1:43 PM, 11/3/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link
Yesterday, with great sadness, I heard about the untimely passing of Dr Paul Collier, lead candidate for the Dignity 4 Disabled party in the Legislative Assembly at the 2010 State Election. I had the pleasure of knowing Paul during the years of 2002-2005 (approximately), when we were both members of the ALP. Paul was an immensely intelligent individual, who through an unfortunate accident, was deprived of the use of his legs, and severely impaired use of his arms. I distinctly remember the difficulty Paul had in completing simple tasks, such as writing and drinking a drink. He never complained though. Nor did he allow his disability to prevent him from completing his doctorate at Oxford, or from being a passionate voice on disabled issues. Alas, after a short period of time, Paul realised that the ALP was no longer an effective vessel for achieving outcomes for the vulnerable. It must be asked, if the ALP doesn’t speak for people like Dr Collier anymore, who do they speak for?
Over my years of involvement in the ALP, I have witnessed the coming and going of many passionate, compassionate, intelligent people. They arrive bright eyed and optimistic, before being indoctrinated and then ultimately disillusioned. The speed of the cycle varies, depending upon the individual circumstances of the member. My cycle only came to an end mid last week, when I dropped my resignation off at party headquarters, after years of threatening to do that very act. Paul was much quicker to see through the lofty rhetoric of lights on hills and so on. I suppose he had much more tangible evidence of the failings of the ALP to make a difference to his life. Having strong beliefs in any particular area does not bode well for lasting in the ALP for the long term. It is only a matter of time before one is faced with the decision, compromise or quit. For this reason, the cohort of members that actually reach the promised land of Parliament generally tend to be the bottom dwellers, the yes men, the careerists. If they haven’t abandoned all they believe in before taking their Parliamentary oath, then they soon will. There are exceptions of course. I would cite Nick Champion and Amanda Rishworth as MPs who slipped through the net. Overall, however, the Parliamentary population is filled with people who prefer the pursuit of power over the fulfilment of an ideal.
Given that the majority of ALP members of Parliament (it is probably same with the Liberals) have compromised their beliefs to get to where they are, it is no surprise that they don’t hesitate in continuing such behaviour once they have gotten there. There are some restrictions on their behaviour, such as factional or union loyalties and the feeble toothless tiger that is ALP State Convention. Some might say that I am being overly harsh. To those naysayers, I would ask this; when was the last time you saw an ALP member put their own beliefs before their career? Look at the WorkCover debate in South Australian Parliament. For all the hurly burly and huffing and puffing, no one was willing to cross the floor, despite many MPs spending their entire lives before the vote campaigning against the changes they were voting on. One could argue that industrial relations are to the ALP what the Virgin Mary is to Catholicism. If you are not willing to crucify yourself for that, when will you? I am sure that many MPs felt extremely conflicted about their decision, but ultimately, not conflicted enough. One could argue that the Keating reforms of the 80s were the first nail in the coffin of the ALP’s traditional beliefs. Irrespective of when the ALP stopped being the voice for the voiceless, it cannot be disputed that there are growing numbers of traditional supporters that now feel disenfranchised. It could be argued that neither of the major parties really stand for anything, but are merely different teams playing the same sport. Personality of leaders is now the main consideration, along with the effectiveness of whatever policies each side cooks up from the ether based on statistical analysis of electorates and phone polling.
What we have seen in recent years is the emergence of the Greens as a major political force. I think there emergence is a result of a number of causes. Firstly, the ALP has abandoned much of its left leaning policy, in return for obtaining a slice of the Liberal voting pie. They have accepted this trade off because Green preferences return to the ALP anyway. In coming years, however, the Greens may garner such a big slice of ALP pie that they are no longer a minor party but rather a third force. Secondly, there is no disputing what the Greens stand for. Everyone knows they are the crazy environmental party, and they make no bones about it. As of yet they have not needed to compromise their beliefs one iota. They are unlikely to form government in the foreseeable future, and so it is unlikely they will have to compromise any time soon. The third reason for their popularity is the obvious increase in importance of environmental issues, and the perceived Government inaction on climate change policy. Over the next ten years, the two major parties are going to have to consider what they truly believe in, or risk being overtaken by coalitions of Independents and Greens seeking to make their voices heard. It is only a matter of time before the public asks; if the ALP and Liberals both stand for the same thing, why do we need both of them?
Friday, May 7, 2010
11:02 AM, 9/3/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link
The Murdoch press has sent an icy chill through the corridors of power in South Australia today, with the publishing of their revered News Poll. While there have been various other polls of ill repute, such as the Advertiser polls, which have suggested that Mike Rann and his Government are on the nose, this is the first definitive public poll to place the Liberal Opposition within grasp of clinching Government. There are some pundits, particularly the dishevelled and husky Bob Ellis (I bet his appearance wasn’t approved by Mike’s media unit), who question the accuracy of the poll. One of the main reasons for this scepticism is the fact that the poll was taken over a three month period, including the holiday month of January. I think the numbers require much more detailed analysis than that given by the gruff Ellis, probably only made hurriedly upon awaking from a red wine hangover.
One of the undeniable truths to be lifted from the polling figures is that the Rann Government has been on a consistently downward slide towards oblivion, commencing mid last year. It was commenced this descent down the rabbit hole before that time, but they clutched to the branch clumsily offered by the inept MHS. I assert that when a Government is in free fall, as appears to be the case now, the pace at which they descend towards the splat on the pavement increases as the election nears, spurred on by desperation and associated blunders. I will speak more about these blunders at a later date. Why then, is it assumed that the Liberal lead is overstated because of the lengthy polling period (January to March) of the News Poll. I would argue, based upon the prevailing mood that is thick in the air, that if anything the popularity of the Government is lower now than in January. There is much cause to worry about within the lofty towers of Rann HQ.
Another concern for the Government is that, based upon the News Poll figures, a large percentage of voters have already decided on which party they will be casting their vote for. Such early decisiveness does not bode well for the ALP in my opinion. It is analogous to the mood in the 2007 Federal election campaign. Over the past decade I have stood post on many a polling booth, but never before had I seen such a mood as in 2007. The masses were lined up, eager to vote, up to half an hour prior to the commencement of voting. They were sick of the Government, and they couldn’t wait to boot them out. The final few hours of polling had the inevitable stragglers, but overall the execution of the Howard Government was swift and surgically precise. The resoluteness of voters, as displayed in the News Poll figures, is more likely the result of a “it’s time” vibe than a “Izzy sucks” vibe.
So as we can see, the Rann Government is definitely crouched down in a bunker, receiving heavy fire from the opposition outposts over yonder. It has been said that in these situations, soldiers rediscover their faith in a higher power. For the SA ALP, their higher power over the last decade has always been Mike Rann, campaigner extraordinaire. Highlighted in the figures, though, is that Mike Rann is one of the dominant causes for the mammoth fall in Government popularity. In the past Mike was the shining light which blinded the populace of the outright unpalatable nature of much of the Government front bench. Now that the light has dimmed, Atkinson, Foley and Conlon have been revealed in all their glory, like the opening of the curtain at a freak show. Today’s News Poll is merely a statistical reflection of the voting public’s collective gasp of despair and disgust.
