Top 10 moments in a seriously weird political year

Undoubtedly, this has been a year of strange political tidings — from Tea Party endorsed candidates using "I'm not a witch" as a selling point in their US mid-term campaign ad to the almost daily scandals involving Silvio Berlusconi.

But you don't have to look that far afield to find some weird moments in 2010. And so in the spirit of end-of-year reflection, here are the top 10 weirdest moments in Australian politics of 2010 (barring the Julia/Kev swap because it would eclipse everything else):

1: Shoe throwing

Advertisement: Story continues below You've got to say one of the most awkward television moments of the year and by far the most entertaining was watching a dread-locked hippy cliche throw his shoes at ex-PM John Howard on ABC's Q&A over the Iraq war. You couldn't write it. It was just too perfectly awful.

2. The Latham encounters

Former Labor leader Mark Latham's return in the 2010 election campaign contained innumerable cringe-worthy moments. Suddenly employed as a journalist for 60 minutes, Latham turned up in the campaign circus, pushing through a crowd to accost PM Julia Gillard. He then later tried to tell his point of view on the incident, but instead excused his actions by saying it was the PM's fault, she had made the moment awkward because she stroked him down his front.

There was also the excruciating "confrontation" with Opposition Leader Tony Abbott reported as only this campaign could have been by Sky News. As one commentator described it, it was the moment where 24-hour news ate itself.

3. 7.30 reportland meltdowns

Kerry O'Brien, in short succession, managed to have two political leaders meltdown on his program. After some light pushing, O'Brien got Abbott to say you couldn't trust what he said unless his were carefully scripted remarks, and Rudd blew his top at a particularly inopportune moment when he was down in the polls. The latter interview gave us the ever-popular term "7.30 reportland".

4. Group Hugs

For 17 days when Australia was holding its breath waiting for the three independents to bring one of the two major parties into government was filled with strange moments. Apart from Oakeshott's painfully long joint press conference with Windsor, the "group hug" in which ALP minister Anthony Albanese, Coalition MP Chris Pyne, Oakeshott and Windsor hugged and patted each other on the back in front of cameras was a moment, I dare say, we may never see repeated. Even Pyne said that this was taking the spirit of harmony "a little too far".

5. Rudd speech to Mid-Winter ball

Maybe it was all the negative press he was getting from David Marr's Quarterly Essay or the further flak from his comments on journalist Latika Bourke's fashion sense, but Kevin Rudd's speech to the Mid-Winter ball, was filled with passive-aggressive moments, false good humour and awkward timing. The ball became a telling point in Rudd's demise. In the speech, he spent some time describing the ins and outs of rat f---ing and telling the mining presence at the ball that he had "a very long memory"'. Hmmm.

6. Kiss and make up?

Rudd is also involved in another of the more awkward moments of the year. During the campaign, Gillard, desperate to make the divorced pair look positively marital, set up a media opportunity in Brisbane. There were to be no questions asked, just happy snaps. But the carefully staged event ended up looking strange and forced.

7. Budgie smugglers

Despite being managed to within an inch of its life, the campaign actually managed to produce a few hairy moments for both candidates. Abbott probably had the worst of it, getting accosted by a man in red speedos who later, it turned out, was a man on the Victorian Labor payroll. Gillard got off relatively lightly with just a disgruntled student protest and a few bad photos with disapproving babies.

8. Campaign fringe — Barker, Francis and the rest.

It's hard to go past dumped Liberal party candidate David Barker for an unacceptable campaign tactic, just attack your opponent's religion. Too easy. Barker is not in the parliament because of his anti-Muslim comments on Facebook, as well as attacking Gillard's atheism. Some other highlights from the campaign fringe included revelations about liberal member for Dawson, George Christensen, who in a student newspaper made jokes about Jews, gays and women, and Family First candidate Wendy Francis who tweeted that children with gay parents were being emotionally abused.

9. The Australian Sex Party debating Family First on morning TV

Do I need say much more? Here they are on channel 7's Sunrise.

10. Climate change elephant on Sky News

The climate change elephant followed the election campaign relentlessly, and his persistence, it seems, paid off scoring himself an interview on Sky News by prodding the live news anchorman, David Lipson with his trunk.

Bella Counihan work at the Canberra press gallery and writes for The National Times.

Gay marriage dinosaurs should evolve or die out

COMMENT

Today, parliament carried by the slimmest of margins, 73-72, a Greens motion on gay marriage.

Not to grant legal status to gay marriage, mind you.

Advertisement: Story continues below No, this vote was just to give parliamentary weight to MPs talking to their constituents about gay marriage - and seeking their views.

It's significant progress, no doubt.

Despite this result, it continues to be the rigid stance of Prime Minister Julia Gillard - who has ruled out changing the party's policy on the issue until Labor's national conference - that has arguably sparked the most discussion.

And now, she's begun to attract some heavyweight celebrity criticism.

Renowned expatriate actor Portia de Rossi today declared her dismay at Gillard's lack of leadership - and she did most articulately; with a passion hard to dismiss as mere Hollywood sideline sniping.

Striking all the right notes, de Rossi - married to talk show megastar Ellen DeGeneres - urged Australia to take a lead on an issue she insisted was a matter of "equality for every citizen".

It didn't "seem right to treat gays and lesbians as second class citizens," she said.

"I always thought Australia would pass this equal rights law . . . long before America would," she told ABC radio this morning - adding she was "a little bit disappointed in the new prime minister''.

"But I am hoping Australia will be a leader in this."

But leadership appears to be in short supply; especially from our politicians.

And if the following comment is anything to go by, there may not be a lot of point in parliamentarians talking to their electorates.

One enthused news site commenter posted the following on an article arguing for gay marriage: "Who said Guy marrigers (sic) must get the nod, it is immoral & against nature, to explain it in the simplist (sic) terms we are here to keep the species alive. Look at the Dinosausers, (sic) they all turned gay, now were (sic) are they?"

Never mind meteorites, climate change or the challenge presented by the evolution of mammals. 'Dinosausers', more commonly referred to as dinosaurs, living in uncivilised times without a gay marriage ban, were apparently not able to help themselves being attracted to the same sex of their species causing a drastic drop in reproduction, leading ultimately to their demise. The implication being that if we allow gay marriage today, along with the problems of so called "immorality", a similar epidemic of homosexuality could wipe our species off the planet. The theory suddenly explains all those coupled male fossils they've been finding.

Now, perhaps more illuminating than this new and clearly scientific theory that I would suggest all paleontologists examine closely, is the fact that people out there may actually take the underlying premise of marriage as procreation vs homosexuality seriously. All I can say is let's hope this guy is a great satirist trolling and misspelling his way across news sites heavily laden with dollops of irony.

But a different type of gay dinosaur is still walking the earth with the political lay of the land for gay marriage remaining perfectly preserved in a tar pit of conservatism and tradition. The motion to be voted on today has ALP support but the PM remains firm against the idea of a conscience vote or a change to the Marriage Act, which currently defines marriage as between a man and woman.

This is despite moves from within the ALP, with Labor minister, Mark Arbib, federal backbencher, Stephen Jones and government MP Kirsten Livermore all dissenting from the official party line. Funnily enough for Ms Livermore, a recent survey showed her electorate as one with a large amount of anti-gay sentiment. The seat of Capricornia, currently on a margin of 3.7 per cent, had 44.7 per cent of respondents agreeing with the idea that homosexuality was immoral and only 33 per cent thought gay adoption was a good idea. The survey also spelled out the obvious, that anti-gay sentiment remains entrenched in outer-suburban and regional areas and in strong Coalition seats. Overall 27 per cent of respondents to the survey, conducted over two years, believe homosexuality is immoral.

Independent MP Bob Katter summed it up nicely; asked about the Greens' motion to promote a conversation between MPs and their electorate, he said he didn't need to talk to them: "I think I know their attitudes . . . Their attitude is not in favour." We know that areas like Bob Katter's electorate of Kennedy in North Queensland don't tend to be very receptive to the idea of gay marriage, but that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do, or that it's not the will of the majority.

Still, it is more than likely that Labor is going to take the cautious road on this one. The dinosaurs are not the ''gay ones'' that died out according to our commentator's theory above, but the ones in parliament directed by those voters stuck under a fossil somewhere. The movement on this issue has been glacial with small increments towards a more progressive stance, including the vote this morning which doesn't even approach the strength of a conscience vote but instead is simply a promise to talk. You've got to hope that as we enter a different paleontological age, these gay (marriage) dinosaurs evolve or die out.

Bella Counihan works in the Canberra Press Gallery and writes for The National Times.

Drunk Facebook photos - can we just get over it?

So if the Queen's on Facebook, then does that mean we're living in the future? Question the second, if the Queen had had a few too many Dubonnet cocktails and started drunk facebooking, or maybe a servant takes a happy, surly snap and uploads it, would we all be shocked or just get over it?

