Young LNP gaffe on old Gough

A Facebook event was created recently by a member of the Young Liberal National Party celebrating the 93rd birthday of former prime minister Gough Whitlam. But not in a "Cake and candles, well done for reaching a grand old age" kind of way but more like "Wah hey, this old codger we don't like is one more birthday closer to death."

Now as terrible as it is to dance on someone's grave before they are even in it, particularly a former PM, it also points to another issue – a complete inability of young members of the conservative parties in this country to realise what is open for public comment and what is not.

The event, created by Young LNP member Nicholas Stanton and attended by 17 friends, has since been taken down. But when it was up, the event planned to celebrate the ageing Whitlam's birthday because "the man is old and nearly dead, he got sacked, and he is just shit ... So lets (sic) celebrate and be happy!!"

Stanton further explained that they were anticipating the man's death instead of simply condemning his politics because "we're cool, he's old and nearly dead ... aaaand, He got sacked! I think we get the last laugh! So why not be happy?? Also just to be random and funny".

This is not the first time a conservative side has celebrated the passing of a political opponent – only last year did some Sarah Palin supporters enjoy the death of "one more socialist" after Ted Kennedy's passing. Of course, the other side is equally culpable of speaking ill of the dead – you have only to look to ex-PM Paul Keating's column on Paddy McGuinness.

Bizarrely enough, Barnaby Joyce has become the voice of reason in this, saying these young members have "a kick up the backside coming their way" and that now "[Whitlam is] off the political football field you should be respecting ... the rest of his family." The gaffe-prone Nationals Senate Leader also pointed out other members have been kicked off the team for saying similarly stupid things on social networking sites before.

Another Young LNP member tweeted about Obama being a monkey during his interview on The 7.30 Report earlier this year. The member defended the comments at the time as being a parody of right-wing rhetoric in the US but eventually he was thrown out of the organisation.

With the Gough Whitlam "Birthday party" cancelled, YLNP president Tom Brennan apologised to the former PM for the comments made. Brennan says the comments were made in haste and were "poor taste" but that Mr Whitlam remains a contentious figure in Australian politics and opposition to the policies he represented continues to inflame passions on the anti-Labor side of politics.

But despite apologies after the fact, this is still a worry, isn't it? The Barnaby Joyces of this world could see this was a phenomenally stupid thing to do and these Young LNP members did not. God help the Liberal Party if their potential pollies can't see that dancing on the future grave of a political figure might make them look like dills.

When and if they get into public life, there will clearly be some quick and hard lessons to learn about what is on and off limits for public commentary. As we've seen with other recent sackings, comments on social media sites can get you kicked out of your jobs or your organisation easily enough these days. Whether that be right or wrong – and there is clearly a lot of debate to be had about that – it seems to have become a reality for those in public life.

This controversy is one of many in the Young Libs' history, from getting drunk and yelling racial abuse at Aboriginal leaders, to simply chanting "we're racist, we're sexist, we're homophobic" at student political rallies. It has not been a good look. These future Liberal leaders seem unable to keep it together in public.

Of course, you can say whatever you like on the internet, but then you've got to understand it's out there, it's on the public record for anyone to find. You're leaving it in the hands of the internet and media gods to influence your life, something most of us would simply rather avoid but the Young Liberals in particular continue to embrace.

So when Barnaby Joyce can see what the Young LNP can't, does that mean we're in for an even more gaffe-filled political future for the Liberal and National parties? Even more gaffe-prone than Barnaby? A scary thought.

Abbott Back to Future

When Tony Abbott released the coalition's immigration policy this week maybe he thought he was re-enacting that famous scene from Back to the Future, the one where Marty McFly travels back in time to the 1950s stands before a high school crowd, cracks out the guitar and wows the crowd with the yet-to-be released Johnny Be Good guitar riff. Maybe in his mind he was standing before a crowd of Liberals back in 2001 with a "brand new" immigration policy where refugees would be processed off-shore, family reunions would be scrapped and the fresh idea of Temporary Protection Visas.

"Amazing!" they would all gasp, "visionary!" - no doubt they would dollop praise on him just like Howard. And who knows there could be many liberals still mentally stuck in the Howard era of immigration policy that would still think this, but for the moderates in the Liberal party and many more its some kind of bizarre joke. The immigration policy has already been dubbed the "Pacific Solution mark 2" because it re-introduces the idea of getting another country (such as Nauru) to deal with the problem of processing refugees. So why release a policy... again?