One of the other possible arguments against the accuracy of the News Poll is the traditional argument that incumbent Government’s improve their status during the election campaign. This may tradition, but I would assert that it has not been the case in the current circumstance. As an intimate observer of the ALP over the past ten to fifteen years, I have been shocked by the inability of the Government to sell its message to the public. Every day I read the tweets of the Premier touting the daily policy innovation, and every evening I view the news broadcasts, which paint an entirely different image of the day’s proceedings. Having not been close to the campaign this time, I can’t comment on the slickness or organisation of party HQ. Given the funding and the resources of the ALP, however, I have no reason to doubt that the campaign is just as strong at the source. The campaign, like a ripple, seems to be dying out the further and further one gets from the pebble, whilst every squeak Isobel makes resonates throughout the entire community like a roar. This has not been a strong campaign, and so the social experiment of going to a poll with a leader embattled with a sex scandal appears destined for failure.
Previously in this post, I referred to how a Government in free fall tends to result in blunders caused out of desperation. I would argue that this is particularly the case with this Government. I remember sharing a beer at Distill on Rundle Street with several high level powerbrokers the evening of a negative opinion poll during the ascent of MHS. I remember calls for Mike Rann’s head, despairing remarks about the mortgage and so on. One can only wonder what discussions are going on in the trendy Adelaide watering holes this evening. In the panic of the campaign, several blunders have been made, mainly by the media team in an attempt to control events in the same way they had over the past eight years. Examples are the Matthew Abraham debate scandal, the Tom Koutsantonis Road Safety policy launch debacle, the Grace Portolesi sparked blanket ban on backbencher radio debates. The irony of the matter is, the more the media team tries to control public opinion, the more that public opinion turns against the Government. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks, especially when it has gotten fat and lazy on treats for eight years.
The one last ditch hope that the Government would be clinging onto is that the swing against the Government won’t be uniformly translated across the marginal seats. The Newland Tiser poll would be particularly heartening. Their major concern, however, would be the fact the unpopularity of Mike Rann, which would be a factor in EVERY seat. As the campaign rolls on, and panic begins to take hold, I can only see things getting worse for the Government. On election night, I am going to take particular notice of the results in safe ALP seats such as Croydon and West Torrens, where the local members have endured scandals over the past years. In a campaign like this one, I think we will be dealt a fair share of surprises, and it may take a few weeks to piece together our Government for the next four years.
The Murdoch press has sent an icy chill through the corridors of power in South Australia today, with the publishing of their revered News Poll. While there have been various other polls of ill repute, such as the Advertiser polls, which have suggested that Mike Rann and his Government are on the nose, this is the first definitive public poll to place the Liberal Opposition within grasp of clinching Government. There are some pundits, particularly the dishevelled and husky Bob Ellis (I bet his appearance wasn’t approved by Mike’s media unit), who question the accuracy of the poll. One of the main reasons for this scepticism is the fact that the poll was taken over a three month period, including the holiday month of January. I think the numbers require much more detailed analysis than that given by the gruff Ellis, probably only made hurriedly upon awaking from a red wine hangover.
One of the undeniable truths to be lifted from the polling figures is that the Rann Government has been on a consistently downward slide towards oblivion, commencing mid last year. It was commenced this descent down the rabbit hole before that time, but they clutched to the branch clumsily offered by the inept MHS. I assert that when a Government is in free fall, as appears to be the case now, the pace at which they descend towards the splat on the pavement increases as the election nears, spurred on by desperation and associated blunders. I will speak more about these blunders at a later date. Why then, is it assumed that the Liberal lead is overstated because of the lengthy polling period (January to March) of the News Poll. I would argue, based upon the prevailing mood that is thick in the air, that if anything the popularity of the Government is lower now than in January. There is much cause to worry about within the lofty towers of Rann HQ.
Another concern for the Government is that, based upon the News Poll figures, a large percentage of voters have already decided on which party they will be casting their vote for. Such early decisiveness does not bode well for the ALP in my opinion. It is analogous to the mood in the 2007 Federal election campaign. Over the past decade I have stood post on many a polling booth, but never before had I seen such a mood as in 2007. The masses were lined up, eager to vote, up to half an hour prior to the commencement of voting. They were sick of the Government, and they couldn’t wait to boot them out. The final few hours of polling had the inevitable stragglers, but overall the execution of the Howard Government was swift and surgically precise. The resoluteness of voters, as displayed in the News Poll figures, is more likely the result of a “it’s time” vibe than a “Izzy sucks” vibe.
So as we can see, the Rann Government is definitely crouched down in a bunker, receiving heavy fire from the opposition outposts over yonder. It has been said that in these situations, soldiers rediscover their faith in a higher power. For the SA ALP, their higher power over the last decade has always been Mike Rann, campaigner extraordinaire. Highlighted in the figures, though, is that Mike Rann is one of the dominant causes for the mammoth fall in Government popularity. In the past Mike was the shining light which blinded the populace of the outright unpalatable nature of much of the Government front bench. Now that the light has dimmed, Atkinson, Foley and Conlon have been revealed in all their glory, like the opening of the curtain at a freak show. Today’s News Poll is merely a statistical reflection of the voting public’s collective gasp of despair and disgust.
One of the other possible arguments against the accuracy of the News Poll is the traditional argument that incumbent Government’s improve their status during the election campaign. This may tradition, but I would assert that it has not been the case in the current circumstance. As an intimate observer of the ALP over the past ten to fifteen years, I have been shocked by the inability of the Government to sell its message to the public. Every day I read the tweets of the Premier touting the daily policy innovation, and every evening I view the news broadcasts, which paint an entirely different image of the day’s proceedings. Having not been close to the campaign this time, I can’t comment on the slickness or organisation of party HQ. Given the funding and the resources of the ALP, however, I have no reason to doubt that the campaign is just as strong at the source. The campaign, like a ripple, seems to be dying out the further and further one gets from the pebble, whilst every squeak Isobel makes resonates throughout the entire community like a roar. This has not been a strong campaign, and so the social experiment of going to a poll with a leader embattled with a sex scandal appears destined for failure.
Previously in this post, I referred to how a Government in free fall tends to result in blunders caused out of desperation. I would argue that this is particularly the case with this Government. I remember sharing a beer at Distill on Rundle Street with several high level powerbrokers the evening of a negative opinion poll during the ascent of MHS. I remember calls for Mike Rann’s head, despairing remarks about the mortgage and so on. One can only wonder what discussions are going on in the trendy Adelaide watering holes this evening. In the panic of the campaign, several blunders have been made, mainly by the media team in an attempt to control events in the same way they had over the past eight years. Examples are the Matthew Abraham debate scandal, the Tom Koutsantonis Road Safety policy launch debacle, the Grace Portolesi sparked blanket ban on backbencher radio debates. The irony of the matter is, the more the media team tries to control public opinion, the more that public opinion turns against the Government. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks, especially when it has gotten fat and lazy on treats for eight years.
The one last ditch hope that the Government would be clinging onto is that the swing against the Government won’t be uniformly translated across the marginal seats. The Newland Tiser poll would be particularly heartening. Their major concern, however, would be the fact the unpopularity of Mike Rann, which would be a factor in EVERY seat. As the campaign rolls on, and panic begins to take hold, I can only see things getting worse for the Government. On election night, I am going to take particular notice of the results in safe ALP seats such as Croydon and West Torrens, where the local members have endured scandals over the past years. In a campaign like this one, I think we will be dealt a fair share of surprises, and it may take a few weeks to piece together our Government for the next four years.
And the winner is……..
1:11 PM, 4/3/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link
At 5:30 last night, the great debate between Isobel Redmond and Mike Rann was beamed into the living rooms of the small percentage of South Australians that are actually home from work or study at that time. Political tragics like myself had to make do with snippets of the debate on 891 ABC spliced in between self conscious commentary by Matthew Abraham about the tastefulness of his suit selection. Having missed seeing the debate in person, I must rely on second hand reporting and the reactions of both parties for my analysis. There is much to discuss even from these meagre pickings.