As more and more people become part of the social networking phenomena and we see people not for their public selves but for the more flawed, and often tipsy version, it might eventually be that the bar (ironically enough) will be lowered. And so our political leaders and celebrities will be seen as normal human beings, capable of stuffing up like we all do.

Unfortunately, a drunken Facebook photo of the Queen is unlikely, albeit an amusing thought; the British Monarchy's Facebook page is limited to well-chosen remarks and public events. But the fact remains that with mobile phone cameras everywhere, anyone is a click away from public shaming. As recently occurred with a footballer, a dog and a tweet. I speak, of course, of Joel Monaghan's dog sex act photo, which as soon as it was in the public sphere went viral and cost the footballer his career. The event even warranted a tasteless, 3D animation.

Advertisement: Story continues below But as this next Facebook generation gets into public office, becomes teachers and police officers, let's hope your average silly drunken photo will not suffice to be labelled a scandal and cause them to lose their jobs.

For now we seem to still be in "oh my God" mode. There's always a news story of someone's stupidity gone public. A Canadian politician had to resign because he had some racy photos on Facebook, teachers in Queensland were investigated because there were Facebook photos of them dressed up in schoolgirl uniforms and finally the viral YouTube sensation of the cop rapping to a crowd rhyming "homo" with "watch gay porn in slow-mo". The officer was, in fact, praised for diffusing a tense situation but was talked to about his poor choice of words.

But shock sells, especially when people are easily and without context able to judge others on a photo, tweet or status. Of course, celebrities and political leaders do stupid things but so do you, yes, you reader. Imagine if every mistake (picture of you vomiting, smoking weed or stupid text) was broadcast worldwide, preventing you from continuing on in your offline world.

In the European Union they're even considering legislating for an "online right to be forgotten", particularly making sure that deleted photos on sites such as Facebook stay deleted and do not come back to haunt their owners.

In Australia, however, there is very little in the way of concrete legal underpinnings to a right to privacy and nothing like what the EU laws are trying to do, i.e catch up with modern technology and data protection. Many websites these days now regularly stalk their readers, providing lots of info about click habits for advertisers. Even political websites, those of Barry O'Farrell, Kristina Keneally, Tony Abbott and the Greens all leave a trail of cookie crumbles, so to speak, which allow third parties to follow your online tendencies.

But maybe we should just get rid of this "privacy" business all together; just unbutton, open the fly of the jeans of humanity and let everything hang loose. If technology is just shoving us along in that direction anyway, let's throw human dignity to the wind and say "here I am, drunk on Facebook and who gives a toss".

But we don't and until the day where every little indiscretion can be forgiven as soon as it has occurred then the future will be laden with those politicians, teachers, policeman and celebrities, furiously attempting to rub their online histories clean for public viewing and plenty of gotcha moments for those that don't.

Unless of course we go with Stephen Colbert's suggestion to simply get plastic surgery, change our names and move away from friends and relatives. Even if the Queen is on Facebook, that is a future I don't particularly want to live in.

Bella Counihan works in the Canberra press gallery and writes for The National Times.

Zombies trump a political apocalypse

When things are going awry, Julia Gillard may well find out that it is better to have a Zombie army than a political apocalypse.

You don't need to be a political expert or insider to have foreseen serious difficulties with the US mid-term elections for the Obama administration; the Tea Party, Fox News's Glenn Beck and a perfect storm of bad political and economic conditions made things none too easy for Democrats. Losing the House and retaining the Senate is almost good news for Democrats, they could have lost both. Unless a miracle bunny is pulled out of a hat, Obama could become a one-term wonder.

The bad mood surrounding the incumbent party and administration is such that in the lead-up to the West Virginia Senate race, Joe Manchin, a National Rifle Association endorsed candidate, ran an ad where he took out his gun and literally shot a copy of the cap and trade bill. Now before you say "there goes another gun-wielding Republican, sledging the Obama administration" it might be worth noting that he ran as a Democrat senator, notionally on Obama's own team and that he won his Senate race, 53 to 44 per cent.

Advertisement: Story continues below Meanwhile, back in Oz, Doug Cameron recently noted a truism of Australian politics, that Labor politicians here have become zombified. Now we're not talking, wondering through a shopping mall feeding on the living, Dawn of the Dead style. But more following, un-questioningly your own party line without reflection.

Cameron, a left faction leader, said serving the government was a "a bit like having a political lobotomy. You can't speak your mind”, adding that discussion behind closed doors just didn't cut it. He argued there should be more open debate, leading to a greater focus on longer term policy and less on spin. Now whether he would have said these things while old boss Kevin was around is another matter, but it's the strongest a Labor pollie has been on the matter publicly. Climate change minister Greg Combet also recently spoke along similar themes, although more circumspectly, saying that Labor had “a responsibility to lead, not follow" and not to be entirely beholden to focus groups.

So there's a couple in the government's ranks feebly trying to fight off the zombification of your MPs, but it could be worse for Gillard. At least no one is taking a gun and shooting down the mining tax or running ads rubbishing key parts of your administration's policy program.

Then what about the Australian voters? Do we prefer party discipline and tight-lipped, unthinking zombie MPs or would we prefer gun-toting, own-goal Joe Manchins? It's a matter of striking a better balance between pragmatic and more idealistic.

Doug Cameron suggested that we should employ the three-line whip idea from the UK, where whips, named because they are meant to keep everyone voting in line with party decisions, will have a ranking system for various votes.

One line vote: who cares which way you go.

Two-line vote: you should probably vote with us, but we're cool.

And three lines: if you even sniff the wrong side of us, you're out.

Until recently in South Africa, members of parliament could actually switch parties, or form new parties and take their seats with them. So if Cameron wanted to support gay marriage, as he's hinted at, then all he would have to do is switch to the Greens and we'd have two Adam Bandts.

In the meantime, some tips for surviving a political Zombie apocalypse:

1. Avoid parliaments/cemeteries.

2. Get into and sabotage focus groups.

3. Organise supplies before they come (might be too late as we've already voted them in).

4. The only way to stop them is to remove the head of the party, or destroy the brains of the voters.

5. Remember they're no longer who they were before they entered politics.

Bella Counihan works in the Canberra press gallery and writes for the National Times.

Howard, shoes, Costello and balls

I'd bet when John Howard decided to release his memoirs he was expecting to cop a lot of flack but a shoe? Really? Maybe if Peter Costello was sitting in that audience, it would have been a lot more than your average shoe projectile (now old hat). As we wait for the shoe-throwers book deal to be hammered out today, let's look back a moment to a more long lived drama.

John Howard has rewound that tape of Bold and the Beautiful to relive the old Peter Costello leadership saga. Ex-opposition leader John Hewson said out loud what we've all been thinking — Costello just "didn't have the balls" to challenge. But given recent history, does any one see anything a bit funny here? While we may say that Costello lacked some chutzpah in the trouser department, many were shocked and horrified at the successful leadership challenge we've just had. If Costello's case was a lack of balls then did Julia Gillard have too much?

When Gillard became leader and Australians woke up to orange juice, Weetbix and a bloody coup; knife-in-the-back jokes were spreading like wildfire. Many speculated that it would cost Labor the election (which it probably nearly did) and that people simply didn't like leaders jumping the gun like that. It was "a ruthless dispatching", "a savage dismissal", "a political assassination".

Advertisement: Story continues below
And so history was written thus. And yet Costello not savagely dismissing, ruthlessly dispatching or politically assassinating Howard meant we perceived him as weak? It's a hard thing to put your finger on but part of the answer to this riddle is that no two leadership "transitions", as they are now euphemistically called, are alike.

Howard and Costello had some kind of agreement or at least an understanding of a leadership swap. Costello, of course, always said it was a solid pact, where as Howard ever fudged it, right up until and including writing his book. Gillard and Kevin Rudd had the leadership issue lurking in the background, but who knows what was said between the two behind closed doors in the ALP cone of silence? Whether, as Laurie Oakes once inferred, there was a more concrete agreement.

Howard and Costello also had the speculation bubbling away for years and years, where as Gillard's leadership ditherings only lasted the first term, heating up when she kept giving us all that hyperbole about how "she was more likely to go to Mars" or "more likely to be a Dogs' full-forward" than become leader.

Maybe it's the fact that Rudd was a first-termer, not given sufficient chance to shine, or at least time to let the shine wear off and let us, the voters give him the boot. Maybe it's because he was so utterly terminated by it all, crying at podium, career annihilated. We always hope when leaders go that maybe they will rise again — Turnbull we're looking at you.

Is it as simple as a girl versus boy thing? Maybe boys are allowed coups and jumping over others to get to the top, but ladies are not meant to have that same ambition. Nah . . . too simple. Maybe it's more about our perception of how leadership change should be done. There's the traditional managed Kirribilli-style agreed leadership "transition" versus a completely new way of getting to the top; a quick meeting late at night, decision made, no trial.

No one expected what happened to happen, when it happened, how it happened. The simple shock was all we needed to make Gillard into a villainess who had snatched leadership from another, even if at the time we weren't too plum keen on him either and she actually looked all right.

