Dry PMO key to Julia's success?

Something’s in the water in the Prime Minister’s Office, or indeed a lack of something.

Is it mere coincidence that Julia Gillard over the past couple of weeks back in parliament has been setting off fireworks under the opposition benches and is also ascendant in the polls, while at the same time a good portion of her staff at the PMO have given up the grog for the month of February for charity?

After some pretty dismal primary numbers and less than perfect approval ratings, the latest Newspoll shows her on the up. The recent Libs internal mess and anti-Islam rhetoric might be the cause. But c’mon, isn’t it just as likely some Barnaby Joyce voodoo or a Bob Katter curse - the curse of the oversized hat - has lifted from the office? Meanwhile the real clue is that six staffers including media and policy advisers have been off the booze for the whole month of February with nearly $2,000 raised to help young people with drug and alcohol addictions. With the first $1,000 raised to be matched and given to the QLD Premier’s flood appeal.

The booze-free office must be the factor.

So if the two were connected and they’ve jinxed themselves on this one, could they ever make permanent T-totalers to keep the poll numbers sweet and the office at its peak? Tony Hodges, media assistant in the PMO, told the National Times following that logic might set a dangerous precedent, although there have been some benefits to the whole experience.

The most notable change is that all involved are actually springing out of bed in the morning, not particularly strange but for the fact that most of them get an average 5 hours rest a night, getting up around 3.30 in the morning to start the working day. A better quality sleep has meant a chirpier disposition, and better focus which of course backs up our theory.

But there have been downsides along the way, sorely needed dates have had to be turned down with no social lubrication to calm the first-meeting jitters, some have found it harder to relax at the end of a stress-filled day without a cold beer to unwind and another has even put on a few kilos with chronic substitution of vending machine stock. Morale remains but a permanent dry-spell could chip that away.

Even tougher times were to be had during visits to Queensland after Cyclone Yasi, the emotional long days were greeted with accommodation that had no power, no aircon, long walks up several flights of stairs and at the end of it, the only cold drinks available were XXXX beers. Although some were tempted, the crew bonded together to overcome.

Even more arduous have been the social side of things, which Hodges said has been the “toughest part”. Wednesday is the day during sitting weeks where the parliamentary buffalo head to the watering holes, but the FebFasters have sat without a drop, in dry isolation. Without alcohol the excuses to catch up are also fewer. Some friends of the long suffering staffers have more or less hung them out to dry and said “see you after the 1st of March.”

In a FebFast survey 27 per cent of people felt the need to drink at work gathering to fit in, but more than one in three said their work productivity increased while they participated in FebFast. Who knows? A dry PMO could run better, as Andrew Greene, when donating to the group on their donation page, joked “If you're off the booze maybe the office will start functioning properly.” But do you think you could cope in one of the most stressful offices imaginable, on no sleep without being able to have a beer at the end of the day? Would you begrudge them a beer even if it meant part of the government ran better? No, I didn’t think so.

So please donate

Has the net ended the drawn-out political dumping?

It would be easy to think that in these fast-paced times that long gone are the days of the drawn-out political dumping. It certainly does seem that most political scandals recently are resolving themselves quicker but who is to blame? Impatient voters, bad timing, savvy politicians who know when to quit or should we just blame the internet?

Many commentators in America are pointing to the online world for the most recent case, Republican congressman Christopher Lee who now likely holds the title of quickest career down the toilet. At 2.33pm on Monday, online gossip merchants Gawker published the story of Lee, a married, "family values" congressman, sending a shirtless photo to a woman he'd met through the personal section of a classifieds site. On the site he had described himself as a 38-year-old, divorced lobbyist, and "fit, fun, classy guy" when in fact, he is a 46-year-old married congressman and slightly naive guy. About three and bit hours later, he had resigned.