Mike Rann was immediately tweeting his readiness to engage in another debate upon emerging from the Thebarton television studio where the debate was filmed. Everything Mike Rann does has a political objective behind it. What was his objective behind offering another debate, when in previous weeks he had ruled out doing so? There are various possible explanations. Firstly, he could have been trying to exude confidence in his performance and thus skewing the public’s perception of the outcome in his favour e.g. “ I have seen what Isobel has to offer, and I am not threatened. I can handle that any day of the week”. All the commentators, however, have scored the debate as a draw. Given this fact, I think it is likely that there were other motivations behind his call for further debates.
One of the major concerns of Labor commentators prior to the debate was that Mike Rann (a proven media performer) would be so dazzling in his debate performance that he would appear condescending or bullying in comparison to Isobel Redmond. There would have been concerns that this disparity in performance would garner sympathy for Redmond, and distract viewers from the substantive issues of the debate. As it turned out, it was something else that distracted viewers and the press from the substantive issues; the Michelle Chantelois apology. The vast majority of post debate coverage has focussed on this one issue. I suspect that the Rann media team anticipated this fact and were desperate to force another debate, which would allow both sides to explore the holes in each others policies. Rann, by changing his tune after the fact (possibly because his performance did not appear as overbearing as feared) has played into the Opposition’s hands.
Isobel Redmond has always stated her willingness to engage in more than one debate, whereas Mike Rann was always of the view that one would be sufficient. This fact gave the Opposition the moral upper hand when determining the format of the second debate (although technically the incumbent always has the power in this respect). The Liberals have used this advantage to bolster their “Labor is anti Country” message. Their call for a “town hall” debate in the Riverland would certainly resonate throughout rural SA, which will be useful in the crucial seats of Chaffey, Mt Gambier, Frome and Light. It also puts the Government on the defensive in the crucial policy issue of water, which is one of its biggest policy failings. I am quite sure that the chances of a rural debate are extremely slim. Mike Rann will never accept a debate on the Opposition’s terms. If he was more confident in the lead up to the first debate, however, and expressed a willingness to engage in multiple debates prior to the fact, he would never have had these problems.
It is not necessarily in the interests of the Opposition to take part in a further debate. The Opposition must overcome two hurdles if it wishes to take Government; they must prove that Isobel is a capable leader, and they must prove that they have the policies to improve the wellbeing of the State (or avoid the Government proving that they are incompetent). As stated earlier, Isobel battled the media savvy Mike Rann to a closely contested draw in the debate. A draw in a television debate is often a victory for the Opposition leader. The incumbent has all the perks of office, while the Opposition has none of the baggage of governing. When a Government is on the nose like the current Rann Government is, all the public needs is the assurance that they will be safe if they follow their instincts and boot them out. Isobel managed to prove that in the debate. She also managed to avoid detailed public scrutiny of the detail of her party’s flimsy policies. She has emerged in an ideal position. All she needs to do now is stand firm for her desire for the second debate to be held in the country, wait for the inevitable refusal, and then use this reason to deny any further debates. Mike only wanted one anyway.
Another talking point out of the debate is the appearance of Mike Rann. It is clear that he has aged markedly over the eight years of Government, and this is inevitable. Rann is notoriously a hard worker, and as such, he should wear the bags under his eyes as saggy badges of honour. As Richard Nixon found out all those years ago, however, politics is a visual medium and appearances matter. If the Premier looks drained and haggard on tv, it further reinforces the message that the Government is haggard and drained. Of course these superficial factors are not enough in themselves, but when they reinforce existing perceptions, they can become immensely powerful. Another interesting point that came out of the debate is the respective slogans of both sides. Mike Rann only had “South Australia Labor” on his lecturn, whereas Isobel had “Redmond is Ready”. Perhaps the Labor party is trying to distance itself from Federal Labor with this strategy. It is curious, however, that they didn’t use the “keep South Australia moving forward” slogan that they spruiked at the start of the campaign. This slogan is certainly wordy, and I suggest that whatever PR firm the ALP engaged should not be used in the future. In modern politics, the ability to “cut through” with your campaign slogan is often a vital sign as to the effectiveness of the campaign as a whole. Rann Gets Results, Kevin 07 and Yes We Can are striking examples of this. That brings me to the central dilemma of the ALP’ s campaign. No matter how hard they try, in every forum, the message they are trying to sell is getting lost amongst peripheral matters. This means that voters will enter the polling booth with two possible points of view; either the point of view advanced by the Liberal party, or the point of view they have arrived at based on the Government’s performance over the past 8 years. The ALP may not lose Government in this election, but they will certainly lose the campaign.
At 5:30 last night, the great debate between Isobel Redmond and Mike Rann was beamed into the living rooms of the small percentage of South Australians that are actually home from work or study at that time. Political tragics like myself had to make do with snippets of the debate on 891 ABC spliced in between self conscious commentary by Matthew Abraham about the tastefulness of his suit selection. Having missed seeing the debate in person, I must rely on second hand reporting and the reactions of both parties for my analysis. There is much to discuss even from these meagre pickings.
Mike Rann was immediately tweeting his readiness to engage in another debate upon emerging from the Thebarton television studio where the debate was filmed. Everything Mike Rann does has a political objective behind it. What was his objective behind offering another debate, when in previous weeks he had ruled out doing so? There are various possible explanations. Firstly, he could have been trying to exude confidence in his performance and thus skewing the public’s perception of the outcome in his favour e.g. “ I have seen what Isobel has to offer, and I am not threatened. I can handle that any day of the week”. All the commentators, however, have scored the debate as a draw. Given this fact, I think it is likely that there were other motivations behind his call for further debates.
One of the major concerns of Labor commentators prior to the debate was that Mike Rann (a proven media performer) would be so dazzling in his debate performance that he would appear condescending or bullying in comparison to Isobel Redmond. There would have been concerns that this disparity in performance would garner sympathy for Redmond, and distract viewers from the substantive issues of the debate. As it turned out, it was something else that distracted viewers and the press from the substantive issues; the Michelle Chantelois apology. The vast majority of post debate coverage has focussed on this one issue. I suspect that the Rann media team anticipated this fact and were desperate to force another debate, which would allow both sides to explore the holes in each others policies. Rann, by changing his tune after the fact (possibly because his performance did not appear as overbearing as feared) has played into the Opposition’s hands.
Isobel Redmond has always stated her willingness to engage in more than one debate, whereas Mike Rann was always of the view that one would be sufficient. This fact gave the Opposition the moral upper hand when determining the format of the second debate (although technically the incumbent always has the power in this respect). The Liberals have used this advantage to bolster their “Labor is anti Country” message. Their call for a “town hall” debate in the Riverland would certainly resonate throughout rural SA, which will be useful in the crucial seats of Chaffey, Mt Gambier, Frome and Light. It also puts the Government on the defensive in the crucial policy issue of water, which is one of its biggest policy failings. I am quite sure that the chances of a rural debate are extremely slim. Mike Rann will never accept a debate on the Opposition’s terms. If he was more confident in the lead up to the first debate, however, and expressed a willingness to engage in multiple debates prior to the fact, he would never have had these problems.