Strange though how history writes itself, who gets the last word, and who gets a shoe thrown at them. The "shouldas" come out — Costello should have challenged then, Gillard should have waited and the Q&A production team probably should have more thoroughly checked the audience for dreads.

Bella Counihan works in the Canberra Press Gallery and writes for the National Times.

PM's Twitter glass is half-empty

Our PM Julia Gillard and veteran journalist Laurie Oakes have both recently lamented that something has gone seriously wrong in our national discussion — that new technologies and the "news cyclone" as Oakes puts it, means that if our collective attention spans get any shorter, they'll stop existing altogether. Maybe it's the election we've just had or it's media coverage, but it seems as though everyone's looking at the glass and saying it's half empty. This doom and gloom needs a few rainbows and unicorns.

Recently Gillard, very rightly, pointed out that not everything can be reduced to a tweet. Worryingly for twitterholics, some things actually require people to go a little more in-depth than 140 characters will allow.

Imagine Romeo and Juliet: Wherefore out thou Romeo? I'm just here. Oh, are you? No, sorry I'm dead. All right, I'll kill myself. Oh wait, I'm not dead . . . damn.

Advertisement: Story continues below
Or Pride and Prejudice: I don't like you very much; you're arrogant, pretentious, cold, aloof. Oh wait, you're none of those things. I love you.

Or Kafka's The Trial: I've been arrested. For what? Don't know.

I could go on but the point remains, you know that it just doesn't work on the same level does it?

Oakes says the attention span of the media and media consumers is getting shorter, reiterating Gillard's concerns that this brings discussion about policy down into the doldrums. Many more are lamenting the death of journalism from new technologies more generally, although there still are kernels of hope about the co-existence of online and traditional media. One neuroscientist has even hypothesised that the increasing presence of screen technologies in our lives not only shortens our attention span but may indeed leave us unbalanced; promoting sensory connections in the brain without developing deeper, cognitive pathways. That old wives tale about TV roting your brain maybe have a speck of truth to it after all.

They are all very valid and sound observations about the news cycle, new media and even our brains but it is odd that one moment we are very willing to blame technologies for encouraging lowering standards and short attention spans and then in the next we herald them with virtual street parades, bunting and confetti provided, for solving all the world's ills. Surely there's a middle ground?

For example often we think giving kids computers is all we need to get them to be smarter, launching them onto the IT superhighway, right? But, of course, left to their own devices, children and computers will not make smarter kids. However, when you get the kids, the computers and a good teacher who knows how to use the technology together, it can be a invaluable tool. Worth watching here for experiments doing just that in Third and First World classrooms.

Likewise one could think of the way we now digest our news. Just reading a tweet from a politician or reading a headline doesn't make you informed. But these days there is a wealth of information out there on the interwebs and 24-hour news channels; more primary sources and whole press conferences shown live and uncut. (Do we remember Gillard's first big presser with the umpteen "moving forwards"? Cleverly designed if it was simply going to be sliced, diced and edited for your consumption but instead the whole presser went live on air causing a bit of a disastrous, slogan-robot look.)

But the point is there are ways that these technologies can encourage more cognitive, long-term, inquisitive thinking. You've now got full interviews on the website, the trend of infographics, whole policy documents online, journos writing longer features for online not restricted by space on printing presses, bloggers, Wikileaks and crowd sourcing giving us ever more information.

These, more in-depth pieces of information, if anything, have become more available with new mediums, allowing for greater exploration of a subject and greater cognitive thinking. Professor Google can take us pretty far, but how do we encourage further engagement? Let's just hope that if people are willing to constantly check celebrity tweets or a blog containing only awkward family pet photos, then we can get this internet-hoozamajig and all the wealth of information it offers to drive deeper, long-term discussions.

I suppose it's up to you, Gillard and Oakes. You're the teachers in this classroom, we've got the computers, if you both do your respective jobs in the media and politics side of things, I'm sure we'll get smarter.

Bella Counihan works in the Press Gallery at Parliament House and writes for the National Times website.

http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/politics/pms-twitter-glass-is-halfempty-20101020-16tmw.html

Tweets get messy as mainstream media takes on the blogosphere

While the federal parliament tries to head for a "kinder, gentler" way of doing things, social media is getting a bit nasty.

Which leads to the question - how many outings of an anonymous political blogger does it take to make Twitter explode with rage?

Just the one it seems.

Advertisement: Story continues below On Monday, The Australian's online reporter, James Massola, outed anonymous political blogger, Grogs Gamut, as federal public servant, Greg Jericho. A bridge too far for many in the blogosphere and social media world who struck back to defend one of their own, and heavily criticise the mainstream media outlet's actions.

There's already been quite a bit of back and forth and I'm sure the debate about journalistic ethics and whether bloggers have an inalienable right to anonymity, with valid positions on both sides, will continue for some time. But what is even more remarkable is how loud and angry social media can get when it wants to be, especially when it's critical of institutional media.

Cue epic social vs mainstream media battle scene - avatars bloodied, editors armed to the teeth - this could get messy.

Gamut/Jerricho himself became famous (well, as far as a political blogger can) for criticising the big media institutions coverage of the 2010 election campaign. And he got his name out there when ABC head Mark Scott responded to the criticism, referring to it in a speech at the Melbourne Writers festival.

Criticism is one thing, but Twitter has turned into an all-day word stab-fest against The Australian and Massola. And likewise, lots of tweeps have gone all out to support the named blogger Gamut. Many even changing their avatars with banners like "I am @GrogsGamut." There was even the inevitable hashtag "GrogGate" created and a facebook group "If 100,000 people like this page I'll name my firstborn Grogs Gamut."

Twitterer and pot-stirrer extraordinaire, Catherine Deveny, put out a few comments that would fall into the abuse category, tweeting "#groggate is NOT about public interest, it's about envy and relevance deprivation. @grogsgamut? Good work. @jamesmassola? You f***wit."

And then later adding her own further two cents "@James Massola. You d***head."

More abuse followed from others in the Twitterverse much along the same lines. One of the top tweets of the day was from JeremysEar who said "@JamesMassola is quite right; only journalists may discuss politics. Everyone else needs to have their job threatened." And from another tweep "@JamesMassola You must be so proud of yourself, you petty and insecure little man".

Woah . . . harsh. So much for kinder, gentler.

Then the twitterverse tried to co-ordinate some strategies. Some suggested a mass boycott of the journo, while others reflected on the storm-in-a-teacup nature of it all. SMinney wrote; "Newsflash: Intelligent person with own opinions living in Canberra turns out to have a day-job unconnected with opinions."

Or just straight satire, mocking The Australian's position on the matter. MichaelByrnes tweeted "When is the satirist who writes columns under the name "Piers Akerman" going to be revealed?"

After all this bile and venom from the social media world, there is something that may comfort The Australian and James Massola. In the end, to bastardise a Wildian phrase, there is only one thing that is worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.

Definitely none of that at the moment. At least not on Twitter.

Bella Counihan works in the Press Gallery at Parliament House and writes for the National Times.

Julia's Frankenstein Parliament

The new parliament is to start next week and as we venture into unfamiliar territory, one can't help but feel we might be going against the natural order of things. Some worrying questions pop up, not unlike those themes in the popular story of Frankenstein. Have we created a great new invention by chucking adversarial politics and embracing consensus? Or are we inevitably going to be chased out of the village by the angry pitch fork-wielding mob (read Australian public) for a monster that no one really understands or can really control?

Prime Minister Julia Gillard must have been ecstatic to see the beast of her government's hand twitch, alive from a bolt of electric legitimacy delivered by independent MPs Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott. But the experiment undoubtedly remains a strange one, forced by unnatural circumstances. The PM said recently that expectations of the new parliament are going to have to be adjusted for this new polity. The government can no longer directly prosecute its agenda or do things the old-fashioned "here's the fully-formed policy, push the bugger through" way. She said people (perhaps directing her comments towards the old guard of the media) would just "have to get used to it".

The Westminster system has always had a natural inclination towards adversarial politics - every turn the government makes the opposition shadows and criticises, political point-scoring 101. But the people have spoken, they don't want this any more, sick to the teeth. So the game tries to rearrange itself.

Of course, there has always been the Senate, the house of review that is sometimes seen as the great saviour of Australian politics and then alternately as the greatest obstacle. But here's the worry for the government — when the Senate blocks bills, the Senate doesn't get blamed by the public. The ETS was seen as a failure on the government's part, not those that voted against the bill during it's travel down the log river of parliamentary process. And even then, the Senate was never as problematic as this new parliament is likely to be, with so many extra players and actors to consider.

Ideas of election promises, therefore, are not as they were. It would require a new engagement with the public for people to really follow the process of parliament and understand how legislation came about, which parties and actors own which part of the legislation. But if the Australian public has to actually pay attention to politics things might get tricky. Especially after this election, where there has been one of the largest turn-offs from politics ever seen, expressed in an unprecedented level of informal and non-voting. Mark Latham may have actually been relevant to that campaign after all, as much as we all wanted him to go get a different day job.

