Today in South Australian politics, member for Finniss Michael Pengilly became embroiled in controversy when he called the Prime Minister a dog in a tweet. This is the second Twitter instigated scandal in recent months, following Tom Kenyon’s night out at the lizard races. Social networking technology is a relatively new phenomena, and the great potential and possibilities of this new medium are yet to be fully understood. Some celebrities, such as Conan O’Brien and indie-songstress Amanda Palmer have utilized social media deftly. It is my argument, however, that politicians would be much better served by ignoring this media outlet, for the following reasons;
1. Followers are not fans
Generally speaking, a public identity will be followed on twitter by people that are either fans of their work, or fans of what they have to say. Justin Bieber, for example, would be followed predominately by pre-pubescent girls, whilst pro fighter Wanderlei “The Axe Murderer” Silva would predominately be followed by men between 18-34 with a penchant for syndicated violence. Politicians, however, are different, because a very high percentage of their followers are likely to be “hostile”. I guarantee that every SA MP with a twitter account is followed by almost the entire SA media contingent, as well as staffers from rival political parties. These people are looking for slip-ups, and they will pounce on them, with haste.
2. You are not Kanye
One of the great draw cards of Twitter is that it can give you an insight into the personality and mental state of a public figure. By letting us into their crazy lives, we feel like we understand them more completely. Kanye West was notable in the early days, with his emotive, obsessive compulsive, narcissistic and controversial tweets. Controversy is not necessarily a bad thing for rock stars. Publicity sells records. Infamy can be as good as fame sometimes. Eccentricity and controversy, however, for politicians is death. So while there is no great harm in John Hill MP letting us know about the trials and tribulations of his vegetable garden, a sister’s birthday, with accompanying lizard racing, caused a fortnight long headache for Tom Kenyon. I guess the point of this section is, it is fine letting the public into your private life if you can guarantee there is nothing in there that they shouldn’t see. Determining where that line lies can be difficult, especially given the capacity to tweet thoughts immediately, 24/7.
3. The middle man is there for a reason
One of the great criticisms of modern politics (and perhaps one of the areas that social media is attempting to address) is that everything is media managed and sterile. The spin doctors and advisers, however, do serve a purpose, especially given the modern decline in merit based pre-selection. On both sides of politics, there are people elected to Parliament that are well over their heads, intellectually speaking. Without middle men and women checking, scripting, coaching and planning their MPs and Ministers, there would be chaos. Twitter basically removes the middle man, giving the public an unencumbered view of the inner workings of an MPs mind. This is not always a good thing.
4. The only way is down.
Social networking can be a wonderful medium for an artist, band, or public figure seeking to build their career. It allows access to a wider audience than would otherwise be possible. I also foresee that it could be a very useful tool for political candidates to gain greater exposure. I question, however, what an elected MP has to gain from use of social networking websites. Sure, they may argue that it allows them to better interact with their electorate, but do they need this added layer? Between an electorate office, mail-outs, street corner meetings, door-knocking and so on, there are a multitude of ways in which a member of the public can raise their concerns with an MP. Unlike international rap stars, MPs are amongst the most accessible people in public life. Most of these alternative methods of contact are private, and can be acted upon in due course, upon advice, without the risk of controversy or balls up.
5. The Dalai Lama’s Twitter is Dalai Lame
When I clicked the follow button on the Dalai Lama’s twitter account, I had a brief giggle at the thought of him pulling his iPhone out of a specially stitched pocket in his robe, ready to tweet. But of course, he doesn’t write his own tweets. This, I predict, will be the eventual path that most politicians take; delegation to PR department. I never read Julia Gillard’s tweets, because it is the same message delivered in every other medium. It isn’t personal, it isn’t providing any insight, it defeats the entire purpose of twitter. Tweeting in this way provides no political benefit. If people have tuned out, they will tune out from this as well.
Some MPs, notably Mike Rann and Kevin Rudd, have made excellent use of Twitter. Both of these men, however, are 24/7, obsessive professional politicians. Whenever they speak, they are on message. They never let anything out into the public sphere which could convey an adverse or unintended political message. This requires an excessive amount of self-discipline, which most MPs are not capable of exercising on any long term basis. It would be my advice to any curious MP to set up an account under a false name, and just play the voyeur. They won’t lose out on any votes that way.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Age of Entitlement
Jay Weatherill, as the new ALP spearhead, has made a very strong start to his leadership of the State Government. An army is only as strong as its weakest point, however. The Liberal party strategists have wisely identified Jay’s close factional ally, Grace Portolesi, as Jay’s Achilles heel. As the scandal grows from a measley $7,000 mole hill into a full blown mountain, Jay is forced to weigh loyalty with political reality. In this article, I will argue that the general attitude towards Parliamentary entitlements is responsible for the current affair.
