https://social.chinwag.org/@guardian_bot/114416242235960150 A pretty reliable heuristic is to conclude that the truth is the opposite of anything spouted by these arseholic incompetents.

#AusPol #Greens #VoteGreens #ProgIndies #WeAreTotallyFscked #WeAreSelfishCruelBastards #Misanthropy #FsckOffDutton! #ShitParty1 #ShitParty2 #ComeOnTanya! #WhyIsLabor #NatsAreNuts #NoNukes #racism #FuckRacists #OzElection2025 #IncludeAdam

Earnest chat on RN Brekkie early this morn twixt Sally & Melissa on Sat's election, with them entirely discussing potato/Liebs vs elbow/Labs as if that's the whole story. It's just endless bullshit propagation of the enduring myth of 2PP, utterly... wilfully... ignoring that these loser parties now command <60% of the electorate support. If i weren't such a pacifist i might have begun violently chucking cushions. 🤭

#AusPol #Greens #VoteGreens #ProgIndies #WeAreTotallyFscked #WeAreSelfishCruelBastards #Misanthropy #FsckOffDutton! #ShitParty1 #ShitParty2 #ComeOnTanya! #WhyIsLabor #NatsAreNuts #NoNukes #racism #FuckRacists #OzElection2025 #IncludeAdam

I utterly deplore that the creep-peeps wot go on n on n on about Laura Norder, in election run-ups, never ever ever bother to mention or acknowledge upstream causal matters. For these nasty arseholes offenders just wake up & decide to do crime, without any factors explaining it. Ergo their pathological fetish to simply incarcerate greater & greater numbers, but do nothing whatsoever about the structural causal factors, plainly exposes their cynicism &/or idiocy. Fuck them sideways.

#AusPol #Greens #VoteGreens #ProgIndies #WeAreTotallyFscked #WeAreSelfishCruelBastards #Misanthropy #FsckOffDutton! #ShitParty1 #ShitParty2 #ComeOnTanya! #WhyIsLabor #NatsAreNuts #NoNukes #racism #FuckRacists #OzElection2025 #IncludeAdam

ABC Speers talking to camera in solid 2PP mode... apparently nobody else exists. Numpty.

#AusPol #Greens #VoteGreens #ProgIndies #WeAreTotallyFscked #WeAreSelfishCruelBastards #Misanthropy #FsckOffDutton! #ShitParty1 #ShitParty2 #ComeOnTanya! #WhyIsLabor #NatsAreNuts #NoNukes #racism #FuckRacists #OzElection2025 #IncludeAdam

The original article includes many explanatory pics & links, but i am far too lazy to also copy them here then need to AltText them, so if you can access the original article, i recommend it

https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/04/28/spam-texts-election-clive-palmer-trumpet-of-patriots-monique-ryan-privacy-act-crikey-for-pm/

QUOTE BEGINS

On Saturday, for the second time that week, Crikey for PM’s campaign phone texted Kooyong independent Monique Ryan the following: [pic]

Having not replied the first time, Ryan texted us “no spam”. Which was fair enough. We texted the same message again the next day.

“NO SPAM,” she replied, firmer.

We didn’t reply, though we could have, explaining that at least we’d offered people the option (albeit a fake one) of opting out.

Unlike the unsolicited texts her campaign had been sending out: [pic]

You’ll be glad to know we weren’t just picking on Ryan. We sent the same incessant nonsense to:

• representatives of the Labor Party campaign, whose Queensland branch in 2016 sent out unsolicited mass texts from “Medicare”, claiming fraudulently that then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull had plans to privatise the agency. A spokesperson later claimed “Medicare” was supposed to indicate the subject of the text, rather than who sent it. The message, mysteriously, also didn’t include an authorisation, usually required of any political messaging;
• The Liberal Party, which, on election day in 2022, broke its own blanket secrecy regarding “on-water matters” to send masses of unsolicited texts to voters in marginal seats about the arrival of a boat of asylum seekers, linking the event with the possibility of a Labor victory;
• Clive Palmer and Harry Fong, who authorised the spam texts for the latest service to Palmer’s apparent kink for immolating money, Trumpet of Patriots. Palmer is one of the most prolific spammers in Australian political history — more than 5 and a half million Australians received unsolicited texts and robocalls from Palmer in the lead up to 2019. He received thousands of complaints. Millions more heard from him and the deeply unpopular populist Craig Kelly at the height of COVID. And again in 2022. And, sans Kelly, again in 2025.

And it’s not just texts. This election campaign, Crikey readers have told us about unsolicited emails from the Australian Christian Lobby, and particularly unwanted calls from Climate 200 on Anzac Day.

All of the bodies that people report this to — whether it’s the communications watchdog, the electoral commission, or even phone companies themselves — are essentially powerless.