It is not necessarily in the interests of the Opposition to take part in a further debate. The Opposition must overcome two hurdles if it wishes to take Government; they must prove that Isobel is a capable leader, and they must prove that they have the policies to improve the wellbeing of the State (or avoid the Government proving that they are incompetent). As stated earlier, Isobel battled the media savvy Mike Rann to a closely contested draw in the debate. A draw in a television debate is often a victory for the Opposition leader. The incumbent has all the perks of office, while the Opposition has none of the baggage of governing. When a Government is on the nose like the current Rann Government is, all the public needs is the assurance that they will be safe if they follow their instincts and boot them out. Isobel managed to prove that in the debate. She also managed to avoid detailed public scrutiny of the detail of her party’s flimsy policies. She has emerged in an ideal position. All she needs to do now is stand firm for her desire for the second debate to be held in the country, wait for the inevitable refusal, and then use this reason to deny any further debates. Mike only wanted one anyway.
Another talking point out of the debate is the appearance of Mike Rann. It is clear that he has aged markedly over the eight years of Government, and this is inevitable. Rann is notoriously a hard worker, and as such, he should wear the bags under his eyes as saggy badges of honour. As Richard Nixon found out all those years ago, however, politics is a visual medium and appearances matter. If the Premier looks drained and haggard on tv, it further reinforces the message that the Government is haggard and drained. Of course these superficial factors are not enough in themselves, but when they reinforce existing perceptions, they can become immensely powerful. Another interesting point that came out of the debate is the respective slogans of both sides. Mike Rann only had “South Australia Labor” on his lecturn, whereas Isobel had “Redmond is Ready”. Perhaps the Labor party is trying to distance itself from Federal Labor with this strategy. It is curious, however, that they didn’t use the “keep South Australia moving forward” slogan that they spruiked at the start of the campaign. This slogan is certainly wordy, and I suggest that whatever PR firm the ALP engaged should not be used in the future. In modern politics, the ability to “cut through” with your campaign slogan is often a vital sign as to the effectiveness of the campaign as a whole. Rann Gets Results, Kevin 07 and Yes We Can are striking examples of this. That brings me to the central dilemma of the ALP’ s campaign. No matter how hard they try, in every forum, the message they are trying to sell is getting lost amongst peripheral matters. This means that voters will enter the polling booth with two possible points of view; either the point of view advanced by the Liberal party, or the point of view they have arrived at based on the Government’s performance over the past 8 years. The ALP may not lose Government in this election, but they will certainly lose the campaign.
What would you do if I sang out of tune?
4:10 PM, 2/3/2010 .. 3 comments .. Link
Here I sit in the Adelaide University Law Library, amongst the dusty yellow law journals and buxom blonde trust funders, killing time before attending choir practice. It recently struck me that the Labor Unity faction of the ALP is analogous to a choral society in many ways. In both groups, it is expected that all members sing the same tune, note for note, without any deviations or creative riffs. Each has a conductor who signals which direction to take. I argue that while in makes sense for a choir to sing in unison, such uniformity is to be discouraged in political parties.
My recent blogs posts have not been looked upon favourably amongst the State Labor fraternity, and of course this is to be expected. I have lost approximately five friends on facebook, including a few people I would have considered “real friends”. In many ways I feel akin to a member of a religious cult that has been ex-communicated. I am sure that many within the faction feel that this is an entirely reasonable course of action, especially given the volatile political environment of the times. At the end of the day, however, the following question must be asked; what are my motivations, and what have I done to warrant such treatment?
In a previous post, I quoted my girlfriends observations regarding my feelings towards the ALP, which were along the lines of; “you are acting like a spurned ex-lover, hiding in the bushes trying to catch them rooting your best friend”. This observation reveals two important points; 1) I once loved the ALP 2) I now feel betrayed by them. As such, my motivations have always been to try and alert the public to some of the failings that I see with the party, in the hope that by exposing them, some sort of change will be achieved. The reader may ask, if I had concerns with the party, why didn’t I raise them within the party? There are various problems with this approach.
One of my major problems with the ALP is the concentration of power into the hands of a very small number of people. Five to ten years ago, one could say that the majority of the power in the SA ALP resided in the hands of two people; Don Farrell (secretary of the SDA at the time) and Mark Butler (secretary of LHMU at the time). Any contentious issue at public forums, such as State Convention, were sorted out between these two power brokers beforehand. These two power brokers were privy to the details of the WorkCover legislative reform proposals months before the party as a whole. Delegates to ALP forums are reduced to sheep, looking for the cattle dog to herd them in the right direction. At the 2007 election both Farrell and Butler got sent to Canberra which, if anything caused a minor relinquishment of the South Australian ALP reigns. While at the end of the day anything major still would need to go through them, administration issues such as staffing etc. may have passed to the new generation of ALP power brokers. I will now argue that these new powerbrokers have not necessarily acted in the same manner as their predecessors.
It is often said that the true merit of a teacher is the quality of their pupils. I am not really privy to the goings on in the Left following on from the departure of Mark Butler, who is now in Canberra plotting his future Prime Ministership. I can say, however, that Don Farrell was replaced as Secretary of the SDA by Peter Malinauskas. This was not always the plan. Originally the heir apparent to Don’s throne was intended to be Bernard Finnigan MLC. Three or four years ago, something must have happened to alter this plan. Peter M was then thrust into the powerful role. In the words of Spiderman’s uncle, “with great power comes great responsibility”. Comparing the Don with Peter M is like comparing chalk with cheese.
For such a powerful man, Don Farrell is very softly spoken and unassuming when you meet him in person. I think of him as an introverted Napoleon. Peter M, on the other hand, is an outspoken extrovert who has clearly modelled himself on a hybrid of Paul Keating and Tom Koutsantonis. One thing Keating and Kouts have in common is their profound dislike of criticism (constructive or otherwise) or disagreement of any sort. My second blog post attracted Peter's ire for a slightly ambiguous comment about the SDA. This draws me to my central point. There is very little freedom in the ALP, especially the Right, to speak freely about almost any matter. As members, we are expected to be showered with wisdom from above. In my personal experience, it is not wisdom that I have been showered with. Any deviations from the status quo are squashed like an Orwellian boot to the face. On occasions meetings are held where the Labor Unity position is put forward, followed by a mandatory “does anyone have any problems with that?”. Very few members would have the desire or the inclination to go down that path, which would only end in a stern talking to or a tirade or abuse depending on the severity of the disobedience. This kind of approach may be desirable in a military environment, but it is terribly dangerous for a political party to squash internal debate.
I mentioned earlier that ALP State Convention is merely a PR exercise, where all decisions are determined prior to commencement. As such, it becomes a very boring experience as a delegate. The days of Young Labor, where members can freely stand up and speak their views, are long gone. This absence of debate has several negative aspects to it. Firstly, it does not give emerging ALP members an opportunity to show their debating wares. (Labor Unity has a token debate at Convention lunch which showcases the hand selected rising stars). It also leaves delegates feeling disempowered. It could be argued that these disadvantages are preferable to a public stoush on policy issues, but this happens anyway. What is the worst that can happen? A motion gets passed that the Government doesn’t agree with? That happened with WorkCover, and the Government has just chosen not to act on it. At the end of the day, it is all about the power brokers exerting their influence and control on the party as a whole.
