At the moment it is a workers labour market, unlike 15 to 20years ago when 200people would apply for every job. When the wheel turns and it finally becomes an employers market again, maybe by importing lots of overseas labour or the changing of the population demographics then these IR laws will be ruthlessly applied. Thats when the full force of these new laws will really hit home.

John Howards not finished yet either, he has more IRlaws planned if he gets in again as one of his ministers inadvertantly blabbed and was immediately silenced by the party.

I know this may sound like a conspiracy theory. But I wonder?

Who really runs the country?

For example all politicans including Howard and Rudd will say that they represent the people of Australia. My problem is, do they represent all of us, or only a small exclusive segment of society.

In today's SMH there is an article which shows that the squeeze applied by the federal government onto the public hospital system is forcing Australians into the private health care sector. In the last 20 years public hospital beds numbers have fallen by 29%.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/federal-squeeze-forces-a-shift-to-private-beds/2007/04/01/1175366081077.html

The government has laws which apply one way, when the government is concerned and another direction when it involves one of us ordinary voters, who do not make party contributions.

There is a big difference between deliberately instilling fear and informing people of the consequences of particular policies. Let’s be sensible.

“We must all fear the indifference of a good man.” But how does the “good man” know he is being neglectful?

And if you don’t believe me you’re all gonna die at the hands of a shock jock keyed up on cocaine while your best friend steals your boots and raids your fridge.

As the old saying goes: “Always look on the dark side of life.” Dut dee dut dee da.

Fear and lies if we understand only some fall for them and vote as a result of them we can move on.
Both are used by politicians who themselves are afraid you only have to look at the insult to our intelligence in the anti Rudd storm of lies.
It should be clear to most of us it back fired and gave Rudd a boost in the polls.
It looks clear that the conservatives have not yet taken the time to consider policy's like workchoices that drive votes away.
I advise them to take a breath and consider if its too late to take better policy's to the impending election.

Belly you are talking about better policy's

I havnt seen any and i would guess that the people will not until after labors conferance when policy will be decided.

Maybe may we will see what labor is going to do otherwise it is just hype and cr#p that you are peddling.

If you have policy's show them

Unlike Labor The Australian Peoples Party has policy's and also a platform statement as I call it.

Labor nothing just talk/spin nothing more.

www.tapp.org.au