Anywhere else in life appropriating some else's idea and calling it your own would be known as "cheating". But if we take a visit to Abbott's mind, if we dare, things are different. When asked about its likeness to the Howard policy, Abbott said "my values are very, very similar to those of John Howard but I am not an identikit of John Howard but where John Howard’s policies worked... I am very happy to continue them. "

So he doesn't think he is John Howard - that's a good start. The policy worked, so we'll work it again. Drag up the old dead work horse out of its grave, prop it up and make it pull another heavy political load for the coalition. Nothing wrong with that, right? But of course the horse is limp, exhausted from working so hard for Howard already. Abbott can work it again, but its power will be limited. It won't be as effective, unless of course you're able to go back in time...

So if we look into Abbott's mind again, it's obvious he knows who is his. He doesn't think he's Howard and that's reassuring. But perhaps he still doesn't quite know when he is?

Voters just want a PM they can have a beer with

Why can't political ads be more like beer ads?

The election cycle has begun and so has the beginning of the political advertising blitz. Not just from the two major parties but from other groups that rely on political outcomes, most recently the unions and mining companies fighting over the government's proposed mining tax. The ACTU, AWU and the Minerals Council got involved, sticking to the same formula - make one side look bad and sell a simple message to the swinging voter.

But Goanna needed to look at the heart of political advertising, and ask the burning question, why are political ads crap? Or, more pertinently, why can't political ads be more like beer ads?

Everyone can agree that beer commercials in Australia are great.

In many ways they are a kind of Australian art form, and are eminently successful at connecting with the Australian public's psyche - particularly compared to political ads.

Often they transcend the predictable; there's a good idea, a good amount of Australian humour and a larrikin spirit and they're memorable. Sure, they might have bigger budgets and big advertising companies behind them, but they work because there is a solid narrative the public connects with.

We all remember beer commercials like the Carlton Draught "It's a Big Ad" commercial in which hundreds of dressed up extras formed an aerial view of a man drinking a beer to an alternative version of Carmina Burana's "O Fortuna". Or the Toohey's catapult ad, where various ingredients, hops, women in bikinis, a stag, are placed in a catapult and sent into the heavens to make it rain beer. Or the Boags' water ads, where the Tasmanian waters magically produce better versions of everything that gets dunked in. These are just a few that work but there are many more.

The thing is a lot of these ads are not screaming "Look at our beer! Its great!" or "Look at our competitors' beer, its terrible!" - the essential formula for every political ad.

They are telling a story, associating it with a name and making it memorable so that when you go to get a six pack out of the fridge (or indeed tick a ballot box) you remember that brand over others.

So how can a country that makes such good beer comercials make such terrible political ads?

The fact is Australian political ads by and large are rubbish because they can be. Recently we've had advertisements from the Liberal party with big simplistic arrows pointing us to "illegals" swamping our shores, the AWU ad with grainy black and white stills of mining bosses and their obscene pay packets, the Labor party's "Phoney Tony" ads and promotions from theMinerals Council using disputed figures and fear mongering about jobs and superannuation. All of these are cheap to make and easy to put out into the community quickly, they last as a talking point for about a nano-second in the news cycle and then they disappear. All they are really meant to do.

Apart from the occasional successful anti-WorkChoices "Tracy" campaign that touched a nerve in the community, most viewers instantly switch off or forget the message a week later. This is mainly because political ads are so predictable, we know we're going to see a grainy image of a dodgy politician created on behalf of another dodgy politician, trying to make themselves look better than the other. They are often superficial with no driving idea behind them and they stick to the same obvious political advertising formula.

Political commercials are also more often than not reactive as opposed to proactive.

The recent "Phoney Tony" advertising campaign looked like it had been cobbled together in about 10 minutes by a film student trying to make a parody of a political ad. And it was reactive to the situation - like a kid trying to call another kid out for cheating in a playground game. As a result the ad feels like just that, an over-dramatised whinge to the public.

Getting their message out has been a problem for both parties. Brand Rudd and Brand Abbott are not doing it on their own - so getting the parties' brand out has become even more important.

It's so easy to put out a bland, rough and ready campaign that can just skim the debate, that last for two minutes in voters' minds and then recede into a footnote of the campaign.