The concentration of power into the hands of a few, combined with the removal of traditional “proving grounds” for up and coming ALP members has resulted in the arbitrary and sometimes nepotistic appointment of political staff and pre-selections. For example, both Malinauskas siblings are employed as political or media advisers under the current Government. (I am not impugning their capabilities. I sat on one of their interview panels). Another Government Adviser was a high school colleague of the esteemed SDA Secretary. Exercising power in such a way sends a negative message to all those loyal members (such as myself- I admit that I am cheesed off) that have slaved their guts out for decades or more for a cause they believed in. Once you abandon merit as a criterion, it is a very slippery slope. When combined with no proper means to question or debate the merits of these activities or Government direction as a whole, there is little wonder that the opinionated eventually seek other outlets to vent their displeasure. That is merely what I am doing. If I am booted from the party, lose friends or receive abuse, it is a fate much more pleasant than remaining silent while the party you once loved begins the slow and unnecessary descent into Opposition.
Here I sit in the Adelaide University Law Library, amongst the dusty yellow law journals and buxom blonde trust funders, killing time before attending choir practice. It recently struck me that the Labor Unity faction of the ALP is analogous to a choral society in many ways. In both groups, it is expected that all members sing the same tune, note for note, without any deviations or creative riffs. Each has a conductor who signals which direction to take. I argue that while in makes sense for a choir to sing in unison, such uniformity is to be discouraged in political parties.
My recent blogs posts have not been looked upon favourably amongst the State Labor fraternity, and of course this is to be expected. I have lost approximately five friends on facebook, including a few people I would have considered “real friends”. In many ways I feel akin to a member of a religious cult that has been ex-communicated. I am sure that many within the faction feel that this is an entirely reasonable course of action, especially given the volatile political environment of the times. At the end of the day, however, the following question must be asked; what are my motivations, and what have I done to warrant such treatment?
In a previous post, I quoted my girlfriends observations regarding my feelings towards the ALP, which were along the lines of; “you are acting like a spurned ex-lover, hiding in the bushes trying to catch them rooting your best friend”. This observation reveals two important points; 1) I once loved the ALP 2) I now feel betrayed by them. As such, my motivations have always been to try and alert the public to some of the failings that I see with the party, in the hope that by exposing them, some sort of change will be achieved. The reader may ask, if I had concerns with the party, why didn’t I raise them within the party? There are various problems with this approach.
One of my major problems with the ALP is the concentration of power into the hands of a very small number of people. Five to ten years ago, one could say that the majority of the power in the SA ALP resided in the hands of two people; Don Farrell (secretary of the SDA at the time) and Mark Butler (secretary of LHMU at the time). Any contentious issue at public forums, such as State Convention, were sorted out between these two power brokers beforehand. These two power brokers were privy to the details of the WorkCover legislative reform proposals months before the party as a whole. Delegates to ALP forums are reduced to sheep, looking for the cattle dog to herd them in the right direction. At the 2007 election both Farrell and Butler got sent to Canberra which, if anything caused a minor relinquishment of the South Australian ALP reigns. While at the end of the day anything major still would need to go through them, administration issues such as staffing etc. may have passed to the new generation of ALP power brokers. I will now argue that these new powerbrokers have not necessarily acted in the same manner as their predecessors.
It is often said that the true merit of a teacher is the quality of their pupils. I am not really privy to the goings on in the Left following on from the departure of Mark Butler, who is now in Canberra plotting his future Prime Ministership. I can say, however, that Don Farrell was replaced as Secretary of the SDA by Peter Malinauskas. This was not always the plan. Originally the heir apparent to Don’s throne was intended to be Bernard Finnigan MLC. Three or four years ago, something must have happened to alter this plan. Peter M was then thrust into the powerful role. In the words of Spiderman’s uncle, “with great power comes great responsibility”. Comparing the Don with Peter M is like comparing chalk with cheese.
For such a powerful man, Don Farrell is very softly spoken and unassuming when you meet him in person. I think of him as an introverted Napoleon. Peter M, on the other hand, is an outspoken extrovert who has clearly modelled himself on a hybrid of Paul Keating and Tom Koutsantonis. One thing Keating and Kouts have in common is their profound dislike of criticism (constructive or otherwise) or disagreement of any sort. My second blog post attracted Peter's ire for a slightly ambiguous comment about the SDA. This draws me to my central point. There is very little freedom in the ALP, especially the Right, to speak freely about almost any matter. As members, we are expected to be showered with wisdom from above. In my personal experience, it is not wisdom that I have been showered with. Any deviations from the status quo are squashed like an Orwellian boot to the face. On occasions meetings are held where the Labor Unity position is put forward, followed by a mandatory “does anyone have any problems with that?”. Very few members would have the desire or the inclination to go down that path, which would only end in a stern talking to or a tirade or abuse depending on the severity of the disobedience. This kind of approach may be desirable in a military environment, but it is terribly dangerous for a political party to squash internal debate.
I mentioned earlier that ALP State Convention is merely a PR exercise, where all decisions are determined prior to commencement. As such, it becomes a very boring experience as a delegate. The days of Young Labor, where members can freely stand up and speak their views, are long gone. This absence of debate has several negative aspects to it. Firstly, it does not give emerging ALP members an opportunity to show their debating wares. (Labor Unity has a token debate at Convention lunch which showcases the hand selected rising stars). It also leaves delegates feeling disempowered. It could be argued that these disadvantages are preferable to a public stoush on policy issues, but this happens anyway. What is the worst that can happen? A motion gets passed that the Government doesn’t agree with? That happened with WorkCover, and the Government has just chosen not to act on it. At the end of the day, it is all about the power brokers exerting their influence and control on the party as a whole.
The concentration of power into the hands of a few, combined with the removal of traditional “proving grounds” for up and coming ALP members has resulted in the arbitrary and sometimes nepotistic appointment of political staff and pre-selections. For example, both Malinauskas siblings are employed as political or media advisers under the current Government. (I am not impugning their capabilities. I sat on one of their interview panels). Another Government Adviser was a high school colleague of the esteemed SDA Secretary. Exercising power in such a way sends a negative message to all those loyal members (such as myself- I admit that I am cheesed off) that have slaved their guts out for decades or more for a cause they believed in. Once you abandon merit as a criterion, it is a very slippery slope. When combined with no proper means to question or debate the merits of these activities or Government direction as a whole, there is little wonder that the opinionated eventually seek other outlets to vent their displeasure. That is merely what I am doing. If I am booted from the party, lose friends or receive abuse, it is a fate much more pleasant than remaining silent while the party you once loved begins the slow and unnecessary descent into Opposition.
Losing the unloseable election…and without a GST
6:44 PM, 28/2/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link
Today’s opinion poll in the seat of Morialta has revealed a ten percent swing against the Government, raising the possibility of a political defeat just four years after the greatest victory in SA ALP history. While this is based on an Advertiser poll, and the seat of Morialta is traditionally heartland Liberal, this poll raises some serious questions especially given the fact that the Liberal opposition is mediocre at best. Where does the blame lie for this extraordinary turn of events?
The night of the 2006 election result, Labor hacks like myself were celebrating 8 more years of Government, not four more years. The enormity of the victory made any defeat in 2010 unimaginable. It is perhaps this mindset, which pervaded the entire SA ALP, that is perhaps at the heart of the recent down turn in popularity. The Rann Government between the years of 2002 and 2006 was required to govern with the assistance of Independants, and as such was humble and consensus based in its approach. The fragility of the Government kept the arrogance and gloating of the Government in check to some degree. The 2006 massacre freed the bridles that were holding back the arrogance of Rann, Foley, Atkinson, Conlon, Koutsantonis et al. Faced with a feeble opposition, and the prospect of at least two more terms of Government, Rann’s team begun to behave like a cat toying with a mouse. It appears that they had never watched Tom and Jerry cartoons. The arrogance of the Government played various roles; it distracted the public from the actual achievements of the Government and also angered the media. This election, at this stage, appears to be more about who the public likes rather than what each side is likely to achieve. The arrogance of the Government has had some other major consequences, which I will now discuss.