So the government is going to cop it for breaking promises, backflips and the like. Even if it actually improves the outcome and quality of the legislation, it probably won't be seen as such. The opposition will easily frame Labor's government as untrustworthy, particularly because of Labor's perceived history of broken promises.

Julia's Frankenstein parliament could be a great advance for democracy, where legislation is improved by consensus and reviewed by different parties in the process on its merits. But this strange new beast may well scare the villagers, media and public alike, who might not understand the new creature and its ways. Gillard herself said those used to the old ways may well respond to the new circumstances with "shock horror".

You might be right Julia, you can almost hear those pitch forks sharpening now.

http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/politics/julias-frankenstein-parliament-20100923-15na4.html

Political Swear Jar

Undoubtedly things in Australian politics are going to be different and so with it political language will be reformed and written anew. So let’s start this whole process on the right foot. Rob Oakeshott says there’s going to be a new swear jar in politics, so let’s begin by reaching some consensus (ironically enough) on which words are swear jar worthy.

Political language undoubtedly has its fads, like the section in the back of women’s magazines telling you ‘who’s hot’ and ‘who’s not’. Of course, the Rudd era was one of political jargon; “revolutions”, “working families”, “complementarities” and other such nominalizations in Bureaucratese. But they weren’t winners with the majority.

So drum roll while we have the nominations please.

When he mentioned the political swear jar idea Oakeshott said that the first word to go had to be “mandate”. He told a press conference before eventually revealing his decision on which team he was backing “this is not a mandate for any government. We should have a great big swear jar for the next three years and if anyone uses that word ‘mandate’ they should have to chip in some money.’’ Mandate was probably never really going to feature, I’d say, given the delicate nature of things, but what Oakeshott wants, Oakeshott can have. ‘Mandate’ is out.

I’ll hazard a guess, the parliamentary press gallery is certainly going to nominate “paradigm”. New, old, blue team, red team — doesn’t really matter what type of paradigm, when Bob Katter uses the word 10 times each press conference you know it has to be a word on its way out. Maybe it’s the cynicism of the “old paradigm” but from the look of most journos, the word is billed as a one hit wonder. In recent weeks we’ve seen headlines like “New Paradigm looks like old-fashioned politics”, “The new paradigm will die in parliament” and “new paradigm politics may not change a thing” ... but it would be a miracle if we were still hearing about paradigms this time next year.

Bob Brown has nominated “pushing” as his forbidden word. In a press conference he reprimanded many journos for asking about his party “pushing” its policies. He said that “pushing” has always been a misleading term, I suppose because it suggests forcing and pressuring instead of other nicer, less sexy words like “legislating” or “lobbying”. Unfortunately it appears the media remains unaware of its swear jar status.

Crikey readers have spoken out against words like “backflip” and “cracks” in the new world order after a headline ran “Cracks emerge in Labor-Green alliance”. One reader said “the media are now on hyper-vigilant ‘crack’ alert”, while another complained “Are you going to report this every time? How brain-numbing that will be. Oh look, the government has to appease someone to pass something.”

Well, brain-numbing is what we’re trying to avoid and one way to do that is remove the brain-numbing language that has long dominated the political landscape. We’ve hopefully gotten rid of “real action” and “moving forward” post campaign. But if we’re going to have a new way of doing things, let’s inject some new vocab into the old dog. So now is your turn reader, any suggestions? What are the words you want to ban?

Online voting - or the horse-and-cart option?

Finally, after much breath-holding, palm-sweating and teeth-grinding. We got there. Through the three amigos — or not so much anymore with Katter tossing his own sombrero in the ring separately — a decision was finally made and we have a government.

Weirdly enough, the votes that we’ve all been frantic for the Electoral Commission to count have been kind of sidelined; the independents and Greens MP Adam Bandt have ultimately made a final decision out of all the indecision. Who knows? Maybe in the months to come we’ll see both sides calling in the ref with recounts a real possibility.

But it could be different. Having just gone through an election where it has taken two weeks to get to only 85 odd per cent of the vote counted, the idea of an online ballot is looking pretty attractive for a public put through the electoral wringer. Certainty and speed would be the main benefits - those things pesky humans don’t always provide. Reports of ballot counters taking lengthy lunch breaks and clocking off at the primary school finish bell are a case in point.

But before you jump up and down demanding that the electoral commission go digital so you don’t have to leave your laptop to go exercise your democratic right, there might be some issues you want to consider.

Electronic voting in Australia was trialled just once and included remote voting. At the 2007 election it was introduced for the blind and for those in our Defence Forces overseas. The government then dumped the idea in 2009, saying that the trials had been too expensive when compared with ordinary push-paper-into-a-box voting. And we’re not just talking a dollar or two more, but for every dollar spent on a ordinary vote you’d have to spend more than $120 on an electronic ballot.

But hey, why put a price on democracy right? Well, there’s another red flag that the average voter might not be aware of. Online polls can be incredibly easy to manipulate. And I’m not talking some futuristic matrix thing here, I’m talking your Grandma could do it. It’s simply a matter of voting, clicking a button that is easily available in your web browser to clear the history of that vote and voting again. There are of course automated versions of this and then once an online community or two is involved, you can seriously manipulate the count.

There surely aren’t too many Rick Astley fans, but in 2008 he won the MTV best act ever. How? A simple yet effective program written by someone with the handy Vote4Rick. If you downloaded the RickVoter program, it would go to the MTV website and automatically vote for Astley over and over again. Rick ended up with more than 90 per cent of the vote.

Back in 2009, Time magazine had an online poll for the top 100 most influential people. Usually the top spots would go to your Barack Obamas or your Hu Jintaos but this time the number one spot went to the relatively unknown founder of an online billboard site, 4Chan. “Moot” or Christopher Poole as he’s known, was propelled to the top by his devoted followers who manipulated the numbers using bots and other hacking devices. Not only that but they actually managed to make a pattern in the list where the first letter of each name spelled out “marblecake also the game”.

The problem for online voting is a difficult and possibly unresolvable one. It all boils down to the problem of how do you prove who you are online? Histories can be deleted, IP addresses could be used by different people, and multiple email addresses easily created. There are options, using passport numbers or some such, but it’s a tricky one. Electronic voting with specially designed machines can also have their problems - they would be more secure but umpteen times more expensive. SMS voting might be a real idea that would solve some of these issues.

If we look back, the trend towards digital has been changing the way we live our everyday life - Music? MP3. Books? e-Readers. Photos, money, games, video, TV, mail, the list goes on and on. Going from analogue to digital seems the natural inclination of recent history and is (mostly) seen as an improvement. This Victorian government has already flagged its intention to use electronic voting kiosks next election. But until the technology gets better and cheaper, as much as it pains my Gen Y heart to say it, in this case it might be just better to stick with the horse and cart and learn to be patient.

Our Twitter election

By Bella Counihan

This election has been called frustrating, spin-full and certainly underwhelming. Fair call says Goanna. But there has been one way in which this election has been pioneering and truly different from any other election and this was despite, not because of, the candidates on offer.

This really has been the first Australian Twitter election.

Now you may say, "Hey, Twitter and social media was around the last time" and true, Kevin 07, as we all know, was cracking that whip long ago. But this time round it's a bit different. Social media is not being used effectively by the politicians, but more than ever Twitter has become a valid alternate source of comment, particularly from journos on the campaign trail. It has been progressively merging with and being used by mainstream media, to confer on electoral happenings, and to gauge public opinion.

Newspapers and TV are giving public tweets a place. In print they are taking up the Twitter coverage with regular spots, The Age with 2UE's Latika Bourke's "View from the Tweet" and the Sunday Telegraph with "Twits of the Week". During political coverage of debates and interviews, TV stations are now streaming live tweets across the bottoms of our screens.

Bourke, in an interview with the National Times said Twitter, for the first time, had really been used by the general public to "engage with the journalistic process" as much with the political one. "The real winners are the people at home, who get to engage and interact with their news. And they not only get it faster, they get the bigger picture of an election campaign," she said. Including the journos perspective; "the logistical side of being trapped on the bus, of being held hostage to the leaders".

And now on the campaign, Twitter, just like other media sources is being monitored by those within the campaign. A logistical annoyance has been created, as journos are now telling the public where the campaign is (making it open to disruption) and also honest insights into the controlled, stage managed nature of the campaign.

The bullshit cut through factor that Twitter has is a really fascinating part of the election, both for readers and those in the conversation. In real time during a speech or debate, one sarky tweet can completely undermine what's been said by wind-bagging pollies, giving us an honest perspective on political goings on.

In this campaign, many politicians, even regular users, seemed to drop out of the Twittersphere entirely. Maybe they were too busy, but maybe there was also a lot of pressure not to screw up, an easy enough thing to do in real life but even more so in the Twitterverse.

