1:53 PM, 19/2/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link
One of the jokers in the pack in the upcoming State election is the role that could be played by Independents in determining the identity of the Government. If the Rann Government were to lose 5 seats (which is perfectly feasible), Independents such as Bob Such, Karlene Maywald (National, I know), Kris Hanna and Geoff Brock will come into play (assuming they all hold their seats). This is of course what happened in 2001. Much has changed, however, and I am betting on a different outcome if history repeats. Before discussing the role that Independents could play in determining the Government, we should examine their chances of re-election. We will start with Karlene Maywald, who is the only “Independent” to be a Government Minister. Not only is she a Minister, but she is the Minister for Water, which is the number one issue facing her electorate. She can try to sell the “I am working for you” message all she wants, the drought ravaged electorate ain’t gonna buy it. Conservative voters will see her as a sell out. The Rann Government’s main water policy, a desalination plant, will be little comfort to voters kicking around in a dust bowl in regional SA. I personally think Karlene will lose to the Liberal party. If she does hang on, and is faced with a hung parliament scenario, I don’t necessarily think that her loyalty to the Rann Government is guaranteed. Geoff Brock is responsible for hammering the first nail in Martin Hamilton-Smith’s coffin. His surprise victory in Frome was a devastating blow to the Liberal party, but I don’t think all hope is lost. Country Independents generally build outback empires, and are virtually impossible to unseat. Mr Brock has only had 18 months to dig his moat and stock his garrison. Coupled with resurgent Liberal party popularity, I think that Frome will go down to the wire. If Brock does hold on, he has a tough decision to make. Support the Liberal Government and therefore become a proxy Liberal, and ensure that he holds his seat in the long term. Or support the ALP, whom he is more ideologically close to, and potentially lose his seat in the 2014 post-Rann holocaust election. One only needs to look at the manner in which ALP members voted on WorkCover legislation to see what wins out when self-interest and ideology collide. Speaking of WorkCover, we move on to Kris Hanna, who was outspoken in his opposition to changes to that legislation. Although I live in an electorate adjacent to Mitchell, I haven’t seen any of his election material. If I were him, though, I would be pushing a “More Labor than Labor” campaign slogan, as Mitchell is traditionally a strong Labor seat and the WorkCover debate alienated many traditional supporters. Hanna would be wise to use this as his central campaign strategy perhaps combined with a few strategic photo shoots with Nick Xenophon. Hanna’s main opposition is Alan Sibbons, another beneficiary of the AMWU’s deal with the Labor Right. What is unfortunate for the AMWU (who ironically enough share Kris Hanna’s views on WorkCover), is that this looks like another example of ‘close, but no cigar’ as it is unlikely that he will win the seat. Hanna, who has ratted twice before, on the ALP then the Greens, should hold, and would relish any opportunity to sink the dagger into his old Labor enemies. Since it seems that Isobel Redmond has the potential to be more left wing on some issues than Rann Government, such as law and order, I would not be surprised to see Hanna forming some sort of coalition with the opposition to form Government. The final Independent to discuss is Bob Such. Good old Suchy - he is my local member, and a tremendously popular one at that. As Amanda Rishworth’s campaign manager in 2006, I witnessed first hand how much time and effort went into trying to unseat Bob. We door knocked on 40 degree days, letterboxed, direct mailed etc. Although Amanda received the biggest two party preferred swing in the State, Suchy still won comfortably. The only way that the ALP could win this seat is to push Such into third spot, and then receive the majority of his preferences. Fisher, however, is notionally a Liberal party seat. Indeed, Bob Such was a former Liberal party Minister, before being stabbed in the back by the party. An important factor in the outcome of any Independent coalition is whether the wounds of this back stabbing have healed. I may be wrong, but I don’t think Isobel Redmond had anything to do with Suchy’s disenchantment with the Liberal party - I think he can be talked into supporting a Redmond Government. If we do get into a situation where there is a hung Parliament, I would put my money
on the Liberal party for several reasons. Firstly, there are the backgrounds of the Independents likely to form any coalition, as discussed it is not in the interests of any of them to support the Labor Party. Secondly, for a hung Parliament situation to arise, there would need to be a relatively large swing against the Government. Liberal party negotiators would paint this as a sign of voter disenchantment, and a mandate for a change in Government. Independents are always wary of making decisions that could jeopardise their seats. If there was a swing against the Government, there would be colossal voter backlash at the next election against all who were responsible for returning them to power. The Rann Government will carry with it 8 years of baggage, the sneering cat calls as Kris Hanna would rise to his feet on Private Members’ Business etc. Suchy might think his raft of Private Members Bills will get better attention under a new Government. Independents could also be wary of making any deals with Rann, as they may not be sure if he will serve an entire term as Premier. Lastly, there is no Randall Ashbourne to broker a deal. Rann and team certainly pulled a rabbit out of the hat in 2002, but the magic is all but gone now, and we are all wise to the sleights of hand behind the illusion.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Playing the man, I mean playing the woman, not the ball
12:14 PM, 11/2/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link
There have been interesting developments in the South Australian 2010 Election campaign. While the 2006 ALP slogan was “Rann gets results”, a positive message spruiking the achievements of the Government over the previous 4 years, it appears that the 2010 slogan will be “Redmond won’t get results.” This is a definite change in tactics, and I question the effectiveness.