In the 2006 election, the Labor Government was returned to power by all sections of the community, not just traditional ALP voters. The size of the swing was enormous. Perhaps it was for this reason that the Government felt comfortable in alienating its base, through industrial pay disputes and the passage of the WorkCover legislation. The Government, through these actions, alienated the traditional base of the ALP. It can be argued quite strongly that these decisions by the Government were required for the long term financial security of the State. (I am also of this view). The biggest mistake the Government made was the manner in which it treated the union movement during these debates. The attitude was kind of “we don’t need you, we have the support from the business community etc” or “you guys have to support us anyway”. At the end of the day, it is unwise to rely on the support of strange bedfellows. It is also unwise to make enemies of former allies, who are privy to all your weaknesses. I will now discuss one of the Government’s major weaknesses; rigidity in Cabinet selection.
Over Mike Rann’s entire term as Premier, he has been held captive by the factions when it comes to determining his Cabinet. Throughout his term, only four Ministers have been left Cabinet; Steph Key MP, Trish White MP, Carmel Zollo MLC, Lea Stevens MP and the late Terry Roberts MLC. It is interesting to note that no Labor Unity male has been asked to resign their Cabinet position. The largest beneficiary of this fact is the State’s Attorney General, Michael Atkinson. Normally a Government Minister in Australian politics has one or two lives, can endure a few scandals (depending on their size) until they are forced to resign by overwhelming public opinion. The sacking of an unpopular Minister often acts as a release valve, removing pressure from the Government. Mike Rann has never had this option available to him, despite the inordinate number of scandals that the Attorney has gotten himself into. The hatred within the community of the Attorney (having read various online comments etc, I think hatred is an appropriate word) is now intrinsically bonded to the Government as a whole. Perhaps if Don Farrell had granted the Premier more freedom in this regard, the AG could have been set adrift a long time ago, sparing the fortunes of the remainder of the Government. (The Attorney is kind of like a fat guy on a life raft with limited food provisions. He should have been shark food a long time ago). I personally feel that the mood of the campaign changed drastically around the time of the latest of the AG’s scandals- internet censorship. That certainly was the last straw for me.
Ok, the fifty foot blonde American gorilla in the election campaign is the Chantelois issue. Mike Rann has long been termed the SA ALP’s greatest electoral asset. He was also a counter balance to the public perception of the womanizing Foley et al. When Rann got tarred with the same brush, the front bench begun to look like the cast of some low brow American-Pie-esque slap stick comedy. The Government was already viewed as being macho and bullying before the scandal broke. Combined with a female Opposition leader, the Chantelois scandal became dynamite. The ALP’s poor succession planning when it came to replacing the Premier became a potentially fatal error. It certainly wounded the Government, only time will tell whether it was a kill shot.
The election campaign is by no means over. If the public seriously examines the policies of both sides, I feel that the ALP has the best chance of victory. The danger is that the actions of the Government, both publicly and privately, over the past 8 years have rendered the policy debate null and void. It would be a terrible shame for Government to change hands purely because of deep seeded dislike of the personalities of the incumbent, not the outcomes achieved for the State. If indeed, this is the case, however, the party only has itself to blame.
Today’s opinion poll in the seat of Morialta has revealed a ten percent swing against the Government, raising the possibility of a political defeat just four years after the greatest victory in SA ALP history. While this is based on an Advertiser poll, and the seat of Morialta is traditionally heartland Liberal, this poll raises some serious questions especially given the fact that the Liberal opposition is mediocre at best. Where does the blame lie for this extraordinary turn of events?
The night of the 2006 election result, Labor hacks like myself were celebrating 8 more years of Government, not four more years. The enormity of the victory made any defeat in 2010 unimaginable. It is perhaps this mindset, which pervaded the entire SA ALP, that is perhaps at the heart of the recent down turn in popularity. The Rann Government between the years of 2002 and 2006 was required to govern with the assistance of Independants, and as such was humble and consensus based in its approach. The fragility of the Government kept the arrogance and gloating of the Government in check to some degree. The 2006 massacre freed the bridles that were holding back the arrogance of Rann, Foley, Atkinson, Conlon, Koutsantonis et al. Faced with a feeble opposition, and the prospect of at least two more terms of Government, Rann’s team begun to behave like a cat toying with a mouse. It appears that they had never watched Tom and Jerry cartoons. The arrogance of the Government played various roles; it distracted the public from the actual achievements of the Government and also angered the media. This election, at this stage, appears to be more about who the public likes rather than what each side is likely to achieve. The arrogance of the Government has had some other major consequences, which I will now discuss.
In the 2006 election, the Labor Government was returned to power by all sections of the community, not just traditional ALP voters. The size of the swing was enormous. Perhaps it was for this reason that the Government felt comfortable in alienating its base, through industrial pay disputes and the passage of the WorkCover legislation. The Government, through these actions, alienated the traditional base of the ALP. It can be argued quite strongly that these decisions by the Government were required for the long term financial security of the State. (I am also of this view). The biggest mistake the Government made was the manner in which it treated the union movement during these debates. The attitude was kind of “we don’t need you, we have the support from the business community etc” or “you guys have to support us anyway”. At the end of the day, it is unwise to rely on the support of strange bedfellows. It is also unwise to make enemies of former allies, who are privy to all your weaknesses. I will now discuss one of the Government’s major weaknesses; rigidity in Cabinet selection.
Over Mike Rann’s entire term as Premier, he has been held captive by the factions when it comes to determining his Cabinet. Throughout his term, only four Ministers have been left Cabinet; Steph Key MP, Trish White MP, Carmel Zollo MLC, Lea Stevens MP and the late Terry Roberts MLC. It is interesting to note that no Labor Unity male has been asked to resign their Cabinet position. The largest beneficiary of this fact is the State’s Attorney General, Michael Atkinson. Normally a Government Minister in Australian politics has one or two lives, can endure a few scandals (depending on their size) until they are forced to resign by overwhelming public opinion. The sacking of an unpopular Minister often acts as a release valve, removing pressure from the Government. Mike Rann has never had this option available to him, despite the inordinate number of scandals that the Attorney has gotten himself into. The hatred within the community of the Attorney (having read various online comments etc, I think hatred is an appropriate word) is now intrinsically bonded to the Government as a whole. Perhaps if Don Farrell had granted the Premier more freedom in this regard, the AG could have been set adrift a long time ago, sparing the fortunes of the remainder of the Government. (The Attorney is kind of like a fat guy on a life raft with limited food provisions. He should have been shark food a long time ago). I personally feel that the mood of the campaign changed drastically around the time of the latest of the AG’s scandals- internet censorship. That certainly was the last straw for me.
Ok, the fifty foot blonde American gorilla in the election campaign is the Chantelois issue. Mike Rann has long been termed the SA ALP’s greatest electoral asset. He was also a counter balance to the public perception of the womanizing Foley et al. When Rann got tarred with the same brush, the front bench begun to look like the cast of some low brow American-Pie-esque slap stick comedy. The Government was already viewed as being macho and bullying before the scandal broke. Combined with a female Opposition leader, the Chantelois scandal became dynamite. The ALP’s poor succession planning when it came to replacing the Premier became a potentially fatal error. It certainly wounded the Government, only time will tell whether it was a kill shot.