Imagine the disappointment: you’re out, the sugar of dodgy pre-mix cocktail fizzing away in your veins, the lights of the street ablaze with possibility. Your phone hums in your pocket, but you find it’s not that person you were definitely vibing with earlier, but someone telling you who to vote in as mayor. This was the sobering reality faced by 75,000 nightclubbers in the Gold Coast, the night before the 2004 local council elections.

Various local nightclub operators had gotten together $16,000 for this pioneering use of spam texts as a campaign technique. Everyone hated it. The candidate the nightclubs were backing won. Twenty years later, we still don’t know if the win was helped or hindered by the texts.

Every election, literally millions of voters are forced to ask a handful of questions: “How the fuck did these people get my phone number?”, “Why can’t I opt out?”, “Why do they think this intrusion will work?” and, most of all, “How the hell is this legal?”

To answer the last question first, it’s legal because political parties regulate what political parties can do during an election. The Spam Act 2003 prohibits the sending of advertising or promotional texts unless the sender has your permission, provides their contact details and gives you a way to block any further texts.

Except for political parties, which exempted themselves from the act.

As for your phone number or email address, there are a variety of ways a party or individual might have obtained them.

You may have contacted your local member years ago about an issue you care about, or filled out an online petition for the party that required those details. They may have software that generates phone numbers at random. They may have straight up tricked you, sending you a “postal vote application” that implies it’s an apolitical clerical procedure but which asks for your contact details, which are then sent to party headquarters, not the Australian Electoral Commission. They may have scraped it from your social media activity, or bought it from companies that have done the same. They also can access to whatever is recorded on the Australian Electoral Commission electoral roll.

But while you can be certain that every political party has a file on you collecting as much info as they can, you can’t know what they have or how they got it. Why? Because political parties have also exempted themselves from the Privacy Act.

So does spamming, one of the most openly loathed political tactics, actually work?

Toby Ralph, a marketer and political strategist who worked on all of former prime minister John Howard’s campaigns, told Crikey (after a throat-clearing pun about “Dutton dressed up as spam”) that achieving “the right balance between persuading and pissing off punters” was still “guesswork, and people are still learning what works and what doesn’t”.

“You try to waggle the rheostat to make information penetration greater than annoyance and voter turnoff,” he said.

But there is only one lesson Ralph is sure of when it comes to spam: “It’s pretty clear that when Clive Palmer-style carpet bombing happens, it does more harm than good. His results make that unequivocal.”

QUOTE ENDS

#AusPol #ClimateCrisis #WomensRights #ShitParty1 #ShitParty2 #FsckOffDutton #WhyIsLabor #NoNukes #VoteGreens #ProgIndies #OzElection2025 #IncludeAdam

https://michaelwest.com.au/the-maga-threat-is-australias-democracy-safe-from-trump-style-assaults/

Note; for anyone who actually can access it, i commend the article itself, as it has many links & graphs for extra clarity

QUOTE BEGINS

Peter Dutton likes to appear strong, DOGE-style, Jacinta Price vows to ‘make Australia great again’, Clive Palmer spends millions on his ‘Trumpet of Patriots’ campaign. Is our democracy safe, Amanda Lotz asks?

Democracies must constantly work to maintain their health, so yes, all of what is occurring globally can also happen here. But there are four fundamental differences between Australian and US media use and political structure that serve Australia well:

• The US does not have a well-resourced and established public broadcaster.
• There is much more fragmentation of US media because of the high adoption of cable.
• Voting in the US is not compulsory.
• US voting districts are still being organised — in other words, gerrymandered — in ways that provide partisan advantage.

The US funds its public broadcasters at an extraordinarily low level, and they instead rely heavily on private donations.

Perhaps as a result, US public broadcasting is not as widely used and doesn’t have the widespread trust enjoyed by the ABC and SBS. Having a widely shared and trusted news source helped Australia weather the COVID-19 pandemic while the US devolved into small-minded debates over the ‘right’ to not wear masks.

Distrust has been weaponised by US commercial media to create significant differences in the news sources trusted, generally splitting between Republicans and Democrats. As a result, there are fundamentally different understandings of reality across party lines in ways that impair democratic function.

The strong trust and regard for Australia’s public service media is not guaranteed. Both the ABC and SBS arguably need expanded expectations and funding, because the collapse of commercial broadcasters and newspaper businesses has diminished the role of these other institutions in Australian life.

Percentage of Australians who trust or distrust the news produced by different news brands. [see graph in article]

The scale of the US adoption of cable, which was in half of homes by the late 1980s and paid for by nearly 90% of homes in the early 2000s, has shaped US media much more than in Australia. We lacked access to cable until the late 1990s, and only 30% ever paid for the service.

As a result, the US experienced a more fragmented media sphere much earlier.

In particular, it allowed a hyper-partisan opinion channel — Fox News, which operates similarly to Sky News Australia — to have a major role setting the conversation about elections and determining what ‘issues’ remain in the public eye.