I believe one of the major reasons behind the record breaking 2006 State Election for the ALP was the positive message sold to the public, and the relative cleanliness of the campaign. The Opposition Leader was “Mr Nice Guy” Rob Kerin who, being perceptibly non-threatening, caused left spin doctors to conclude that any attack on the poor bugger would be counter-productive. In 2010, the Government obviously feels quite differently.
Two of the three main Rann attack dogs have been let off their leashes, having been given the scent of one of Isobel Redmond’s unfashionable dresses. Rann and Foley have both come out attacking the readiness of the Opposition team to govern, with Foley even going so far as to call Isobel “arrogant”. If the Government truly feels that way about her, surely they should have given this line of attack to someone else in the Cabinet room rather than deeming the Treasurer the proverbial pot addressing the kettle? I assert that this strategy of attacking the Opposition Leader personally, instead of the Opposition as a whole, is fatally flawed.
The Rann Government, it appears, believes it was the Opposition that cast the first stone (as do I, by the way) and that the Liberal party is behind the Michelle Chantelois media machine, amongst other dirty tricks. It is for this reason that the Government feels justified in playing the man, not the ball. Isobel Redmond has been very careful, however, to distance herself from the Chantelois scandal, and has not sought publicly to gain any mileage out of it. Unless the Government can prove that the Liberal party is behind the dirt machine, and that Isobel personally approved of such tactics, the public will form the opinion that the Government initiated the dirty election campaign. This will give the media free reign to examine the skeletons in both parties’ closets, which I do not think is a game the Rann Government should be playing.
There have always been two schools of thought on the negative election strategy. There are those who think that the public are turned off by negative campaigning, and that only positive messages should be sold. On the other hand, there are those who believe that negative campaigns are an essential part of politics. I am of the opinion that it all depends on the resonance of the negative message; it is ok to have negative advertisements as long as they reinforce beliefs that the public already has. One need only look at the 2004 Federal Election campaign for evidence of this – the Liberal party’s “Labor can’t be trusted with interest rates” was incredibly effective, and heightened further when combined with the loose cannon leadership of Mark Latham. The same campaign did not work against a “safe pair of hands” like Kevin Rudd.
The problem with attacking Isobel Redmond’s character is that the public doesn’t really have any strongly formed opinions of her yet. The Government should, by all means, pursue the line of “she is an unknown quantity”, but should refrain from calling her arrogant especially when that is a trait they themselves have been accused of having. Further to this, they should not be seen to send out their two biggest bullies to push around a female candidate especially when there is already public perception of their chauvinism. I believe that Isobel’s success has taken the Government by surprise, and that the personal campaign against her is a slap-dash, cobbled together strategy with limited chances of success.
A more appropriate strategy for the Government would be to attack the policies, costings and experience of the Opposition. Indeed, there are traces of these arguments within the comments of Foley and Conlon. The problem is, the media will always run with the juicy anti-Redmond sentiment first - it is more appealing to the readership. Many within the ALP believe that the media is biased towards the Opposition, yet seem to go out of their way to provide it with ammunition.
Election campaigns require almost military-style discipline. It has been said that Kevin Rudd, during the Kevin 07 campaign, was as disciplined as a Purple Hearted Marine. Discipline, however, has always been a problem for Foley and Conlon, especially when they sense the opportunity to poke their forked tongues into a gaping Liberal wound. If the campaign continues along the current track, and evidence of Liberal involvement in dirty tricks remains undiscovered, the results Rann will get in 2010 will be vastly different to those celebrated four years previously.
There have been interesting developments in the South Australian 2010 Election campaign. While the 2006 ALP slogan was “Rann gets results”, a positive message spruiking the achievements of the Government over the previous 4 years, it appears that the 2010 slogan will be “Redmond won’t get results.” This is a definite change in tactics, and I question the effectiveness.