The election campaign is by no means over. If the public seriously examines the policies of both sides, I feel that the ALP has the best chance of victory. The danger is that the actions of the Government, both publicly and privately, over the past 8 years have rendered the policy debate null and void. It would be a terrible shame for Government to change hands purely because of deep seeded dislike of the personalities of the incumbent, not the outcomes achieved for the State. If indeed, this is the case, however, the party only has itself to blame.
When winning is losing
3:57 PM, 26/2/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link
The recent uproar regarding the “great leaders debate” between Isobel Redmond and the Premier, Mike Rann, has shed light on one of the ALP’s greatest dilemmas in this election campaign: being slick and polished may not be a positive for media Mike. Labor sources have referred to the debate as a no-win situation. If Mike dominates, he will be accused of being overbearing or a bully. If he loses, he has lost his touch or is distracted by the Chantelois scandal. This no-win situation could potentially apply to all aspects of the election campaign, with traditional rules of campaigning losing relevancy. It must be asked: how did it come to this?
When history books are written about the Rann Government, the prevailing theme will not necessarily be its achievements, such as defence jobs or green energy (both of these are commendable, however). I believe that the prevailing legacy of the Government will be the manner in which the Rann team dealt with the media and the public when spruiking those achievements. The Government’s strategy for interaction with the media and the public has thus far had two prongs: carefully managed, slick media spin and arrogant bullying and intimidation. These should be carefully examined.
The first prong of the media strategy is the “spin unit”. The importance of the media in modern politics dictates that every political party is required to have a media strategy and focus. Mike Rann, however, as a former journalist, is perhaps the most media savvy political leader in Australian history. Every peep in the media made by a Government Minister must go through him and his pack of media advisers. Every Ministerial Office
has a media adviser (they are the most entertaining staff members by the way, I wasted many hours chatting with Sammy the Seagull), who is employed by the Premier, not the Minister. Every morning, they discuss media strategy at Rann Towers, reporting on upcoming events within respective Ministerial Offices etc. The main problem, in my opinion, is that any media strategy they employ should be akin to a puppeteer operating his puppet; the audience should never see the strings. Unfortunately for Mike, the crude way in which the Government has treated the media over the past few years has resulted in the exposure to the crowd of the puppet master. The mechanism of the spin has become the issue, not the announcement being spun.
The second prong of the Government media strategy is the bullying approach. Many scribes and talking heads have publicly stated that they have been on the receiving end of torrents of abuse from media adviser head-honcho Jill Bottral for publishing any slight against the Government. This kind of approach is fine when there is an overwhelming majority and public support, but when the tide has turned, as it has now, it is akin to having bitten the hand that feeds for the previous four years. Complaints by ALP spin doctors of bias by the media are merely the result of prolonged retribution.
The success of Isobel Redmond as an alternative leader has nothing to do with her policy ideas or competence to govern. I posit that her success is a direct consequence of her “no-nonsense, plain talking” approach. The public appears to be warming to a politician who doesn’t only talk in sound bites at designated media conferences. Even her ramshackle appearance is a breath of fresh air compared to the cavalcade of suits and ties that make up the Rann Government. Ironically, and herein lies the Government’s dilemma, it appears that the public prefers lack-of-style over substance.
Before writing this instalment I briefly looked at both of the major parties’ websites. The ALP website is vastly superior to the Liberal website - it is easy to navigate, has a brilliant colour scheme and every candidate can be found with ease (even the Young Labor hack candidates have beautiful campaign photos). The Liberal site looks incredibly cheap by comparison. I have no doubt that this disparity would be reflected in all areas of campaigning e.g. television advertisements, mail outs etc. Traditionally, the slickest campaign will result in victory on election day, or at the very least an improvement in primary vote. It is my view, however, that this will not be the case in this election; due to the prevailing public opinion that Rann has used spin to dupe the public in the past, the low-budget, “straight talk express” campaign of Isobel Redmond is having more success than it normally would. The only traditional rule that seems to apply in this election is that Australians still love an underdog; this is going to be the most closely contested election in some time.
The recent uproar regarding the “great leaders debate” between Isobel Redmond and the Premier, Mike Rann, has shed light on one of the ALP’s greatest dilemmas in this election campaign: being slick and polished may not be a positive for media Mike. Labor sources have referred to the debate as a no-win situation. If Mike dominates, he will be accused of being overbearing or a bully. If he loses, he has lost his touch or is distracted by the Chantelois scandal. This no-win situation could potentially apply to all aspects of the election campaign, with traditional rules of campaigning losing relevancy. It must be asked: how did it come to this?
When history books are written about the Rann Government, the prevailing theme will not necessarily be its achievements, such as defence jobs or green energy (both of these are commendable, however). I believe that the prevailing legacy of the Government will be the manner in which the Rann team dealt with the media and the public when spruiking those achievements. The Government’s strategy for interaction with the media and the public has thus far had two prongs: carefully managed, slick media spin and arrogant bullying and intimidation. These should be carefully examined.
The first prong of the media strategy is the “spin unit”. The importance of the media in modern politics dictates that every political party is required to have a media strategy and focus. Mike Rann, however, as a former journalist, is perhaps the most media savvy political leader in Australian history. Every peep in the media made by a Government Minister must go through him and his pack of media advisers. Every Ministerial Office
has a media adviser (they are the most entertaining staff members by the way, I wasted many hours chatting with Sammy the Seagull), who is employed by the Premier, not the Minister. Every morning, they discuss media strategy at Rann Towers, reporting on upcoming events within respective Ministerial Offices etc. The main problem, in my opinion, is that any media strategy they employ should be akin to a puppeteer operating his puppet; the audience should never see the strings. Unfortunately for Mike, the crude way in which the Government has treated the media over the past few years has resulted in the exposure to the crowd of the puppet master. The mechanism of the spin has become the issue, not the announcement being spun.
The second prong of the Government media strategy is the bullying approach. Many scribes and talking heads have publicly stated that they have been on the receiving end of torrents of abuse from media adviser head-honcho Jill Bottral for publishing any slight against the Government. This kind of approach is fine when there is an overwhelming majority and public support, but when the tide has turned, as it has now, it is akin to having bitten the hand that feeds for the previous four years. Complaints by ALP spin doctors of bias by the media are merely the result of prolonged retribution.
The success of Isobel Redmond as an alternative leader has nothing to do with her policy ideas or competence to govern. I posit that her success is a direct consequence of her “no-nonsense, plain talking” approach. The public appears to be warming to a politician who doesn’t only talk in sound bites at designated media conferences. Even her ramshackle appearance is a breath of fresh air compared to the cavalcade of suits and ties that make up the Rann Government. Ironically, and herein lies the Government’s dilemma, it appears that the public prefers lack-of-style over substance.
Before writing this instalment I briefly looked at both of the major parties’ websites. The ALP website is vastly superior to the Liberal website - it is easy to navigate, has a brilliant colour scheme and every candidate can be found with ease (even the Young Labor hack candidates have beautiful campaign photos). The Liberal site looks incredibly cheap by comparison. I have no doubt that this disparity would be reflected in all areas of campaigning e.g. television advertisements, mail outs etc. Traditionally, the slickest campaign will result in victory on election day, or at the very least an improvement in primary vote. It is my view, however, that this will not be the case in this election; due to the prevailing public opinion that Rann has used spin to dupe the public in the past, the low-budget, “straight talk express” campaign of Isobel Redmond is having more success than it normally would. The only traditional rule that seems to apply in this election is that Australians still love an underdog; this is going to be the most closely contested election in some time.