Media researchers who have studied propaganda since World War II say that the power of media is

The danger of partisan talk channels isn’t simply in misinformation, but in overwhelming audiences in coverage of relatively unimportant things while failing to offer deeply contextualised information about truly consequential issues. For example, Fox News has stoked US fears of rising crime levels despite evidence that crime remains low relative to historic norms. It also tied that crime to migration.

Viewers who hear that story repeatedly come to believe crime is an important issue and migrants the source, despite the lack of evidence.

As many commercial news producers will say, “If it bleeds, it leads”, because commercial news outlets’ primary aim is to attract attention to sell to advertisers, not inform or benefit society. And politicians making outlandish claims, even if false, attract the attention that commercial news seeks.

In addition to Fox News, many local US broadcast stations are now owned by companies reproducing its partisan strategy.

One of these companies, Newsmax, just bought seven television stations in Australia, and some Australians can access Sky News as a free-to-air service.

Australians would benefit from the broadcast regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, enforcing policy and protecting them from any challenge to democracy.

In 2021, YouTube took action against Sky News for spreading misinformation about COVID, while the authority failed to act.

A lot of attention has focused on social media messaging in recent elections, but the ability of television outlets such as Fox News that still reach millions to start conversations that are amplified through social media are an important part of social media’s influence.

Reasserting long-held standards for Australia’s broadcast license holders that have gone under-enforced in recent decades is an easy step to diminish the amplification.

Two key differences in the US and Australian political systems are Australia’s use of compulsory voting and the ability in the US to organise voting districts in ways that provide partisan advantage.

Only about half of eligible voters cast ballots in recent US presidential elections, which have been incredibly close. The US system consequently plays on issues that will motivate more to vote, often stoking unfounded fears or creating panics.

The practice of gerrymandering, illustrated well by this article, has also eroded the sense of free and fair elections, as those in power have redrawn voting districts to ensure they remain in office.

Australians should regard any effort to eliminate compulsory voting as most concerning and prevent policy changes that alter how electorates are established. Often, the first threats seem small, and those in power often set rules that advantage them.

Many have pointed to parallels in messaging strategies in US and Australian politics and identified the use of US consultants in Australia.

In Australia, non-commercial news sources have debunked efforts to create panic around issues that drive emotions. Compulsory voting ensures vote totals reflect the population, not a segment of the population that has been especially motivated to vote.

Changes in the US in recent years shouldn’t be regarded as by chance, but part of a long strategic effort to compromise its democratic institutions with significant focus on creating distrust of media institutions.

• Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.
• Amanda D. Lotz is a leader of the Transforming Media Industries and Cultures research program in the Digital Media Research Centre at Queensland University of Technology. She is the author, co-author or editor of 14 books.

QUOTE ENDS

#AusPol #ClimateCrisis #WomensRights #ShitParty1 #ShitParty2 #FsckOffDutton #WhyIsLabor #NoNukes #VoteGreens #ProgIndies #OzElection2025 #IncludeAdam

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/what-fuelled-dutton-s-rise-is-now-derailing-his-bid-to-be-pm-20250427-p5luj3.html

QUOTE BEGINS

How did the Coalition enter this campaign so poorly prepared? The second-most remarkable thing about this election is how far in advance we all knew what Labor had planned. We knew the timing – give or take a month – because Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he wanted to serve a full term. We knew Labor’s slogan because it was revealed last year. Labor telegraphed that its major announcements would be completed well before the campaign – and, except for some small tax cuts, they were.

Most importantly, Labor’s argument for itself has barely shifted in three years. We had a pretty good sense even from Albanese’s time as opposition leader, when he declared voters had “conflict fatigue”. Albanese set the tone in his first year: deliberate and unostentatious, avoiding fights, arguably unambitious. Workmanlike.

The single most remarkable thing about this election, then, is how little the Coalition’s campaign seems to have been framed against a Labor campaign we knew was coming. Successful campaigns are built around contrasts. The best possible campaign will contrast your most obvious strengths with your opponent’s most obvious weaknesses. John Howard’s accusation that Kim Beazley lacked “ticker” – to contrast with his own stubborn courage – was perfect.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s campaign has been the opposite of this. Instead of highlighting Labor’s flaws, it feels as though the Coalition has done all it can to underline Albanese’s modest strengths.

Think of it this way. Imagine your opponent has a slow, steady, gradualist approach, one that hasn’t overly impressed. How to make it seem like an appealing option? You’d pepper your campaign with confusion and backflips. Suddenly, tedious predictability seems quite good.

Or what if your opponent’s modest pitch was built around basic competence – how could you make that sing? You’d show voters what it looks like when a leader can’t nail down numbers or hold a line.