I believe one of the major reasons behind the record breaking 2006 State Election for the ALP was the positive message sold to the public, and the relative cleanliness of the campaign. The Opposition Leader was “Mr Nice Guy” Rob Kerin who, being perceptibly non-threatening, caused left spin doctors to conclude that any attack on the poor bugger would be counter-productive. In 2010, the Government obviously feels quite differently.
Two of the three main Rann attack dogs have been let off their leashes, having been given the scent of one of Isobel Redmond’s unfashionable dresses. Rann and Foley have both come out attacking the readiness of the Opposition team to govern, with Foley even going so far as to call Isobel “arrogant”. If the Government truly feels that way about her, surely they should have given this line of attack to someone else in the Cabinet room rather than deeming the Treasurer the proverbial pot addressing the kettle? I assert that this strategy of attacking the Opposition Leader personally, instead of the Opposition as a whole, is fatally flawed.
The Rann Government, it appears, believes it was the Opposition that cast the first stone (as do I, by the way) and that the Liberal party is behind the Michelle Chantelois media machine, amongst other dirty tricks. It is for this reason that the Government feels justified in playing the man, not the ball. Isobel Redmond has been very careful, however, to distance herself from the Chantelois scandal, and has not sought publicly to gain any mileage out of it. Unless the Government can prove that the Liberal party is behind the dirt machine, and that Isobel personally approved of such tactics, the public will form the opinion that the Government initiated the dirty election campaign. This will give the media free reign to examine the skeletons in both parties’ closets, which I do not think is a game the Rann Government should be playing.
There have always been two schools of thought on the negative election strategy. There are those who think that the public are turned off by negative campaigning, and that only positive messages should be sold. On the other hand, there are those who believe that negative campaigns are an essential part of politics. I am of the opinion that it all depends on the resonance of the negative message; it is ok to have negative advertisements as long as they reinforce beliefs that the public already has. One need only look at the 2004 Federal Election campaign for evidence of this – the Liberal party’s “Labor can’t be trusted with interest rates” was incredibly effective, and heightened further when combined with the loose cannon leadership of Mark Latham. The same campaign did not work against a “safe pair of hands” like Kevin Rudd.
The problem with attacking Isobel Redmond’s character is that the public doesn’t really have any strongly formed opinions of her yet. The Government should, by all means, pursue the line of “she is an unknown quantity”, but should refrain from calling her arrogant especially when that is a trait they themselves have been accused of having. Further to this, they should not be seen to send out their two biggest bullies to push around a female candidate especially when there is already public perception of their chauvinism. I believe that Isobel’s success has taken the Government by surprise, and that the personal campaign against her is a slap-dash, cobbled together strategy with limited chances of success.
A more appropriate strategy for the Government would be to attack the policies, costings and experience of the Opposition. Indeed, there are traces of these arguments within the comments of Foley and Conlon. The problem is, the media will always run with the juicy anti-Redmond sentiment first - it is more appealing to the readership. Many within the ALP believe that the media is biased towards the Opposition, yet seem to go out of their way to provide it with ammunition.
Election campaigns require almost military-style discipline. It has been said that Kevin Rudd, during the Kevin 07 campaign, was as disciplined as a Purple Hearted Marine. Discipline, however, has always been a problem for Foley and Conlon, especially when they sense the opportunity to poke their forked tongues into a gaping Liberal wound. If the campaign continues along the current track, and evidence of Liberal involvement in dirty tricks remains undiscovered, the results Rann will get in 2010 will be vastly different to those celebrated four years previously.
Protected Species
8:20 AM, 9/2/2010
Greg Kelton in last Saturday’s Advertiser referred to our State’s Attorney General as a “protected species”, despite Mr Atkinson being the cause of most of the major political scandals which have marred the Rann Government. The political neutral may ask: why is the AG given the same privileged status as the Arakan Forrest Turtle and the Brazilian Merganser? It is a story that goes back many years.
The ‘Labor Unity’ or’Right’ faction is the biggest and most powerful faction in the SA ALP, however its founders will talk fondly of its humble beginnings. From my recollection of this campfire-side tale, it all started with four people: Senator Don Farrell, Michael Atkinson MP, Paul Holloway MLC and Michael O’Brien MP. As a cynic, I don’t worship this sacred meeting in the manner of some within the party, so my details may be a little blurry. O’Brien may not have been there. It may have been at a Chinese Restaurant or an Italian Restaurant, I don’t know. The point is, the faction started small.