No one's claiming that Twitter in this election in anyway influenced the result, online populations being such as they are still gestating, but many have turned to social media to be informed, to feel engaged where they would have otherwise instinctively switched off. Mainstream media is still king, but while last election you might just sit on your couch and watch the debate on TV, now we're also sitting there with mobile or laptop in hand watching the wave of instant, often humorous comment roll over us as well.

You wouldn't expect a cat to bark and yet during the campaign many have suggested that this has not been a Twitter election because politicians have not been using it, or because it did not directly influence the outcome. But why do people think Twitter is some kind of magical box capable of changing everthing?

A book about the inventor/founder of Twitter, Jack Dorsey or @jack, explains where the idea for Twitter came from — it was about mapping and archiving complex environments in real time. The idea evolved from courier dispatches in New York, that said where the couriers were, what they were doing, where they were going and co-ordinating that information.

Twitter's role in this election has been about mapping and archiving the campaign, in terms of people's reactions to policies and parties, sharing information and comment and letting people engage with the campaign by knowing the behind the scenes and what's happening where. This is all it ever intended to be and in that sense, it's been a serious evolution in how elections are covered by the media and engaged with by the public.

So, of course, the social media cat hasn't barked, but it did let out quite a meow.

The Atheism factor

By Bella Counihan

"We don't want a godless Prime Minister!" called the pastor on a rumbling truck atop of Canberra's Mount Ainslie to his congregation. There they were, Catch the Fire ministry, massed on a cold Saturday morning to engage in "spiritual warfare" to see "ungodly forces" removed from parliament. Unlike the last "exorcism" (and yes, this is round two in Catch the Fire's attempts to rid Canberra of evil spirits) Danny Nalliah, the ministry's head, focused especially on our non-believing PM and the potential damage her atheism could cause in office.

But as Goanna stood there observing the scene of Nalliah devotees (who are also naturally voters in this election), the question did arise, Julia's atheism is going to be a divisive issue for some, but in 2010, is it really going to affect the way people vote?

In America, survey after survey confirms that US voters would rather anyone but an atheist. A woman, sure; homosexual, maybe; but atheist, no way José. In the latest of these in 2007, only 45 per cent would vote for one, even if they were competent and capable.

But in Australia, and more specifically on Mount Ainslie in Canberra, a different, young, pierced, yellow t-shirt-wearing response popped up. There they were, the Australian Sex Party, in protest, on the other side of this question, proudly demonstrating: No! Julia's an atheist and who cares? Elections are about policies, visions for the country. Conversely gender and religion is soooo whatever.

But of course, that's what elections should be about. This election — now on knife's edge — however, has also very firmly been about image, more so than any other election in living memory. Real Julia, Real Action, Moving forward and very little to distinguish the two candidates other than superficial impressions. And if we're simply working off who "feels" better, what personality we like more, then maybe personal beliefs, or lack of them could well be a factor in this election.

Having said that, it would work both ways, a positive for some and a negative for others. For some voters they might think "finally a woman, atheist, and un-married - there's someone who's not a middle-aged white guy, someone who comes close to representing me!".

The PM's atheism may also appeal because of the way she approached it, being honest when it would have been much easier to fudge the issue. She said shortly after she came to office: "I am not going to pretend a faith I don't feel." This is despite the fact that she has already done much to appeal to the so-called "Christian vote", for example further funding for chaplaincies in schools and money for Mary MacKillop sainthood celebrations.

So even despite her pro-religion policies, many will vote for her because she herself represents a move towards a "modern", "progressive" representation of Australia. And likewise, like those in the Catch the Fire congregation, some might deliberately vote against her because of her "ungodly' ways. Even those who are "non-believers" or religious fence-sitters may still vote against our Julia and prefer a PM with beliefs, because of some loose idea that religious people are more likely to be moral, or that any personal convictions are better than none.

We know that Australian voters have voted for an atheist PM before, and former Labor leader and Gillard hero, Hawke was openly agnostic. But Gillard has very rarely (if ever) used the word "atheist" in relation to herself. "Atheist" for many reasons, unlike ''agnostic,'' has taken on a stigma, suggesting something sinister. As an astute politician she has quite sensibly stayed away from it (although the media has not).

When asked on Melbourne ABC radio, whether she was worried about the "Christian vote" she replied, "I'm worried about the national interest. About doing the right thing by Australians. And I'll allow people to form their own views . . ."

Last night Tony Abbott said on ABC's Q&A program said "I don't think my particular religious convictions should be held against me in this campaign, any more than the Prime Minister's lack of conviction should be held against her."

Julia must be hoping the flock follows Abbott on that one.

Bella Counihan is The Goanna.

Campaign brings out the eccentrics

'http://twitpic.com/2de24z“ Christ, I could have actually voted for you”

There must be something about elections which makes the particularly eccentric engaged in this Australian democracy of ours come out of the woodwork. For whatever reasons, whether they like it or not, a sudden light is shone upon them. And so as more and more is revealed, the inevitable chill shoots down a voter’s spine thinking, ‘Christ, I could have actually voted for you.’

In this respect, this election has been exemplary, casting a wide net and coming up with a healthy haul of delusion, narrow-minded bigotry and paranoia. The couple to start us off in this bonkers race to the election, was Labor candidate for Flingers Adrian Schonfelder and Liberal candidate for Ballarat Mark Banwell. The first, Schonfelder, thought it alright to pin suicides on Tony Abbott who he said was “influencing people to take their own lives”. And then Banwell, who thought it was not an exaggeration to compare the consequences of Labor’s education building program to the ‘holocaust.’

Then there was David Barker, then Liberal candidate for Chifley getting disendorsed for his Western Sydney seat of Chifley who said via Facebook and elsewhere that there shouldn’t be any Muslims in parliament, Julia couldn’t be trusted as PM because of her atheism and that Tony Abbott was “the mouthpiece for God.”

The next installation in the looney hall of election horrors has got to be Wendy Francis. Wendy, running for Family First in the Senate, went ahead and aired her views via Twitter and elsewhere about gay marriage. Suffice to say she’s not pro the idea, elaborating that children with two mums, or dads were being emotionally abused and that the consequences of legalising gay marriage would be equivalent to creating a second “stolen generation”. She initially said she was not the author of the tweets, deleted them but then turned around and said she stood by the comments.

One Nation jumped on the anti-Gay bandwagon taking it just a little bit further into narrow-minded bigotry land, with it’s Victorian President chiming in on the social media site to say “U have a backer in me, love to do some Poofter Bashing from time too time [sic]...“

Nice. He has since deleted this tweet and protected his account. But other tweets include calling Prime Minister Gillard a “treatous redheaded b*tch [sic]” and former Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull a “jew boy”.

Sticking with a right-wing theme, George Christensen LNP candidate for Dawson is the latest in the list of conservative mishaps. It was revealed that in his student days he edited and wrote a pamphlet which included charmers such as “My thoughts: the truth is women are stupid and that's that.” And this fun little joke:

“A homosexual walks into the Doctor’s office, sobbing. ‘Doctor, Doctor’, he says ‘I think I’ve got AIDS. ‘Well,’ replied the Doctor, shocked “Who gave it to you? “I dunno,” says the homosexual. “I haven’t got eyes in the back of my head.”

This guy is somehow not getting disendorsed, Abbott excusing the remarks as “silly” adolescent behaviour. But all the same, he’ll probably be getting less votes in the marginal Queensland seat.

And then the piece de resistance in this bugged-out ballet, Mark Latham and his weird antics over the latter half of this election period. First accosting Julia on the campaign in his pseudo journalist/60 minutes role and and then defending his actions by saying that she was the one being inappropriate with all her “stroking.”

Gross.

Latham then topped it all off by saying that the only reason veteran journalist Laurie Oakes had spoken out on his behaviour, was because he had revealed Oakes’ nickname “Jabba the Hut” in his book. According to Latham, this was a long-term grudge Oakes had held, pointing to a possible “screw loose.”

Irony much?

It’s worth remembering generally these pollies have just happened to be outed during the course of this campaign, social media probably assisting in this. And generally if you want to tweet your prejudice, knock yourself out, I don’t have to follow you. But these people aren’t just annonymous private citizens, notionally these are people who could be representing the broader community in Australia’s parliaments.

As Oakes said in reply to Latham’s bizarre and personal attack on him, we undoubtedly were very lucky to have “dodged a bullet” in not electing Latham as PM in the 2004 election.

It seems this election, we’ve now dodged a few more.

Sex v God. Or, you couldn't make this stuff up

A lot of political junkies have been hanging out for a second hit of election debate. We just might get it now, with Julia revealing she's keen for another televised bust up. Just as the PM revealed that it was “game on”, Greens leader Bob Brown (who had been excluded from the previous round) tweeted his eager availability for such an event.

Unfortunately, it would be a surprise if he was included. So the minor parties are left in the campaign wilderness, forced to make their own debates, in their own particular way . . .