In the end, sticking to the same formula is just a waste of time and money. In 2007 it almost looked like things were getting more sophisticated, particularly with the Labor campaign. With these recent ads, it looks like we were too optimistic. This consistent inability to sell Rudd or Abbott is worrisome, when all the strategists need to realise is that most voters just want a Prime Minister they can have a beer with.

Top Ten Australian Beer ads

In no particular order, the Top ten Australian beer ads

1. Hahn Super Dry, sex bomb - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT-Qj9Gnbs8&feature=related
2. Carlton Draught, it's a big ad - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYZs7VJaAlQ
3. VB, Melbourne Symphony Orchestra - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXvKb6oS7mA
4. Toohey's, belly button ad - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCAoxI0oHMI
5. Toohey's, catapult, raining beer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdN3PDeErvw
6. Tooheys, escaped tongue - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tML1z720C4
7. Tooheys, inflated tube men, street party - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBIl0aNSrIA
8. VB, shout politics - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfdW4iCSmFE
9. Boags, Tasmanian waters - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94syGYcdGcU
10. Tooheys, appliance fight - http://videos.sapo.pt/JzPvUnzSjtBJegJsjPnB

Kevin in 7:30 report-land; follow the white Abbott?

In the last two weeks, there have been two of the most striking political interviews with the two men seeking to be Prime Minister in 2010. Both were on the ABC's 7.30 report, both, it can be fair to say, weren't particularly good for either party and both confrontations have revealed some key differences in character.

On the one hand there was the unusually aggressive Kevin Rudd interview. Our PM, the placid bureaucrat, was suddenly animated and passionately defensive on his ETS position, while Kerrie O'Brien, the PM suggested, was taking it all so easy in "7.30 report land". And in the other interview, there was the fumbling, foolish-looking Abbott who not only admitted his contradictory remarks but warned the public against taking his every word as "gospel truth;" effectively confirming a view that he is flaky and un-Prime Ministerial.

On both counts, their opposites were praising the media Gods for delivering them such pre-election gold, but both Abbott and Rudd will retain scars from these disastrous interviews, albeit different ones, that will remain for all to see at election time. Let's look firstly to what has been declared the "calamitous", "excruciating" and one of the more bizarre interviews in recent memory in which a politician admitted that he can be not only contradictory but flexible with the truth. This seems like a wet dream for the Labor party, and sure enough the "Phoney Tony" ad campaign was out before you could say the words "electoral cycle."

But this is not a complete home goal to be rejoiced by the other side. How it plays out it in the electorate is going to be tricky to figure out. Who knows? This whole idea of being honest about political dishonesty, or if we get more nuanced, Abbott's admission that he is unable to control his words under "pressure", might indeed connect with people. Ironically enough, it might even play into his "authentic" image. But a gaffe is a gaffe is a gaffe; it will always hinder rather than help his electoral prospects.

But when we contrast this with last week's Rudd-Kerry O'Brien face-off, in which Rudd got as close to animated as we've seen him defending his record on the ETS, Rudd was not wimping out making excuses, he was fudging the question with true political vigour. But still there's probably only one way this interview went down in the minds of viewers and voters - he ultimately looked arrogant and aggressive. The two 'A' words that you do not want to be anywhere near in this game of politics.

One could still, however, find arguments to defend Rudd. O'Brien was far more aggressive and provocative with the PM than with Abbott, much more of an "under pressure" interview than Tony would be used to. And then, when he did react, that 30 secs of heat was all most of us saw on our television sets the next day. Just that out of context snippet where Rudd looked red cheeked, blinking and exasperated.

But at the core of these two interviews was confronting politicians on the bread and butter of their trade - contradictions or, more colloquially, lying. Abbott lied about no new taxes and then proposed just that; Rudd had the ETS as a 2007 election promise which he then unceremoniously dumped. But it is their reactions to O'Brien's confrontation that reveals something very distinct about these two major players.

Abbott showed that he couldn't handle a simple fudging of a question. He could have easily said something to the effect of the new tax was necessary for a new visionary policy, end of discussion. This points more broadly to his inability to handle the pressure of the role, to keep it together under the spotlight. And Rudd could simply have gone through the interview without jumping on that high-horse and wagging the finger at Kerry. But Rudd couldn't help himself, when backed into a corner he reacted smugly and certainly without grace. The two interviews I think showed that its easier to understand Abbott, even if we don't want him to be PM, and its difficult to understand Rudd's character while he maintains his prime ministerial air. The paradox of this election summed up really.