Loyalty in politics is prized above all else, (which is why I will never be Guest speaker at a Makin School dinner), so whilst the Beatles had no problem exchanging Pete Best for Ringo Starr before making it big, the Unity Fab Four have exhibited unstinting loyalty during the growth of the faction. It would take a scandal of monumental proportions for the removal of the AG from cabinet, or even from his prized portfolio. Who knows what Mike Rann’s views on this may be? Greg Kelton seemed to suggest that Rann is stretched to his limit - indeed he must be extremely envious of Kevin Rudd and his pronounced flexibility in choosing his own cabinet. If he did have such open slather, then I am sure he would do some things differently.
Michael Atkinson is undeniably a strong parliamentary performer and based on his quiz night prowess is blessed with a near-photographic memory. There certainly is a place within the Cabinet for someone of such abilities. The State ALP, however, contains a raft of gifted legal thinkers; John Rau, Pat Conlon and Jay Weatherill would all give their right arms for a crack at the prized portfolio, and a re-shuffle would surely supply a fresh set of eyes and some new solutions to portfolio issues. However I get the sense that the AG wishes to be known as a career AG - only the public will be able to blast him off his Cabinet Seat. I would suggest that maybe the Transport portfolio would be a good fit for him - he has a love for all things relating to locomotives etc. Whilst the resolute loyalty exhibited by senior right power brokers is perhaps vital for the strength of the faction, it doesn’t necessarily make things easy when it comes to re-invigorating the Government.
Any cabinet reshuffle after the election may be tricky, depending on the number of seats that the ALP loses. Chloe Fox, Leon Bignell, Grace Portolesi, and Tony Piccolo
could all either be Ministers or lose their seats. Lee Oldenwalder and Leesa Vlahos are Ministerial material, but they would need to serve their time, one would think. One of the best speakers and deepest thinkers in the ALP, Bernard Finnigan, would also make an extremely competent Minister, though whether he fits within the Premier’s future plans is debatable. It is difficult to see Paul Holloway MLC continuing beyond the 2014 election, so a new leader of the upper house will need to be selected at some point.
Most of the members residing in safe ALP seats are either already Ministers, or not in the running. It is highly unlikely that Frances Bedford MP, Robyn Geraghty MP, Steph Key MP, Lyn Breuer MP will come into consideration. If the Rann Government is returned, Mike will have to survey the battlefield, send out the triage doctor, and consider who is still fit to fight on. The Upper House, of course, is stationed well away from enemy lines. Bernard Finnigan and Ian Hunter are perhaps the only options for promotion, although Ian Hunter’s outspokenness on gay rights/religious issues may work against him. John Rau may finally be a winner, Steven Bradbury style.
An election victory by the Rann Government will be cause for much celebration within ALP ranks, at least for a week or so. The hangover will be a doozy though, as the 2010-14 term will be dominated by many questions which will be difficult for powerbrokers to answer. The Rann leadership issue, discussed in a previous blog, will be the headliner. Finding a way to rejuvenate a Cabinet within the confines of factional gridlock will potentially be just as important.
Til next time,
Murph
Greg Kelton in last Saturday’s Advertiser referred to our State’s Attorney General as a “protected species”, despite Mr Atkinson being the cause of most of the major political scandals which have marred the Rann Government. The political neutral may ask: why is the AG given the same privileged status as the Arakan Forrest Turtle and the Brazilian Merganser? It is a story that goes back many years.
The ‘Labor Unity’ or’Right’ faction is the biggest and most powerful faction in the SA ALP, however its founders will talk fondly of its humble beginnings. From my recollection of this campfire-side tale, it all started with four people: Senator Don Farrell, Michael Atkinson MP, Paul Holloway MLC and Michael O’Brien MP. As a cynic, I don’t worship this sacred meeting in the manner of some within the party, so my details may be a little blurry. O’Brien may not have been there. It may have been at a Chinese Restaurant or an Italian Restaurant, I don’t know. The point is, the faction started small.
Loyalty in politics is prized above all else, (which is why I will never be Guest speaker at a Makin School dinner), so whilst the Beatles had no problem exchanging Pete Best for Ringo Starr before making it big, the Unity Fab Four have exhibited unstinting loyalty during the growth of the faction. It would take a scandal of monumental proportions for the removal of the AG from cabinet, or even from his prized portfolio. Who knows what Mike Rann’s views on this may be? Greg Kelton seemed to suggest that Rann is stretched to his limit - indeed he must be extremely envious of Kevin Rudd and his pronounced flexibility in choosing his own cabinet. If he did have such open slather, then I am sure he would do some things differently.