In a “you couldn't make this stuff up” moment in the campaign, the Australian Sex Party and Family First went head to head on Monday on Channel Seven's Sunrise, dragging along co-Kochie presenter and debate moderator Melissa Doyle.

On one level, as with any political debate, there was an urge to gouge your eyes out with a rusty spoon, especially that early in the morning.

Okay, perhaps an exaggeration. But one could not help but think in regards to that quaint little idea called democracy that maybe watching two obviously opposed parties (who few of us will vote for) battle it out on a Lohan-leading breakfast TV program, point-scoring against each other, was not to be considered a high point.

But before you spat out your cornflakes, there was another way to look at things. As political stunts go, the minor parties have done all right here. After all, both parties are simply trying to get their names out there, in the hope that people, so infuriated with two-party options, will sway their way. What better way than to go up against your diametrically opposed philosophical enemy on breakfast TV with hundreds of thousands of Kochie fans, and yell predictably at each other for having completely different views.

The Sex Party, in particular, is known for such things. It tries to get its name (which has the rather saleable benefit of having the word ''sex'' in its title) shouted into the public ear as much as possible.

The Sex Party's secret political adviser, whose alias, I kid you not, is Curly Merkin, apparently got Essential Media to come up with a campaign slogan. In consideration of the party's overall vibe and stance on controversial issues, Essential Media chose the phrase ''F--- 'em all''. But in the end, despite the Sex Party often embracing such a sentiment, it decided not to go with that piece of campaign gold. But it just goes to show the overall tenor of how the party tends to sell itself.

The Sex Party also recently told the media that Family First had contacted it for a preference deal, which the conservative party repeatedly denied. Whether it be true or not, it was a great little media moment. After all, what's a better headline than a party running on a socially conservative/Christian values ticket getting a preference deal with a party connected to the adult porn industry. Easily came the headers: “Family First sought sex deal”.

But I suppose Goanna is being too cynical here. At least the Sunrise debate actually had a point of difference, even if the chasm happened to be so laughably wide that there was not a lot of point watching it. Of course, with Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, there will be a lot of faux disagreement, while much agreement lurks sneakily under the surface.

But when you look at this peculiar debate from the perspective of a campaign gimmick, getting names and brands out there, especially when the most minor of all minor parties, then you've got to give them a campaigning 10 out of 10.

Take over of the fake Julias

Impersonating politicians has long been apart of the Australian political landscape. In fact, there is a veritable industry of ''fakes''. How these fakes are going can be quite an insight into what's going on with real political leaders.

Julia Gillard, having risen to the top of the political heap, is getting impersonated left, right and centre. Although her new role as PM started only a few weeks ago, she has already expanded the market for that hair, that voice and those very Julia mannerisms. Now the fake Gillards have arrived, where does that leave the fake Rudds?

There are some fake Julias that are already well established, just getting a bit more attention for their skills, and some are brand new to the act. Julia-impersonating veteran, Amanda Bishop, who starred in this video parody of Dolly Parton's 9 to 5 and the slave driver that was her predecessor, is now fielding questions from the public on YouTube about Julia's new government.

Ex-full frontal star Gabby Millgate is a newcomer to the sport of imitating Julia. On her YouTube channel she has a range of topics that her “Julia Spillar” discusses, from the mining tax, to Laurie Oakes, to East Timor negotiations. Lynne Cazaly joins the troop of look-a-likes with her ''Gulia Jillard' and a catchy version of Tik Tok. GetUp! has even done a new ad using a Gillard impersonator to make fun of the government's lack of climate policy, to great effect, making the ad a bit of a success.

There were reports that early in Gillard's prime-ministership some look-a-likes were getting as much as $5000 a pop at corporate events. The real Gillard was quizzed on the matter, even giving tips to Julia wannabes, who needed to be “cutting edge”. She told ABC radio: “I think they're probably doing a Kath and Kim style voice. I think they're probably doing a lot of red hair.”

The fake Gillards have, in fact, sprouted up just as another impersonation door is closing. As with elsewhere, the Julias have taken over from Kevs. It seems the fake Mr Rudds have been having a hard time of it, with bad public sentiment and little of the political parody market.

Satirist Chris De Havilland took up the Rudd gig as his first political character. He and his partner even appeared as Julia and Kev for the 2010 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras for Amnesty International. At first “little Kevy was a little rock star”, De Havilland said, and people wanted autographs, smiled and laughed when they saw him.

But then, suddenly, he became what De Havilland calls the “dragging anchor''. ''It was great fun when they thought he was the messiah, but then it was far less fun when they decided to crucify him . . . I'm still having therapy.”

The vitriol from people who either confuse De Havilland with the actual Rudd or merely use his caricature as a public punching bag was apparently quite bad, especially just before the former PM's exit from the top job. It was only in the past six months that the actor noticed the change, saying people would yell out “you bastard” and De Havilland's Mr Rudd website even got emails for the real Rudd. “If the dollar went down as fast as that, the Queen would have got the bends,” De Havilland said.

The Rudd impersonator, who also does Ozzie Osbourne and Sean Connery, said “I had to get away from Rudd, it was making me look bad.” Except for a few gigs that have been pre-arranged for election time, he said he was now steering away from the fake Mr Rudd business.

For those who are getting into the Gillard impersonator game, some words of advice from the fake Rudd: if the real Julia's popularity also takes a turn for the worse, “be prepared for the backlash”.

There were quite a few Rudd look-a-likes and impersonators when the former PM was at the height of his popularity. Actor Paul McCarthy, from Channel Nine's Double Take and a co-star of Bishop's, did some spectacular Rudd impressions and Melbourne impersonator Ben Price did Rudd regularly on radio.

But since the spotlight is now cast elsewhere, fake Rudds (as well as the real Rudd) might need to start looking for a different job.

Please, Julia - stop moving forward!

Dear Julia (Goolia) Gillard,

I'm not sure why I might be writing this to you. I guess I just don't have the heart to let you keep going as you are, walking head first into a stinker of a political hole.

Not often does one feel like holding out a hand in front of a pollie, just as they've tripped, falling towards a precipice, but on this occasion I feel somehow compelled. Like watching an egg-and-spoon race between two knobbly-kneed asthmatic kids. Standing there, seeing one egg wobble in its metal cup and knowing how the tears are going to flow when it hits the ground and the tin trophy goes to the one who held theirs more carefully.

Julia, for the love of everything Labor, please stop using the phrase "moving forward"!

I know many have already remarked upon your unparallelled efforts last Saturday, announcing the campaign and mentioning the slogan umpteen times and I thought you might have got the hint - the phrase is doing you no favours. There are now those in the wings discussing its merits and flaws, and you, yourself, deciding on the fate of those two little words. I see that you deemed it inappropriate for the baby photo op in the morning on Sunday, raising hope for me. But no such luck, it seemed to be back in by the time you reached Sunday lunch.

Before you decide to keep or drop the phrase, I want you to look at this logically. Examine, before it does or does not go to the slogan guillotine, the pros and cons of the matter.

Pro — I guess it makes you look like you're moving forward?

Con — It makes you look not so dissimilar to your robot-like predecessor and his none-too impressive "working families", which had at least more semblance of content than "moving forward". But it remained an annoying irritant, a tick aggravating the average voter.

Pro — ummm . . . means you're not moving backwards?

Con — It makes a joke of your potential campaign, focuses everything on those little words without any other definition of the terms of this election and what it means. It reduces the narrative of the campaign to something so abstract that one really understands it.

Pro — . . . nope you've lost me.

Con — Gives your opponent easy targets to shoot for, and commentators, easy jibes to make. I mean, The Goanna could have easily enough jumped on the bandwagon but is restrained by an uncharacteristic need to step in front of the proverbial bullet on this one.

So as you can see, the numbers speak for themselves, three solid cons and only one (kinda) pro. I know you think it's catchy, and it makes you sound like there's no reason to look back to, say, your own involvement in the failed Rudd government, or perhaps the coup that got you here. "No need to look back there at those mucky political business or obvious facts", you can say, "we're too busy moving forward".

But Julia, I'm sorry to tell you, it's not going to work. Sooner or later something more substantial will be needed. Back to the drawing board you go.

Yours in faithful servitude to your ginger self,

The Goanna.

Do you like guns?

Pamela Gorman, of Arizona's third district, made this ad. As you can see, the gist of it is that she likes guns and puns, but she doesn't like taxes. As you wipe away that tear of laughter/despair and reflect on the worrisome tea-party types who are slowly crazifying America, there's actually something that we in Australia could learn from the straight-shooting Pam.

Imagine you're a voter in the Arizona third district, you like guns and you don't like taxes. Well, then Pam's the best gun-capable, anti-tax candidate for you. Conversely, of course, if you don't like guns and don't mind taxes, then she's not for you, right? This all seems a bit obvious. But looking recently at Australia's major parties and their leaders, things here are not nearly as simple as in Arizona three.