Here in the red corner, the un-prime ministerial, the flaky, the not-so gospel fighter Tooooony Abbott! Waiting for him in the in the blue corner the the mentalist dentist, the guy that puts 'Oh' into agro, the high-horse PM, Keeeeevin Rudd. Ding ding.

Gillard gets creative in ducking the leadership question

Julia Gillard, our Deputy PM, has been hounded for the past few weeks by the inevitable leadership question - would you do the job if your party asked? Do you want to be PM? Would it be before the election? After the election?

These were the questions bound to surface as soon as Kevin Rudd took a serious dive in the polls. With further pollingshowing her numbers climbing ever higher this week, it seems Julia is doomed to hear this question ad nauseam. It would be enough to drive you absolutely dippy but Gillard seems to maintain her grace under fire.

She even seems to be getting creative with it.

The standard answer, used time and time again by deputies, was given first off. You know the "I'm passionate about what I'm doing now, being deputy PM is the bees knees, I haven't even caught a wiff of the PM's job" answer. And indeed Gillard kept on that treadmill, portraying herself as operating in a whispers and rumour-free vacuum within the Labor Party (if such a thing is possible).

But as the pressure mounted before the budget, the stock answer just didn't seem to cut it anymore, so Gillard started having a pop at the media who have "many inches to fill".

But then when that line ran its course, Gillard got a little more inspired. It was time for the fantasy analogies, as in "me being PM before the next election is like . . ." insert far-fetched idea here. On radio station 3AW, when asked by Neil Mitchellwhether she could promise that she would not be leader before the next election, she said "You may as well ask me am I anticipating a trip to Mars." Which, no, apparently she wasn't.

When Fairfax Media's Tim Lester interviewed Gillard on theNational Times website, an even better fantasy analogy was embraced. If "Steven Spielberg rang me from Hollywood and asked me to star opposite Brad Pitt in a movie, would I do it? Well, I'd be a little bit tempted but you know what, I don't reckon Steven Spielberg is going to give me a call." No leadership, no calls from Spielberg, got it.

Then on 2GB radio, another hypothetical, when the Deputy was asked had there been a Howard/Costello deal done with Rudd, she responded with something equally as topical as leadership. Gillard said : "I know we’ll be welcoming Jessica [Watson] back to Sydney this weekend after her round the world epic feat. I tell you, I think there’s more chance of me going round the world sailing solo a dozen times than this chatter in the media becoming anything more than that." Then on Monday she reinforced the point once again, apparently "there’s more chance of me becoming the full forward for the [Western Bulldogs] than there is of any change in the Labor Party."

So just to recap, if Julia does get the PM spot, she will also be sailing around the world solo a dozen times, starring in a Spielberg production alongside Brad Pitt, adventuring into outer-space and playing professional football. These are all pretty catchy lines and probably come from the exasperation of answering the interminable leadership question. Part of The Goanna wants to say, well done minister for spicing up the rhetoric and putting a bit of colour into this repetitive and dull debate. And by delivering more than just the stock standard response, particularly with her line about her unlikely position as the Dogs' full forward, she is getting a lot of air time.

But they also do point to someone who maybe does protest too much with all these very memorable and colourful lines. And memorable they are. So when and if she does make a bid for Labor leadership, they could undermine her chances, having somewhat painted herself into a credibility corner. But equally people expect a deputy to want leadership and yet fudge the leadership question. Former treasurer Peter Costello after all put up with it for years, delivering the answer whilst everyone knew he hungered for the top job. At least Gillard is making the leadership game a bit more interesting.

Bella Counihan writes for The Goanna

Twas the Night After Budget

Budget night in Canberra is usually a good opportunity, after the long hard work of the day, to let your hair down and get on the sauce. Canberra suburb Kingston becomes overhwelmed with staffers, public servants, pollies and undoubtedly journalists who throng towards a limited number of less than civilised venues for beers, gossip and the occaisonal ottering. There's even been broken limbs from the vigour of the festivities. It is usualy a time, in the words of one Will.I.Am of the Blacked Eyed Peas, for these poor slaves of politics to "partay til the AM". Maybe due to the lack of journos, maybe because of a less than manic workload or even because of the unexciting nature of the Budget itself, this year it seemed rather different...