Michael Atkinson is undeniably a strong parliamentary performer and based on his quiz night prowess is blessed with a near-photographic memory. There certainly is a place within the Cabinet for someone of such abilities. The State ALP, however, contains a raft of gifted legal thinkers; John Rau, Pat Conlon and Jay Weatherill would all give their right arms for a crack at the prized portfolio, and a re-shuffle would surely supply a fresh set of eyes and some new solutions to portfolio issues. However I get the sense that the AG wishes to be known as a career AG - only the public will be able to blast him off his Cabinet Seat. I would suggest that maybe the Transport portfolio would be a good fit for him - he has a love for all things relating to locomotives etc. Whilst the resolute loyalty exhibited by senior right power brokers is perhaps vital for the strength of the faction, it doesn’t necessarily make things easy when it comes to re-invigorating the Government.
Any cabinet reshuffle after the election may be tricky, depending on the number of seats that the ALP loses. Chloe Fox, Leon Bignell, Grace Portolesi, and Tony Piccolo
could all either be Ministers or lose their seats. Lee Oldenwalder and Leesa Vlahos are Ministerial material, but they would need to serve their time, one would think. One of the best speakers and deepest thinkers in the ALP, Bernard Finnigan, would also make an extremely competent Minister, though whether he fits within the Premier’s future plans is debatable. It is difficult to see Paul Holloway MLC continuing beyond the 2014 election, so a new leader of the upper house will need to be selected at some point.
Most of the members residing in safe ALP seats are either already Ministers, or not in the running. It is highly unlikely that Frances Bedford MP, Robyn Geraghty MP, Steph Key MP, Lyn Breuer MP will come into consideration. If the Rann Government is returned, Mike will have to survey the battlefield, send out the triage doctor, and consider who is still fit to fight on. The Upper House, of course, is stationed well away from enemy lines. Bernard Finnigan and Ian Hunter are perhaps the only options for promotion, although Ian Hunter’s outspokenness on gay rights/religious issues may work against him. John Rau may finally be a winner, Steven Bradbury style.
An election victory by the Rann Government will be cause for much celebration within ALP ranks, at least for a week or so. The hangover will be a doozy though, as the 2010-14 term will be dominated by many questions which will be difficult for powerbrokers to answer. The Rann leadership issue, discussed in a previous blog, will be the headliner. Finding a way to rejuvenate a Cabinet within the confines of factional gridlock will potentially be just as important.
Til next time,
Murph
Who can ya trust?
10:18 AM, 5/2/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link
Trust is probably the most important factor in politics, even outstripping competence and stability/unity. For example, one need only look at the Tom Koutsantonis “speeding fine” incident. In the cold light of day, speeding is hardly a cardinal sin, especially given our State’s confusing and positively wacky road laws. I got my first fine the other day- 58 in a 50 zone. I was sure it was 60. I have been accused of driving like a grand pa, but that is beside the point. Kouts could easily have explained away his extensive record by citing his history as a taxi driver. Taxi drivers drive for a living, so they are obviously on the road more than people who catch the bus to their city desk jobs. None of his speeding offences would be considered “hoon driving”, no Tokyo Drift competitions or playing chicken Grease style. At the end of the day, whilst the record was unfortunate, in itself it is hardly a hanging offence. Then why the scandal? Why the public outrage?
Mr Koutsantonis, when becoming a Minister, unleashed years of pent of frustration, in an absolutely positive way. He was perhaps the most active, engaging and outspoken Minister in the Government team, particularly within the Road Safety portfolio. (Maybe he was performing too well for the liking of some people, but that is neither here nor there). His tough hoon rhetoric may have enraged the Fresh FM audience and my brother, but at least he was on the front foot. That however, would ultimately be his downfall.
Mr Koutsantonis was so passionate, so ardent in his condemnation of hoon driving and hoon culture. The public believed his passion. They believed that he wanted to crush all these Japanese imported Pimped Rides. They had no reason to doubt it either. Until the speeding fines story broke. (again I have said that whilst the speeding fine record was extensive, it could not be classified in the same category as street dragging etc). The public outrage was, at its root, caused by the feeling that it had been duped. While the public is wary of politicians, and will jokingly say “they are all liars”, I believe that deep down we all want to believe that what they preach to us is coming from a genuine place. Who knows, Tom could have been so ardent with his condemnation of hoons because he had the zealousness of a convert (may not be his exact words). Irregardless of the true motivations, the public now had reason to doubt any carefully worded press release or impassioned press conference. While the speeding fines will disappear from the collective public memory, the perceived betrayal of public trust will linger for at least a decade. Now why am I talking about trust? Well today’s Tiser opinion poll seems to blame the current plummet in Rann Government popularity to that very issue.
