anyone saw the liberal "Rudd's Record" ad?

[asterio]

It kept appearing on youtube, so often to a point that made me rage...

Can't believe a party can be dumb enough to waste tons of tax payers money, just for advertising how bad the other party is = =
browse through their channel suggested that they did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the community, instead, they spend hours and hours of man power making and advertising how bad labor party is...

please feel free to disagree and share your opinions on this matter

[alondouek]

I don't think that there's anything unusual about what the Libs are doing here; it's a ubiquitous political tactic known as negative campaigning engaged by almost every political party I can think of - both those in power and those in opposition.

Both Labor and the Coalition do this, so it's not really justified to accuse one party over another of 'wasting taxpayers' money' since it's a common campaigning tactic and is entirely expected in the lead-up to an election.

Expect many, many more political ads everywhere you look in the coming months

[vox nihili]

I particularly love the Labor party's current form of negative campaigning. That is, to attack the coalition and particularly Tony Abbott for being too negative...

[MonsieurHulot]

Both Labor and the Coalition do this, so it's not really justified to accuse one party over another of 'wasting taxpayers' money' since it's a common campaigning tactic and is entirely expected in the lead-up to an election.

Just because it's widely employed and to be expected doesn't mean it's not a waste.
At a personal level, I find positive ads much more effective, so negative ones are a waste of money on me.

[alondouek]

Just because it's widely employed and to be expected doesn't mean it's not a waste.
At a personal level, I find positive ads much more effective, so negative ones are a waste of money on me.

I personally agree with you about the efficacy of negative campaigning, but it's done for a couple of main reasons (in my humble analysis):

1. It delegitimises the opposition while achieving a form of self-promotion (i.e. it 'kills two birds with one stone')

2. It appeals to many, many people who vote for a party on an issue-by-issue basis, or those who are more affected by appeals to emotion (where negative campaigning is far more effective than the positive counterpart).

So although it may be annoying and creates a degree of cynicism amongst some members of the voting population, the overall effect (assuming it doesn't backfire - check the wiki link above for some examples) is much greater. Certainly not a waste in many respects.

[vox nihili]

I personally agree with you about the efficacy of negative campaigning, but it's done for a couple of main reasons (in my humble analysis):

1. It delegitimises the opposition while achieving a form of self-promotion (i.e. it 'kills two birds with one stone')

2. It appeals to many, many people who vote for a party on an issue-by-issue basis, or those who are more affected by appeals to emotion (where negative campaigning is far more effective than the positive counterpart).

So although it may be annoying and creates a degree of cynicism amongst some members of the voting population, the overall effect (assuming it doesn't backfire - check the wiki link above for some examples) is much greater. Certainly not a waste in many respects.

I think the way that people see it as a waste though is in the effect of it, and that is to detract from issues of policy and to try to focus politics on personality. And there's undeniably been a lot of focus on personality from both sides. Kevin Rudd doesn't want to stop the coalition forming government, rather, he wants to stop Tony Abbott becoming Prime Minister. The coalition does the same. Actually praising a number of the Labor team because they've attacked Rudd. It just takes away from a sensible decision. That being said though, there really is no place on this planet where the majority actually really, deeply considers their vote.

[asterio]

I don't think that there's anything unusual about what the Libs are doing here; it's a ubiquitous political tactic known as negative campaigning engaged by almost every political party I can think of - both those in power and those in opposition.

Both Labor and the Coalition do this, so it's not really justified to accuse one party over another of 'wasting taxpayers' money' since it's a common campaigning tactic and is entirely expected in the lead-up to an election.

Expect many, many more political ads everywhere you look in the coming months

I agree with most of what you are saying here.
But I have to add that, it's not "killing two birds with one stone".
It's actually a "suicide bomb" approach.

Because the negative things that labor have done, even though liberal pointed them out, but liberal haven't done any better.

After watching this ad, I simply felt hopeless, since none of them are any good.

[Professor Polonsky]

There's nothing wrong with negative campaigns, as long as they are directed at their policies and public records rather than their personality or personal lives.

Regarding Labor vs Liberal, I'll just say that I don't understand anyone who has any difficulties with this choice.

[vox nihili]

There's nothing wrong with negative campaigns, as long as they are directed at their policies and public records rather than their personality or personal lives.

Regarding Labor vs Liberal, I'll just say that I don't understand anyone who has any difficulties with this choice.

