If Tony Abbott wins the election would he "cut, cut, cut" to fill the "$70 billion black hole" needed to cover the cost of his election promises, as Labor repeatedly claims? Would he follow the Europeans in adopting austerity policies, as others claim?
No. Why not? Because the man who'd be his treasurer, Joe Hockey, isn't that stupid and Abbott isn't that committed.
Let me make a fearless prediction: should the Coalition win the election, we'll hear precious little more about the evils of "debt and deficit".
While Labor was in power, Abbott and his colleagues exaggerated the significance of the size of the budget deficit and the level of the public debt because this was the only way to disparage the economic record of a government that had - with much help from the Reserve Bank - done surprisingly well.
But once the Coalition was back in power its need for fear-mongering about debt and deficit would disappear and it would face the same struggle to get the budget back to surplus that Labor faced.
Whenever it was challenged about its slow progress it would blame Labor but, apart from that, it would prefer to talk of other things.
How can I be sure? Mainly because Abbott's been backing off already. He used to say he'd get the budget back to surplus in "year one". Now his promise is merely that "by the end of a Coalition government's first term, the budget will be on track to a believable surplus" and "within a decade" the budget surplus will be 1 per cent of gross domestic product.
Only "on track" after three years? And "within a decade"? That's three elections away.
But also because the Libs have form on this sort of scare campaign. While John Howard and Peter Costello were in opposition in 1996, they drove a "debt truck" around Australia to ensure every "man, woman and child" knew how much they owed as their share of the nation's foreign debt. In government, however, they never mentioned the foreign debt again.
But can they get away with going cold after having made so much fuss? Well, the Republicans in America have been doing it for years. Their attitude is simple: budget deficits aren't a worry when they're being incurred by Ronald Reagan or the George Bushes, but they're a terrible worry when they're being racked up by Democrats like Barack Obama.
My guess is that, for the most part, those who've been most concerned about our supposedly soaring debt are those who'd naturally vote Liberal. They're really saying: "I'd feel a lot more comfortable about the budget if only the Libs were in charge of it."
Well, if Abbott wins, they would be. And that would be a signal to many people to stop worrying and leave everything to that nice Mr Hockey.
Hockey, by the way, has said several times that they wouldn't risk worsening unemployment at a time when the economy is fragile by pursuing policies of austerity - that is, by cutting spending or raising taxes by a lot more than is needed to cover the cost of their promises, in an attempt to reduce the budget deficit faster than would happen automatically as the economy strengthens.
As the Europeans have demonstrated, trying to force the pace while the economy is weak is counterproductive. It pushes the economy back into recession, actually making the deficit worse rather than better. So I don't have any trouble believing Hockey when he says he wouldn't be so foolish as to try it here.
Labor's claim that Abbott's election promises have created a $70 billion black hole he will need to fill with spending cuts is a wild exaggeration. It's been debunked by several fact-checking outfits.
But Kevin Rudd, Penny Wong and Chris Bowen haven't skipped a beat in repeating this false claim.
So don't for a minute imagine all the scare campaigns, dishonesty and dissembling is limited to one side. If you're tempted by such thoughts you've allowed partisanship to cloud your thinking.
The fact remains, however, that the Coalition is delaying until almost the last moment before revealing the full list of spending cuts needed to pay for its promises.
What's it got to hide? Well, maybe it has a few nasties it's hoping won't get too much attention before the poll, but it's just as likely it's worried about making some mistake in its figuring - in this area oppositions are at a huge disadvantage relative to governments - that Labor could use to damage its credibility.
An Abbott government would be looking for budget savings - just as Labor has been for several years - and would probably be more inclined to cut spending than end tax breaks.
Its first budget, in particular, would be a tough one, including various unpleasant measures that weren't contrary to its promises but many people weren't expecting. Its primary purpose would be to replace Labor's pet programs with the Coalition's pet programs.
But Abbott has made so much fuss about restoring our trust in politicians that I don't expect he'd follow Howard in using his first budget to break a lot of "non-core" promises.
He'd end up breaking many promises, of course - because "no surprises, no excuses" is a promise no honest politician would make - but not at first. And, like Howard, he doesn't have the stomach for genuinely smaller government.