I dealt extensively with the Rann trust issue in yesterday’s blog. I do not intend to re-examine that issue. What I would prefer to discuss is the overall chances of the re-election of the Rann Government, in light of this new opinion poll. Of course, Tiser polls are hardly gospel. 539 people does not constitute a definitive indication of the future of the Government. I argue, however, that a State wide poll, whilst helpful, is not the best way of determining the hopes of the Government in the upcoming ballot.
A Federal Government will not lose an election unless there is a prevailing “It’s time” mood sweeping the countryside. The Winston Churchill strategy of “fighting them in the trenches blah blah blah” won’t work. Individual candidates and local issues may play roles in individual cases, but unless the PM is on the nose, generally the Government stays. My philosophy when it came to the upcoming election was always that seats could be lost, even without an “It’s time” mood, because of the increased relevance of local issues in State polls. There is a swag of local issues burning, and I will discuss these shortly. Given the latest poll, indicating a change in the way the overall political wind is blowing, these local issues will take on greater relevance.
Water has been a crucial issue in
Another local issue burning is the Adelaide Establishment, blue blood, hoity toity issues such as the RAH and Glenside. While I may be disillusioned with the Labor Party, that does not mean I am going to be climbing upon this particular band wagon. Band wagon might be inappropriate. It is perhaps a luxury Rolls Royce sedan. Any seat which houses hyphenated names, such as
Newland is one of the seats that goes to Labor whenever the moon turns a shade of blue. Tom Kenyon himself would readily admit that. Tom is up against Trish Draper, one of John Howard’s girls. Whilst the ALP has a dirt file on Trish bigger than J Edgar Hoover’s, she is a formidable opponent. The Liberals have their own ace up their sleave. Everyone knows it, and I personally feel no need to say anything about it, apart from saying it has something to do with geography.
When it comes to Hartley, I must profess that my only knowledge of the Italian community derives from watching the entire Sopranos series in 3 months following my resignation from Government. Maybe Tony Soprano’s mentality seeped into my fragile mind somehow. I do know that the Italian community is highly influential in Hartley. I don’t know how the Portolesi family fares against the Scalzi family. No Portolesi’s have ever appeared on Big Brother. Irregardless, this Mediterranean peculiarity will have some bearing on the outcome. I cannot say in which direction.
One of the seats the ALP would desperately desire to win back is Mitchell. I could reveal every dirty ALP secret I know and I would still be hated with less ferocity than Kris Hanna. I don’t think any independent will lose in this election though, particularly if X marks their spot. Mitchell is a Labor seat though, and it should have been won last time. Whether the ALP can win it back during an election that it is on the nose is another matter.
For all the reasons above, I think that
Doppelganger Week
4:16 PM, 4/2/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link
Doppelganger Week
This week is doppelganger week on facebook. It is as good a theme as any to discuss the current Michelle Chantelois- Mike Rann controversy. I want to say from the outset that I do not wish to speculate on the truth or otherwise of the allegations floating around. They can argue about that in court, or in the media or wherever. This article is just going to deal with the potential ramifications of the allegations/scandal.
Now I can’t remember who Suchy compared Chantelois to. Was it Farrah Fawcet or Goldie Hawn? I am not sure. You get the picture. Anyway, for the purposes of this article, I am going to compare Mike Rann to James Bond. He is generally smooth, cool in a crisis, able to escape from tricky situations with careful sleights of hand and skill. (This is where the comparison ends. James Bond has his extra-curricula activities that are notorious. That is not what I mean in the comparison) When Mike Rann made his public denial of the Chantelois allegations at the South Adelaide Football Club, he gave his opponents a License to Kill, if they could prove that he was lying. The denial meant that there were only really two possible outcomes; a massive defamation lawsuit victory to Mike Rann OR the provision of evidence, either through the media or through the ultimate court case that proved the Chantelois version of events. All issues about the relevance of personal lives in the public arena disappeared. It was all distilled down to the old chestnut of who is telling the truth. The South Adelaide Football club was where the saga seemed to end. Defamation actions were threatened. Media went silent. We all had our Christmas turkey. Matt and Dave went off in the big red car for the holidays. Problem solved.