Members of Parliament are granted various entitlements, including travel and printing allowances. Each member, obviously, has a maximum amount, above which an MP is not able to spend. Using a bastardization of accounting terminology, there are two ways one can approach such an issue; the top down method or the bottom up method. An MP can adopt the bottom up method, where they do their job, spend as they feel is necessary, keeping an eye on how much they have spent to ensure that they are not running out of funds. This is the approach that most members of the community adopt to their house hold budgets.
A top down approach, however, begins by viewing the maximum amount of funds available and assuming that they MUST be spent. I call this the spoilt child approach. Billy got a fire truck, so I WANT my fire truck. But Jonny, you don’t like fire trucks. I don’t care, I am ENTITLED to it. An MP, hypothetically, getting towards the end of the financial year, could view the balance of their printing entitlements and realize they still have funds to print reams and reams of crap to flood the electorate with. Or they could just shrug their shoulders and let the money sit unspent, resolving to be more productive next year. I argue that an MP should use the necessities of their job as the governing principle, rather than the amount they are able to spend. If they adopt this approach, they will never get into trouble.
Grace Portolesi, in her horrendous interview this week with Matt and Dave, appeared to imply that with respect to Parliamentary travel spouse allowance, she adopts the top down approach. (I make no inference that this applies to her attitude to entitlements generally). Certainly, it cannot be argued that it was necessary to take her daughter to India. She said, to the effect, that because other MPs are entitled to the money, why should she miss out? She can’t take her husband, because of his employment, so she must take her daughter away, lest she be deprived of her metaphorical fire truck. It was my impression that her worship of the Parliamentary Entitlements deity was such that it was all out of her control. It has been written, we shall receive such funds each year, and thou shalt spend it, lest ye be ridiculed in the Blue Room for being a sucker. She would not be alone in this approach. When it comes to travel, many MPs squeeze every last drop out of their entitlements. Unfortunately, for her, the following of this commandment has landed her in political purgatory.
It must be said that, as far as ‘travel rorts” go, the amount that Portolesi spent seems piddling. To understand her current predicament, you must listen to her confrontational, remorseless, self-righteous interviews in the media. A simple apology would have sufficed, I am sure, despite the myriad of other controversies that have enflamed her in recent months. But of course, it is clear that she feels she has done nothing wrong. Her inability to see what she has done wrong could be the end of her, and by extension, her patron Jay.
Members of Parliament are granted various entitlements, including travel and printing allowances. Each member, obviously, has a maximum amount, above which an MP is not able to spend. Using a bastardization of accounting terminology, there are two ways one can approach such an issue; the top down method or the bottom up method. An MP can adopt the bottom up method, where they do their job, spend as they feel is necessary, keeping an eye on how much they have spent to ensure that they are not running out of funds. This is the approach that most members of the community adopt to their house hold budgets.
A top down approach, however, begins by viewing the maximum amount of funds available and assuming that they MUST be spent. I call this the spoilt child approach. Billy got a fire truck, so I WANT my fire truck. But Jonny, you don’t like fire trucks. I don’t care, I am ENTITLED to it. An MP, hypothetically, getting towards the end of the financial year, could view the balance of their printing entitlements and realize they still have funds to print reams and reams of crap to flood the electorate with. Or they could just shrug their shoulders and let the money sit unspent, resolving to be more productive next year. I argue that an MP should use the necessities of their job as the governing principle, rather than the amount they are able to spend. If they adopt this approach, they will never get into trouble.
Grace Portolesi, in her horrendous interview this week with Matt and Dave, appeared to imply that with respect to Parliamentary travel spouse allowance, she adopts the top down approach. (I make no inference that this applies to her attitude to entitlements generally). Certainly, it cannot be argued that it was necessary to take her daughter to India. She said, to the effect, that because other MPs are entitled to the money, why should she miss out? She can’t take her husband, because of his employment, so she must take her daughter away, lest she be deprived of her metaphorical fire truck. It was my impression that her worship of the Parliamentary Entitlements deity was such that it was all out of her control. It has been written, we shall receive such funds each year, and thou shalt spend it, lest ye be ridiculed in the Blue Room for being a sucker. She would not be alone in this approach. When it comes to travel, many MPs squeeze every last drop out of their entitlements. Unfortunately, for her, the following of this commandment has landed her in political purgatory.
It must be said that, as far as ‘travel rorts” go, the amount that Portolesi spent seems piddling. To understand her current predicament, you must listen to her confrontational, remorseless, self-righteous interviews in the media. A simple apology would have sufficed, I am sure, despite the myriad of other controversies that have enflamed her in recent months. But of course, it is clear that she feels she has done nothing wrong. Her inability to see what she has done wrong could be the end of her, and by extension, her patron Jay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)