Hail Mary
5:58 AM, 20/2/2010 .. 0 comments .. Link
Hello all. Sorry I have been a little quiet over the last week. I have been having a wonderful holiday in Sydney, and so the SA Election campaign hasn't been top priority. I have been taking a keen interest in the developments of the week, however. Today marks the start of the "official" election campaign. The Government will enter into this period buoyed by the victories of the previous week, and the knowledge that they possess a sack full of cash- garnered from four years if corporate fundraisers- to splurge on carefully crafted Government adverts. In this post, I will discuss the politics behind the Government's main victory of the week, the Southern Expressway expansion, and the over arching theme of the advantages of incumbency. On Wednesday last week, the Rann Government announced the doubling of the Southern Expressway, a road that has been a national laughing stock ever since it was built. The largesse of this announcement surprised me for various reasons. Firstly, I can clearly recall attending ALP functions over the past 10 years at which the idea of doubling the expressway was always ruled out categorically on the grounds that it would be too expensive. What has changed? The Premier this week admitted himself that the extension of the road would be even more expensive now than it was in years previous. What about the economic climate? Has that improved? Certainly not. It seems like only yesterday that Kevin Foley was prophesising the end of the financial world as we know it. I remember listening to KFol speak through the tinny speakers of Parliament House, and thinking, gee there won't be any buckets of cash to spend in the 2010 election campaign. Given these facts, how can the announcement be justified? I will admit from the outset that I haven't examined the costings behind the Southern Expressway project. Despite this lack of knowledge, it is my belief that the announcement has all the hallmarks of a Hail Mary play. The American Super Bowl is only a few weeks past, but I will explain the origins of this term anyway. A Hail Mary is a very risky play utilized by gridiron teams in "last ditch" circumstances, where all seems lost. It is the "nothing to lose", despairing attempt at victory. The Government, probably armed with internal polling data, realises that Mawson and Bright are vital seats to hold onto, and Mitchell must be won. They couldn't afford to be trumped by a Liberal Southern Expressway announcement. This time the hail mary play seems to have resulted in a touch down. The fragility of the Liberal party was exposed this week in the fall out of the Southern Expressway debacle. There are now serious questions to ask about whether their readiness to govern. One of my pet peeves arising out of the whole debacle, however, is the Government's arrogance regarding their ability to get costings and develop policy through Government departments. It is an advantage of incumbency, and a terrible flaw in our democratic system. It doesn't prove anything apart from a superiority of resources, The access to Government Departments, combined with the fundraising advantages of incumbency, results in an uneven playing field. I believe that there should be an independent Government policy and costing agency, which both major parties can access 1 year out from a general election. This is only a pipe dream, however. For now we have to live with what we have got. So what can we expect from the coming week? I think that we will witness an elaborate, targeted and systematic campaign from the Labor party, backed by intimidating financial resources. My major problem with the ALP is that it has abandoned much of what it once believed in, in exchange for winning elections. The argument is, you can't change much in opposition. Irrespective of the merits of this argument, the ALP now is VERY good at winning elections. The Liberal party is a pauper in South Australia, and will probably be badly beaten in the election campaign, in a technical sense. No amount of advertising will help, however, if the faces and voices in the adverts no longer appeal to the voters. It is my view, based on the past weeks events, that the Government, aided by its resources and campaign team, will scrape back into Government, with the loss of 3-4 seats, despite considerable public disenchantment in its performance. The problem with Australian politics is that there are really only two options, ALP or Liberal. This causes a dilemma when neither side seems worthy of governing. Rann has admitted in the media, however, that this campaign is about "finishing" the job. He of course will not be around come 2014. Hopefully the Liberals will have there act together by then, so they can take advantage of the shambolic Government which is destined to emerge over the next four years. Well. i am off to enjoy my birthday, doped to the eyeballs on cold and flu medication. As Big John McCarthy would say, Let's Get it On!
Hello all. Sorry I have been a little quiet over the last week. I have been having a wonderful holiday in Sydney, and so the SA Election campaign hasn't been top priority. I have been taking a keen interest in the developments of the week, however. Today marks the start of the "official" election campaign. The Government will enter into this period buoyed by the victories of the previous week, and the knowledge that they possess a sack full of cash- garnered from four years if corporate fundraisers- to splurge on carefully crafted Government adverts. In this post, I will discuss the politics behind the Government's main victory of the week, the Southern Expressway expansion, and the over arching theme of the advantages of incumbency. On Wednesday last week, the Rann Government announced the doubling of the Southern Expressway, a road that has been a national laughing stock ever since it was built. The largesse of this announcement surprised me for various reasons. Firstly, I can clearly recall attending ALP functions over the past 10 years at which the idea of doubling the expressway was always ruled out categorically on the grounds that it would be too expensive. What has changed? The Premier this week admitted himself that the extension of the road would be even more expensive now than it was in years previous. What about the economic climate? Has that improved? Certainly not. It seems like only yesterday that Kevin Foley was prophesising the end of the financial world as we know it. I remember listening to KFol speak through the tinny speakers of Parliament House, and thinking, gee there won't be any buckets of cash to spend in the 2010 election campaign. Given these facts, how can the announcement be justified? I will admit from the outset that I haven't examined the costings behind the Southern Expressway project. Despite this lack of knowledge, it is my belief that the announcement has all the hallmarks of a Hail Mary play. The American Super Bowl is only a few weeks past, but I will explain the origins of this term anyway. A Hail Mary is a very risky play utilized by gridiron teams in "last ditch" circumstances, where all seems lost. It is the "nothing to lose", despairing attempt at victory. The Government, probably armed with internal polling data, realises that Mawson and Bright are vital seats to hold onto, and Mitchell must be won. They couldn't afford to be trumped by a Liberal Southern Expressway announcement. This time the hail mary play seems to have resulted in a touch down. The fragility of the Liberal party was exposed this week in the fall out of the Southern Expressway debacle. There are now serious questions to ask about whether their readiness to govern. One of my pet peeves arising out of the whole debacle, however, is the Government's arrogance regarding their ability to get costings and develop policy through Government departments. It is an advantage of incumbency, and a terrible flaw in our democratic system. It doesn't prove anything apart from a superiority of resources, The access to Government Departments, combined with the fundraising advantages of incumbency, results in an uneven playing field. I believe that there should be an independent Government policy and costing agency, which both major parties can access 1 year out from a general election. This is only a pipe dream, however. For now we have to live with what we have got. So what can we expect from the coming week? I think that we will witness an elaborate, targeted and systematic campaign from the Labor party, backed by intimidating financial resources. My major problem with the ALP is that it has abandoned much of what it once believed in, in exchange for winning elections. The argument is, you can't change much in opposition. Irrespective of the merits of this argument, the ALP now is VERY good at winning elections. The Liberal party is a pauper in South Australia, and will probably be badly beaten in the election campaign, in a technical sense. No amount of advertising will help, however, if the faces and voices in the adverts no longer appeal to the voters. It is my view, based on the past weeks events, that the Government, aided by its resources and campaign team, will scrape back into Government, with the loss of 3-4 seats, despite considerable public disenchantment in its performance. The problem with Australian politics is that there are really only two options, ALP or Liberal. This causes a dilemma when neither side seems worthy of governing. Rann has admitted in the media, however, that this campaign is about "finishing" the job. He of course will not be around come 2014. Hopefully the Liberals will have there act together by then, so they can take advantage of the shambolic Government which is destined to emerge over the next four years. Well. i am off to enjoy my birthday, doped to the eyeballs on cold and flu medication. As Big John McCarthy would say, Let's Get it On!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)