I always thought there was more to run in this saga though. Back to the movies analogy, I think the producers of the Chantelois drama were a little disappointed with the public reception to their initial screening. They thought it would be a blockbuster hit, but public interest petered out after the first few sessions. They had a really good story line for a sequel though. Mike Rann and Michelle Chantelois in “Who is telling the truth?”. There were various reasons not to release this saga over the Christmas period. Firstly they would have to compete with Sherlock Holmes. As mentioned, Matt and Dave and Leon Byner were doing whatever it is they do on holidays. There is quite possibly another explanation for the prolonged silence, followed by the recent flurry of activity. This is purely my speculation, but it makes perfect sense.
One of the major issues facing the ALP when the Chantelois saga broke was who replaces Mike Rann/James Bond if he is forced out? They need a Roger Moore, not that Australian Bond no one remembers. This question is one that the ALP has failed to ask itself properly ever since the commencement of the Rann Government. There was never a Costello to the Howard, a Keating to the Hawke. In the tumult of the media scandal, the party was faced with, in my opinion, three options. For my own amusement I will continue the doppelganger theme.
Option number one is the leading candidate from the dominant right faction, Kevin Foley. Foley was fresh off the revelations that he had been suffering depression, which emerged from his lush profile piece in the Advertiser. One can only speculate on the reasons for that profile piece at that particular moment in time. Depression is a very tricky issue when it comes to politics. (Let me just say at this point that I, the writer, have suffered from depression for many years. This is no revelation. I will be discussing it on State Line some time this month, as part of an organisation I am on the board of, Planet Muse/Learndog.) Anyway, despite the prevalence in the community of depression, it is still not really accepted by the voting public. There is a stigma. It is not seen as a disease, but rather as a weakness. This issue probably muddied the waters quite significantly when it came to choosing a possible successor for Rann. The second major draw back of a Foley leadership can be explained using a doppelganger.
Let me say at the outset that Foley, from my understanding, is an extremely competent, thorough and hard working Treasurer. Foley’s public persona, however, especially inside the walls of Parliament, could readily be compared to Sylvester Stallone’s Rambo. Question Time, for a former ALP hack like myself, was like the climax to the latest Rambo film. I would delight in the excessive use of firepower, as the heads of the opponents seated opposite would metaphorically explode in a rapid blast of verbal gunfire. Problem is however, that not everyone sees Rambo movies the same way as I do. Women, in particular, will often ask was such bravado and excess blood shedding really required? Couldn’t he have stealthily scaled the prison camp walls and lead the hostages to safety. Therein lies the dilemma for the ALP. I am not privy to internal party polling, but I certainly would suggest that Mr Foley lacks appeal to certain audiences. Rambo movies were huge in the 80s, as were outspoken ALP Treasurers. Audiences now prefer the more sensitive hero, Twilight style. Sylvester Stallone has tried playing other characters, but we all still see him as Rambo or Rocky. So arguably the strongest parliamentary performer within the ALP is not truly an option. Who else could be cast in the role?
Jay Weatherill, the leading candidate from PLUS, or the Left Faction, could never be likened to Rambo. He is a hard character to find a comparison to, but I would say that he is a benevolent version of Kevin Spacey’s character in the Usual Suspects. This will take a little explaining, but I believe it can be summed up in the phrase, “The greatest trick the left ever pulled was convincing the right that it wasn’t a threat”. Weatherill is soft spoken. He never comes across menacing in public, although I would like to have been a fly on the wall in Caucus during WorkCover debates. He surrounds himself with carefully selected advisers, who are selected on the basis of their intelligence and strategic skill. His faction has carefully infiltrated the public service with former left wing Government staffers across all departments, including Planning and Aboriginal Affairs. While right wing power brokers attend fashion shows and pose for Adelaide Confidential, I picture Weatherill sitting at home stroking a cat, plotting the eventual downfall of the right. While he is carefully moving all his pieces into place, and clearly has his sights set on the top job eventually (at left wing functions he is introduced as SA’s next Premier, or so I have heard), he never would have anticipated having to make his move so early. The right is still too powerful, and the bitter taste of the WorkCover debates are still bothering the taste buds too much for him to ever be handed the Premier position on the plate.