Twas the night after Budget...

Twas the night after Budget, and through the cold Kingston air,
there was barely a reveller nor a drunk waster there,
no wobbly O'Brien, no pissed journos, none!
Oh it seems Budget 2010 has drained out the fun
Swan hung out the budget for media with care
But he bored us to sleep, til no one was there!

Budget nights past were merry and light,
loose as a goose, late in the night
journalists, staffers pickled on booze
but when this one was over we all went to snooze!

Oh woe is the Budget where nobody drinks
not as amusing as everyone thinks
there were ties and suits, all look resplendent
reserved and civil, not one person candid

Goanna thought "stuff this! I'm can't stand the sight!"
"A Happy Budget to all and to all a good night!"

'Illegals' to cure coalition headaches?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Government tries to net votes in Howard’s domain

The Rudd government’s internet filter has always been a kind of policy duck - flapping on the surface, quacking all the right things but with lots more happening underneath in the murky waters. It seems like a repeat of just the kind of expensive and more than likely ineffective policy that will create controversy in the future for the Rudd government. However obvious to the rest of us, it looks like Labor may have not got the memo. Reports are that Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is only delaying the fight over the filter until after the election where it might be in a better position to spin it their way and have no electoral repercussions. But with the obvious problems with the policy ahead, wouldn’t it just be better to ‘‘do an ETS’’ and cut their losses?
The filter isn’t, as many have suggested, a path to a censorship hell the likes of North Korea or China, but it is undoubtedly a step in the wrong direction and fraught with potential stuff-ups and controversy ahead. For Conroy, the arguments for the filter have consistently been gross oversimplifications. Blocking access to child pornography has been the rallying point for the minister and his rationale for creating the $120 million policy in the first place. It’s hard to argue against trying to block such a thing but many have noted that combating child pornography is more than likely the PR reason for the policy, and secondly that if this was the real reason behind it, an internet filter would be a costly, ineffective way to go about it.
But doesn’t it look good on the surface? Of course, the way the filter is going down in the electorate seems to depend on what question you ask. If you ask your man in the street ‘do you believe child porn should be blocked on the internet?’, most would instinctively say yes. But when you ask ‘do you think the internet should have a mandatory filter?’, then it is not a simple yes or no, although 96 per cent in a recent Fairfax poll were opposed. It instead prompts a lot more questions to be answered. How do you pick the sites to be banned? Who picks these sites? Will it actually stop or limit in some way the damage done to children? Will it help close down the market for child pornography?
delayedAds.push(function(){
FD.addExternalReferralsAd($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"
})
);
}
);
And that’s just it - it will be up to governments, any governments in the future to decide what’s in and what’s out, not necessarily accountable to the public. And this government is no different - when an initial draft list was leaked by Wikileaks, it showed that the process was underwhelmingly hit and miss with some benign sites blocked, including famously a dentist, a Queensland boarding kennel and a lot of other non-refused classification content.
If this is really about stopping child pornography, what really worries us more? Someone watching it or its creation in the first place? By the time it has reached a PC with someone watching on the other end, the abuse has already occurred. The filter will not even remove the market for this kind of horrible product, only make it slightly less accessible while the market remains and traps more children. As many have noted, getting around the filter is as simple as a Google search for most of us. The Pirate Party in Australia was even able to teach a class of 70-year-olds who wanted to know how to bypass the filter.
To anyone on the outside, all the ins and outs of the policy - the doubts about implementation, ineffectiveness and price tag - would say this is going to be a political poo-storm for Labor. But maybe we’re looking at this all wrong. We’ve clearly not got our ‘Rudd hat’ on for this one - maybe the same logic behind the filter is behind the recent changes to processing Afghani and Sri Lankan refugees. If we look through those Rudd spectacles this looks like a similar way to send a message to the ex-Howard battlers in the ’burbs.
Conroy and Rudd can easily sit in Canberra huffing and puffing, ''we’re tough on child porn'', ''we’re tough on border protection''. Unfortunately for the majority of people that know this policy is a waste of time, that stomping in Canberra and leaving the fight until after the election might just convert a few ex-Howardites and make it worthwhile in the immediate term for the government. Until, that is, something inevitably goes wrong with a policy as flawed as this. If you’re already dumping policies, why not dump this while you can.