What if the internet filter is your big issue? You'd say there'd be one party for it and one party against, and you just pick which is which. But, instead, the government last week pushed back the policy into the uncertainty of a review about classification guidelines, promised for sometime after the election. So the policy could yet be dropped; there could be a review with recommendations and modifications; or the review could get ignored and then the filter may head on to become legislation.

In fact, despite the nation only being a short time away from voters picking a team, many of the big ticket items at this election are hard to track down. An emissions trading scheme; it might come back, it might not, but we won't know until 2013. A policy on asylum seekers; we could have a regional processing centre in East Timor, maybe not East Timor, maybe nowhere.

Of course, these are some complex and nuanced issues. Goanna understands that not everything in this world is a yes or a no. But the thing is, in politics the parties' jobs are supposed to be to sell what they're doing, what they're not going to do, what they like, what they don't like.

Inevitably, you won't agree with everything one team is selling. But it should be just enough to convince you to tick its name on the ballot paper. That's the whole freaking idea of democracy. If you don't know who's doing what, then it's time to play pin the tail on the voting donkey.

The Coalition is also guilty of the same lack of Gorman simplicity. Back to the internet filter. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott still seems unclear about the idea. Despite the Nationals recently voting at their federal conference to drop the policy cold, Abbott hasn't been able to make up his mind: ''I don't want to see our kids exposed to really terrible stuff on the internet.''

But . . .

''On the other hand, I don't want to see the internet destroyed by a filtering system that won't work.'' He said that he would ''wait and see'' how the policy developed before taking a definitive stand.

Of course, the reason for this is easy enough to figure out. If you said, for example, ''I sometimes like guns'', or ''taxes can be good'', then you've covered yourself for when you vote against some crazy ''gun for every child bill'', or a ''don't tax people who earn more than a kegillion dollars per annum bill''.

Qualify, obsfucate - it's the easier path to walk.

Pam Gorman maybe a lot of things, screwy gun-toting hick coming close to the top of the list. But at least Gorman's got some political cojones, the type distinctly lacking in Australia.

Gillard is no Twit

In the oh-so-quickly produced Downfall spoof video of Rudd's departure as PM, the witty creator summed up the ousted leader's media strategy as run by "Gen-Y morons" who wanted him simply to "use Twitter and say 'working families'."

Cruel though the sentiment might be, it does point to a certain irreducible truth about the former administration's use of social media. Rudd, much like US President Barack Obama in 2008, was hailed during the 2007 election for using new technologies in his campaign. YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, this was supposed to be a new era in connecting with voters and expanding our democracy.

Once voted in, however, there were lots of token new media efforts. Not least was the terrible Rudd "yoof" blog, which was notionally about connecting with Australia's young people, taking their comments to inform policy. The project was unceremoniously dumped a short time later.

Rudd's tweets in particular were criticised as over-scripted, over-political and sometimes not actually written by him. He eventually even created a system where his staff would sign the tweets one way and his personal tweets were signed another, but often neither of them were actually worth following. This was always tweeting for tweeting's sake.

In a tumultuous time, the new leader of the Labor Party, Julia Gillard has been asked a lot about what her new administration, if elected, would be like. "Moving forward", as they say in the new red-haired parlance, are we going to get much of the same? What would be different in the new ginger regime? Climate change, asylum seekers — all the big questions. Including one that has been constantly asked since she became PM. Will she join Twitter?

Finally, the news broke and radio 2UE got the scoop, interviewer Latika Bourke ironically enough tweeted the fact the new PM would be joining the online community: "I just asked Julia Gillard if she will join Twitter. She says she will join soon and she will be authoring the tweets."

And so she did.On Sunday Gillard joined, tweeted her first tweet: "I've decided it's time to take the Twitter plunge! Hopefully I'll master it. JG."

So it remains to be seen whether Gillard will indeed master it. She's off to a flying start. It's a smart move to differentiate herself from her predecessor, confirming that she will write her own tweets. And despite only two tweets in total, she already has 13,695 followers at last count (although small in comparison to Rudd's 940,526).

But beware Julia, this maybe your first step in the Twitterverse, but it's a fine line between using social media as a meaningful way to communicate with people, or simply as another way to put out a press release. Rudd, of course, was seen as doing the latter, especially when it was written by his team.

Coached tweets are clearly not the way to go. The more interesting pollies who tweet are the ones that do it as anybody else would. I mean we don't want to hear about what you had for breakfast everyday, but there needs to be some unscripted, unprepared remarks (as Tony Abbott would say) that can be taken as truthful and genuine.

Of course, it strikes Goanna that Gillard is perhaps not a Twitter person, not like, for example, Malcolm Turnbull who was always inclined towards such things. But she is also not Rudd, she is not likely (we hope) to tweet for the sake of tweeting.

In this next election I wager the PM will not employ new media in the way that Rudd so successfully did in the last, although it will still feature (perhaps an inevitability of campaigning in this brave new world of ours). It will always depend on the individual style of the pollie involved. Julia, in the end, seems like no Twit.

Does anyone still want to go barefoot bowling with Kev?

BELLA COUNIHAN

Many politics nerds will now be looking at the series of events that led up to one of the more remarkable coups in recent Australian political memory, trying to dissect the past to a subatomic level. The tiny hypotheticals swirl around the mind — what could have been, and what has been left by the wayside?

Would Gillard, if the polls had gotten back into shape, have languished as deputy, Costello-style for the rest of her career?

Would Rudd, having lasted to the next election, gone on to win?

Would the Kevin O'Lemon ad campaign been successful?

Had Rudd contested and won the leadership challenge, what would have happened with Rudd and Swan barefoot bowling for charity for the mid-winter ball?

Yes, that's right, remember the Parliamentary mid-winter ball? It seems an ancient world away, where wine was quaffed by parliamentary bods, and where pollies were auctioned off for charity.

If you cast your mind back, you'll remember that there was a range of pollies and activities up for grabs. A surfing lesson with Tony Abbott, which infamously enough went to political organisation Get Up for $16,000, who in turn gave it to an Afghani refugee who they hope will give the Opposition Leader a lesson in refugee politics.

There was a one-on-one dinner with Julia Gillard, which now looks like a bit of a bargain for about $10,000. People are now paying $5000 a head just to be in a room with her.

And finally a barefoot bowls with then PM Kevin Rudd and his then Treasurer Wayne Swan, which got a decent $12,000 bid from TV show, The 7pm Project.

Looking back, it was all a bit of fun. As Barrie Cassidy speculated on ABC's Insiders the Sunday before the auction, perhaps cabinet would be putting in a joint bid for Rudd and Swan's bowling afternoon just to get a chance to talk to the prime minister.

Not any more I'd wager.

Now the idea of a PM bowling on the greens of an RSL somewhere retains a kind of sad resonance. If Rudd now were to agree to play with Swan, it'd be harder to find a more awkward bowls game in the history of the universe. A conversation filled with long pauses, the odd bowls even used as projectiles by a seething Rudd perhaps? Well, maybe not that bad.

But if Rudd is now replaced for the charity event, what a poignant little piece of history that is. Not only did he not get the winning bid as PM (much less than the Opposition Leader's surfing lesson) but less than a week later he's ousted as PM and no one wants to play bowls with him any more.

Indeed, the event may no longer have Rudd, stripping off sock and shoe, to barefoot bowl with the likes of Dave Hughes or whoever from the Channel Ten show. It seems the deal has become flexible in light of events and Gillard could well replace Rudd on the bowling green as well as in the Prime Minister's office.

A spokesperson from Channel Ten, the bid winners, have said that things are clearly still in flux: "We are respectfully giving the government some time to deal with the changes that happened less than a week ago."

Adding that they "are sure that the federal government will honour our agreement in one way or another".

This sucks, no one wants to be Rudd's friend now he's not wearing the crown? Is that the only reason we wanted to hang out with him? Well, some may argue no one really wanted to hang out with him while he was in power. But still Rudd remains the kid ignored, after having distributed all his lollies to kids in the playground, wondering what he got out of the deal.

But hey, a bowls game with Rudd still sounds like an OK idea to Goanna, so if you're listening Kev, there's an open invitation for a barefoot bowls at a green of your choosing, any day of the week. Let's throw this politics malarky out the window and just grab a beer, take off our shoes and roll a ball along some turf.

Jasper and Abby leave the Lodge

As one Press Gallery journalist said last night on hearing the Rudds were vacating the lodge and leaving the famous Jasper and Abby (cat and dog respectively) behind:

"It's always the pets that get it in the neck."

And so this is how it ends for one of the most famous prime ministerial pets this nation has ever had. After a period of upheaval for the duo over the last week or so, they are now being left behind "with friends" as the Rudd family try to move away from Canberra ghosts.

As Rudd put it in his statement:
"For those who have written to us extensively about Jasper and Abby, they . . . temporarily have gone to be with friends here in Canberra" - along with the chooks.