My personal choice for a successor would have to be John Hill, or Ray Romano as I will call him, because Everybody Loves John. He is not in a faction anymore, although I believe he was once in the Centre-Left. This means he can walk down the street in both Tel Aviv and
Ok so I have been on a little bit of a tangent, but back to the central point ha ha. If you have this License to Kill Rann, and all you need to do is prove you are telling the truth, why would you pull the trigger in November, months out from an election, and giver the ALP time to sort through all the complex casting issues mentioned above. It would make much more sense to wait until the election campaign nears, slowly but steadily orchestrate events which re-establish the narrative of your story, and then release the surprise twist ending when it is too late for your prey to react. Of course this assumes a high degree of discipline, intelligence and strategy on the part of the Chantelois camp. No body knows whether it is a one woman crusade, or part of something much greater backed by the Liberal party. We will find all these details out in the fullness of time. All I have to say is that now that I am out of the Government, I am sitting in my lounge with a bowl of popcorn in front of the TV. Stay tuned.
Testing 123
8:27 PM, 2/2/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link
This is my first transmission from within the media censored state of South Australia. There are no bombs falling. I don't expect to be disappear in the middle of the night, handcuffed and gagged in the back of a black Gestappo wagon. But who knows what the future holds? They always say that these things start with small impingements upon personal freedom. First you take away the means of challenging the Government, then then you attack the people when they are powerless.
I know this might sound a little extremist. After all, we are in a multi-party State Democracy. The fact of the matter is, that both major parties supported this latest infringment on freedom of speech. Admittedly, people can still say whatever they want, they just need to put their name to it. The scary thing is that South Australia, and this particular A-G, are setting a precedent in being the FIRST at taking away civil liberties, without clear evidence of the need for it. South Australia was once known for being the first state to grant civil liberties, such as giving women the vote. We have now become so backwards in our thinking that it is hard to remember that the party governing the State is the ALP. (although socialist parties have been known to restrain civil liberties, but rarely democratic socialist parties, which the ALP technically is according to its Constitution)
I am starting to begin to wonder whether the AG is directing his own policy ship within the ALP, and whether his eccentric ways are starting to turn some noses up within the Labor Unity faction. He has always been an eccentric character, but some of his foibles are certainly starting to get some adverse reaction. I recall at ALP state convention, various poor Croydon/AG staffers unloading massive sacks of envelopes upon unsuspecting right party hacks, whilst retaining a sack or two for themselves. It was some warped political version of Santa's workshop, as the elves feverishly worked away at hand writing the names and addresses of every person in the AG's electorate (or at very least every person in a CCD). The theory is that a hand written addressed envelope is more likely to be opened, hence, more likely to be read, hence more people will vote for the member for Croydon. It must be remembered that the member has a margin of over 20%. One would think that probably almost everyone willing to vote for him already has and will again. One would also think that highly paid Government staffers could be put to more proper use. (Although this was a weekend, so they probably weren't getting paid at all). Even the most hardened right wing hack thought that this was a bridge too far.
Who knows how nervous backbenchers are feeling, as the Government scores own goals on such non-issues such as AdelaideNow comments. Although it unlikely that the ALP will lose Government in this term. It is sad to say that much of the young talent within the State Labor Government occupy marginal or first term seats, whilst old members who have had their run as Ministers, or will never again be Ministers clog up the re-generation flow. The upper house also resisted the urge to regenerate by pre-selecting John Gazolla once again. One would have thought other candidates for pre-selection should have been placed higher. Tung Ngo gave an impassioned speech, although he was from the wrong faction. Katrine Hildeyard would have at least added an extra woman to the upper house. If, as anticipated, the ALP suffers losses in its marginal seats, the Government is going to look very old and raggety by 2014, barring a spate of pre-selections. Let this take nothing away from Lee Odenwalder and Leesa Vlahos, both of whom I respect in a personal capacity. I am yet to see their parliamentary performance. It is a shame that the left faction was less inclined to sweep the broom. (Having said that, Lea Stevens and Trish White appear to have quit upon their own accord).
Back to the central tenet of this article. The AG has never had strong electoral appeal, outside of his own over-worked electorate. Most of his scandals and misdemeanours have been so hard for the public to understand that they didn't really care. People understand censorship and young people don't like being talked down to. It must be remembered that young people played a major role in the Kevin 07 election, and Obama's US Election victory. There is not a member of the Government less appealing to young people than the bracers wearing AG, with his archaic views on many issues. We will see how long this issue rages for. Probably a week maximum. It is all precious time where the Government is unable to get its message out though. Who knows which backbenchers green seat this has cost?
SA Election blogs
Hello everyone. I am moving cyber house. This is a much better blog website. I am going to post all my old political blogs on here now. They are out of date, but that is life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)