And what if your opponent’s campaign offering was moderate in size, something not remotely bold but utterly plausible. How to make that seem like a good offer? Perhaps you’d propose something that tests the bounds of plausibility, like, say, building functioning nuclear plants in 12 years.

In other words, do exactly what Dutton has done.

Of course, Dutton has also been unlucky. Donald Trump intervened. But the possibility that Trump would help Albanese was always there – I wrote about it last November. And inflation was always going to level off.

If Dutton loses badly – and don’t forget, victory is still possible – an almighty blame game will begin. His critics should not conveniently forget the structural barriers to success. It was always going to be tough to unseat a first-term government. The teals made it harder still. That said, the list of campaign mistakes is truly impressive. Indonesia, work from home, fringe benefits tax, referendums, several public service shifts, the reluctance to discuss nuclear, the lack of detail in defence policy, Kirribilli. I am including only those in which Dutton was directly involved.

Voters may be surprised by all this carelessness. Dutton’s demeanour, combined with the bearing of the policeman he once was, projects a sense of discipline. And yet, if you examine the shape of Dutton’s career, it has arguably always been leading here.

In his Quarterly Essay on Dutton, Bad Cop, writer Lech Blaine records Dutton’s 2019 attack on his opponent in the seat of Dickson, Ali France. Dutton said she was using her disability as an excuse not to live in her electorate – before apologising in a tweet. “It was trademark Dutton. Generate outrage, then kind of say sorry, without outlining what he was sorry about.”

Ignore the question of sincerity. The habit to note is Dutton’s willingness to say something drastic, hitting the general theme he wants to hit, in the belief he can sort out any issues afterwards. We’ve seen this repeatedly in recent weeks. Ever-confident of his theme (public service, the prime minister’s weakness on national security), he goes a little further than he should (women job-sharing, or verballing the Indonesian president), believing problems can be fixed later – with more detail, or a backflip, or an apology. Done occasionally, this can work. But it has happened again and again, in the full glare of a campaign.

This looseness in Dutton’s approach has often been missed. Sometimes that is because, when these problems crop up, most attention understandably goes to his exploitation of the politics of race. It is well known that Dutton criticised Malcolm Fraser for letting in Lebanese refugees. What is usually overlooked is that conservative commentator Andrew Bolt had brought the subject up, more or less giving Dutton the words that he then repeated back. The words themselves were a problem. But the fact Dutton was willing to have those words put in his mouth was a problem too.

This tells us something about Dutton – but it also tells us something about the Coalition of recent years. As Blaine tells me, Dutton’s habits, now doing him damage, are the same habits that allowed him to rise in his party. It was this very looseness, Blaine says – Dutton’s willingness to make incendiary comments – that nabbed him prime conservative media spots; taking those spots then reinforced the habit. His comments may be less incendiary now, but the looseness remains. If Dutton fails on Saturday, it will be a failure that has much to say about the party he leads, what it values, who it promotes and why.

But again: Dutton may do better than now expected. If so, given his awful campaign, Labor will be the party reassessing its approach, not just to campaigning but to governing. And it should be said that even if Dutton fails, it is still possible that his most significant strategic decision – to go after outer suburban seats rather than pursue the teal seats – turns out to be the Coalition’s best long-term hope.

Saturday may show signs it could work in future, even if it doesn’t work this time. If Dutton wants to improve his chances of still being leader when it does, he should make sure the final week of his campaign is very, very different from the four that preceded it.

QUOTE ENDS

#AusPol #ClimateCrisis #WomensRights #ShitParty1 #ShitParty2 #FsckOffDutton #WhyIsLabor #NoNukes #VoteGreens #ProgIndies #OzElection2025 #IncludeAdam

I'm still catching up with my timelines, but already have gleaned a sense that a swag of Oz fediversers chose to watch a show last night twixt a potato & a sellout.

OMZ 😮

There just ain't enough money, chocolate, nor coffee available to ever induce me to endure any of those pointless meaningless spectacles. Ugh. Dunno how you peeps could stomach it, much less actually want to 🤷‍♀️🤯

#AusPol #Greens #VoteGreens #ProgIndies #WeAreTotallyFscked #WeAreSelfishCruelBastards #Misanthropy #FsckOffDutton! #ShitParty1 #ShitParty2 #ComeOnTanya! #WhyIsLabor #NatsAreNuts #NoNukes #racism #FuckRacists #OzElection2025 #IncludeAdam

https://social.chinwag.org/@sbs_bot/114411621944457663 Yeah... nah... fuck off.

#AusPol #Greens #VoteGreens #ProgIndies #WeAreTotallyFscked #WeAreSelfishCruelBastards #Misanthropy #FsckOffDutton! #ShitParty1 #ShitParty2 #ComeOnTanya! #WhyIsLabor #NatsAreNuts #NoNukes #racism #FuckRacists #OzElection2025 #IncludeAdam