It's important to acknowledge therefore, at this historical moment that these were some of the finest pets to have ever graced the Lodge with their presence — to have ever scratched its furniture, weed on its carpet or drunk from its toilet bowls. And so as Rudd said "Thank You" to the Australian people, packed up the bags and headed to the sunnier and warmer state of Queensland, we, the Australian people, thank Jasper and Abby for their service.

Much has been written about their contribution, not least by Rudd himself who wrote a children's book with Rhys Muldoon: Jasper and Abby and the Great Australia Day Kerfuffle. Wholesome material with barely a mention of any rats or their activities. No, this was simply following the adventures of a dog, a cat, and a party at the Lodge on Australia Day.

Crikey cartoonist, First Dog on the Moon, has also immortalised the furry pair on countless occasions. With Jasper, the cat, the more erratic and corrupt of the pair, most recently pictured defending the Lodge survivalist style with a battery of weapons while the calmer, more rational Abby looks on terrified.

Of course the Lodge's new owner, when or if she eventually moves in, has not yet declared whether there will be any first pets. We have not even confirmed whether Julia Gillard is a dog or a cat person yet - a fundamental question for the Australian voter come election time.
Jasper and Abby have been pioneers, fundamental to the rise in media presence of Australian first pets, and have given their roles a more presidential air. The US presidents have always celebrated their pets and embraced them as important parts of the first family. On a few occasions they have even saved their masters from media peril. I mean who doesn't look more human and amenable whilst cuddling a puppy?

Nixon in his "Checkers speech" famously defended some dubious activities by referring to his dog Checkers, who regardless of what anyone said, was an improper gift he intended to keep. This reference to his dog in fact created an outpouring of public support for the then Republican candidate and even contributed to him getting elected a few months later, clearly demonstrating the power of the first pet.

Obama's dog, Bo, even has its own high-tech blog, not unlike a certain Malcolm Turnbull who personally chronicles the adventures of Mellie, the Turnbulls' three-legged, one-eyed wonder pup in his dog blog.

There have been other pets in the Lodge at various stages (apparently Malcolm Fraser had a dog who he left behind with the butler at the end of his tenure). But never has there been a cat and a dog quite like Jasper and Abby. So as the Rudd dawn sets on Canberra, let's just take a moment to think of the smaller elements of this administration we're going to miss.

Missing voting virgins a bad sign

The Australian Greens have got some advice for voting virgins out there: don't waste your first time. Parodying Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's line, the Greens (creepily enough) are telling young voters that the first time is a precious gift not to be thrown away lightly. But the problem is young voters are not getting anywhere near the proverbial electoral bedsheets this year with nearly a million young voters not even enrolled. So why at this election are young people engaging in voting abstinence?
Only a few months away from picking up a burnt snag and casting a ballot at primary schools across this nation, the numbers for young enrolment are not great. In 2004, we had 82 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds enrolled, which went up in 2007 to 84 per cent. We're now at about 78 per cent with only a short time left before an election. This is a worry particulary as Howard's early deadline to enrol is still in place (although Labor is seeking to have this overturned), pointing to a poor enrolment number overall for the year.
If you think Abbott and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will be having a hard time, spare a thought for the people in charge of getting eligible young voters enrolling to vote in this most unappealing election. Between the unexciting candidates and the lack of difference between parties, this is certainly no easy task. There are certainly enough campaigns encouraging young voters to enrol — the Greens, the staple Triple J's "Rock Enrol" and the Australian Electoral Commission's new campaign, "Famous People Vote too" — a new approach where the likes of comedian Dave Hughes and MTV present Ruby Rose present sometimes awkward YouTube videos encouraging the "yoof" to enrol and vote.
delayedAds.push(function(){
FD.addExternalReferralsAd($merge(FD.baseAd, {
id: "adspot-300x250-pos-3",
iframeId: "adspot-300x250-pos-3-iframe",
params: $merge($merge(FD.baseAd.params, {
pos: 3,
aamsz : "300x250"
}),getAdParams("300x250"))
,addSmall: true
,smallText: "Advertisement: Story continues below"
})
);
}
);
Campaigns can count in young people's voting numbers. There were some amazing campaigns at the last US election, namely "Rock the Vote", which contributed greatly towards the record youth turnout. The notable exception being rapper P Diddy's "Vote or Die" campaign, which oddly for a campaign that gave you the option of voting or death didn't go down so well in the electorate.
In 2010, things are going to be trickier, which is why presumably the AEC and the Greens' campaigns have tried to go with a new tack, something different to convince this demographic. The fact is, this year's election will be a flop by all accounts and even those 18-year-olds that may not pay any attention to politics, may not even know it's an election year, instinctively know an Abbott v Rudd election is going to be a dud.
Of course, there are lots of reasons that young people are traditionally unlikely to enrol — young people don't see the use of voting, they've got more important things going on at that stage in their lives, lack of technology in voting etc. But we can see that when young people do vote, it's in the more significant elections, ones that represent changes in direction for the country.
Young voters are in fact great indicators for watershed elections or when candidates are impressive. Conversely, when they are presented with elections saturated in the same old political rhetoric and lack of policy changes, the numbers go down and you know its going to be a snooze fest. Particularly when the candidates are difficult to relate to or . . . ahem, bad communicators, not to name any names here.
Of course, those already enrolled are stuck with having to vote for the lesser of two evils, but can you really blame young people for not wanting to get into the game and be forced to make such a choice?
A drop in youth enrolments is always a bad sign. Apart from making a difference to the overall result (back in 2007 the 18-24s contributed 6.9 points of the 52.7 per cent final result, but had those missing voters participated it would be more like 7.9 points). But it also means politicians have to try less, they are less innovative and their communication is poor.
Let's hope for their sake that young voters do buck the odds and enrol. It might be our last chance to make this election an interesting one.

On Trial for Everything - is there any one defending Rudd?

Our PM has had that sauce bottle snatched away from him. Instead of giving him a fair shake of it, the public and media are currently beating him around the head with it. But many saw this coming, urging the guillotine of public opinion to drop. Things are so much simpler for the public now that we can blame everything on Rudd. But if we're going to try him for everything, we need to get a defence team together... which might be tricky. Before we look who's available to defend Rudd, let's put the PM in the dock for a minute and see who's currently wagging the finger. The progressive voter is angry about suspending protection for Afghani and Sri Lankan asylum seekers; mining is infuriated with the government's proposed RSPT; and the environmentalists are aggravated about the ETS back flip. Teachers, parents and students are annoyed that they haven't got their computers in schools yet. The talk back radio listeners are incensed about the insulation debacle and school halls costing a kajillion dollars a square foot. Internet users are worried about the impending internet filter and the pundits are crying hypocrisy over the change to political advertising rules, the very ones the government created. So the prosecution is looking healthy enough. The defence, on the other hand, is not looking so hot, in fact it's looking more like a flustered attorney, shuffling papers and throwing together an argument at the last minute. Indeed, it's very hard to find anyone in the public arena sticking up for the PM, but the Goanna has searched high and low and come up with the few voices that are defending Rudd. Annie O'Rourke, an ex-advisor to the PM, dove in front of a bullet and copped the blame for the PM on the charge of going to see celebrity Cate Blanchett instead of going to the funeral of Labor hero, John Button. She explained that on this particular accusation, Rudd was innocent, it was her fault with a scheduling mix up. In her article, she also defended his record on health, the economy and climate change, saying that "the man and his team deserve credit." Adding "Yes, he can be a pain in the butt. Yes, he can be a poor communicator. But he is human, he does have a heart, and he cares deeply for Australia."
Another commentator who recently defended Rudd (sort of) is controversial comedienne, Catherine Deveny who asked her readers in a recent column to "leave Kevin Rudd alone". So the record was terrible, the ETS was a flop and the education revolution a farce, but Deveny defends Rudd like one defends a kid getting beaten up for taking the bullies' iPods, sure he did something bad, but no need to go overboard. According to Deveny, it's the voters fault for asking too much and expecting promises to be met. "What do you want? A world where things get done? Where promises aren't broken? Where we have a guy in charge who doesn't look like a dentist, swear like a trooper, speak fluent Asian and have Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a people smuggler, as a spiritual mentor?" Clearly our expectations were too high to begin with. Josh Thomas, Gen Y expert (if there is such a thing) also joins the Rudd defence team in his article in The Age where he supports Rudd not because he is anything great, he feels "violently neutral" towards him in fact. But because things could be much worse - an Abbott government - which he argues is in no one's interests. He says he even want to "help Kevin become popular again", because he's young and "young people know how to be cool." So there are helpful suggestions for the beleaguered Rudd - break a bone (this makes primary school kids very popular), become a cheerleader or a quarterback or even a black face option, it did help "Hey Hey's ratings after all."This is our Rudd defence team, Thomas, Deveny and O'Rourke and (for the time being) his own Labor government. Not the best defence team in the world with not the best arguments to keep the prosecution at bay, although we have gotten him off that direct Button/Blanchett charge. Just another thousand odd accusations to get around and Rudd is home free. God help him