So often this isn't the case though. There is such a personality cult in politics at the moment. What little policy debate goes on has been boiled down into three word slogans and ridiculously misleading statistics.

You're quite right there! With little more than a skerrick of intelligence in the LNP, it's not a hard choice.

[alondouek]

You're quite right there! With little more than a skerrick of intelligence in the LNP, it's not a hard choice.

If we're going to vote based on intelligence, we'd need to fire the vast majority of politicians.

[Professor Polonsky]

So often this isn't the case though. There is such a personality cult in politics at the moment. What little policy debate goes on has been boiled down into three word slogans and ridiculously misleading statistics.

Well, that has more to do with the levels of civic involvement in this country being horrendous rather than negative politics.

You're quite right there! With little more than a skerrick of intelligence in the LNP, it's not a hard choice.

I assume you're expecting me to defend the LNP right now... in which case I'd just say ha ha ha....

If we're going to vote based on intelligence, we'd need to fire the vast majority of politicians.

Most politicians (on both sides) are very intelligent individuals.

[vox nihili]

Well, that has more to do with the levels of civic involvement in this country being horrendous rather than negative politics.

Which is both a good thing and a bad thing really. The fact that the public, in general, are so politically ignorant can be good. I think it's the mark of a good society. Societies that are constantly debating politics and really watch what their governments are doing probably have good reason to do so. By and large though, we let them do their thing, whilst we do ours. A good thing, but massively frustrating at the same time.

I assume you're expecting me to defend the LNP right now... in which case I'd just say ha ha ha....

I'd be very glad if you didn't to be honest.

[Professor Polonsky]

Which is both a good thing and a bad thing really. The fact that the public, in general, are so politically ignorant can be good. I think it's the mark of a good society. Societies that are constantly debating politics and really watch what their governments are doing probably have good reason to do so. By and large though, we let them do their thing, whilst we do ours. A good thing, but massively frustrating at the same time.

While I'd disagree with the fundamental idea (popular involvement in politics is inherently important, I would say), but to suggest that we don't have a reason to be actively involved in politics is... wow. Society has regressed so much since the 1970s, while people were watching idly and doing nothing. That's exactly the issue - the average person is not hungry, they're content. But they shouldn't be.

I'd be very glad if you didn't to be honest.

wow, you really still haven't got me pegged down. maybe now?

[vox nihili]

While I'd disagree with the fundamental idea (popular involvement in politics is inherently important, I would say), but to suggest that we don't have a reason to be actively involved in politics is... wow. Society has regressed so much since the 1970s, while people were watching idly and doing nothing. That's exactly the issue - the average person is not hungry, they're content. But they shouldn't be.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't. Not at all. What I was trying to explain was the connection between a nation's involvement in politics and how well that nation is doing. I'm not at all suggesting that we shouldn't be getting involved, I'm just saying that the reason the majority of people show an indifference to the politics of the nation is because by and large we are a very stable and happy nation. That's not to say there aren't improvements to be made, and that it wouldn't be nice to have people more involved. Sure, things would be going much better if people were involved. But the populace is going to be more inclined to be involved if there is drama, if it's interesting, if there are a extremely pressing issues that need to be addressed. It's both good and bad that people in Australia aren't politically involved. Retrospectively, it's good because a lack of general interest means that it's probably not a very interesting thing...and the most boring countries are the best countries in terms of politics (means not much is happening, generally a good thing!), but looking to the future, it isn't a good thing because it means that the changes we do need to make aren't generating a public interest and will thus be effected much more slowly.

It's somewhat similar to vaccination really. Vaccination rates are waning in Australia, because we're healthier than ever and infectious disease has been on the down for decades. That said, it's also troubling for what it spells out for the future. It's the same thing. Lack of involvement suggests that things are pretty good at the moment, but isn't particularly good for our future prospects.

I hope that clears it up a bit!

wow, you really still haven't got me pegged down. maybe now?

I understood the inference, don't worry. My reply to your previous comment probably read wrong. I'd have rather you not defended them because you were not a supporter, not because you were a supporter choosing not to get in an argument. It wrongly implied the former!

[Professor Polonsky]

While we're a very happy nation, we seem to facilitate so much moaning about nothing I mean, there are legitimately people out there who think our economy is doing badly, or that our sovereign debt is an issue...