Of course, it's nothing new to hear about a socially conservative politician getting caught doing something hypocritical, and it is worth looking at Ranker's list of top 10 anti-gay activitists caught being gay. But what is remarkable is the rapidity of Lee's resignation and many have taken this example to mean the internet is speeding up political scandals. As one reporter put it "he (Lee) was a rising star in Congress at lunchtime — and out of office by dinner".

Advertisement: Story continues below There certainly has been a prevalence of swift dismissals in Australia in recent times. We only have to look at our national leadership change. Even though there was no scandal involved, just bad polling for Kevin Rudd, the prime minister was gone in 24 hours.

NSW Labor, too, has provided us with more than its fair share of quick bootings. Most recently, a key political adviser, married to NSW Education Minister Verity Firth, was caught buying ecstasy at 5.30 one Friday afternoon and handed in his letter of resignation to the Premier by the next morning. And poor David Campbell, former NSW transport minister, even resigned an hour before Channel Seven aired footage of him entering a gay sex club. NSW MP Matt Brown was police minister for only about 50 hours. He got the sack after allegations emerged that he removed most of his clothing at a late-night party in his Parliament House office.

In the case of the NSW embarassments, the internet played no major role, but the key factor was the low tolerance the voting public already had for its leaders misbehaving.

Sometimes a politician's timing is just all wrong. In 1977, politician Glen Sheil's ministerial career was over before it had started. Then prime minister Malcolm Fraser's ministry was named at 5pm on December 19 with Sheil getting Veteran's Affairs, but Sheil was dumped from the position 43 hours later, after making supportive noise for the apartheid system. Since Fraser had made strong comments against South Africa's segregated system, he lost little time cutting Sheil adrift.

Concrete proof and the popularity and power of the person involved is also a factor to consider and have meant scandal-ridden careers have held on against impossible odds even in these times of 24 hour news cycles. Bill Clinton and the American public agonised for months over his scandal with Monica Lewinsky but even after all that, left office with a popularity rating of 68 per cent.

And we have the soap opera that is the prime ministership of one Silvio Berlusconi's and his series of misdemeanours. Many are now predicting he won't last his full term, but his popularity helped him stay in power thus far.

Cases like Congressman Lee's show that 21st century communications may be making the political scandal more quickly exposed, but one cannot ignore other factors — a political figure's power and popularity, the burden of proof and scandal fatigue among the electorate.

Trust and the twitterati

SINCE the Pope has now officially blessed social networking, we better start taking it seriously. While there has been some initial polling, we're still yet to get the full picture of the public's reaction to the government's proposed flood levy.

In the mean time, Twitter and Facebook are already pointing us towards the public's trust issues with government.

Usually any political debate on Twitter or Facebook roams over the same political ground. Why wouldn't it? Its members, generally speaking, share similar education levels, economic backgrounds and age ranges.

Advertisement: Story continues below
Curiously, on the flood levy, the reaction seems to be split down the middle.

Both sides have been fighting the political battle online. Facebook groups and websites sprang up straight after the levy announcement. Stopthelevy.com, a domain bought by Tim Andrews — creator of the blog "Why the right will triumph in Australia: Hot Girls" — came online just two hours after Julia Gillard had delivered her speech outlining the ins and outs of the flood package. The website is sponsored by new conservative kids on the online block, the website Menzies House, which in turn has links with the Liberal Party and, in particular, Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi.

There's no keepthelevy.com but many Facebook groups have popped up in support of the new tax. Groups like "Happy to pay that tiny flood levy to help rebuild lives in QLD" and "Supporting the flood levy" have more than a thousand "likes" between them.

But there are also other pages, such as "NO flood levy", "Say 'No' to Julia Gillard's flood levy tax" and "No flood levy, No Julia Gillard, No Labor" that have a few hundred "likes". Stop the Levy's Facebook page is also approaching a thousand supporters.

When you think about it, Twitter is a select focus group on steroids. In the banter we can see all the angles of the debate; those who are critical often point to a lack of trust in the Gillard government and its ability to manage the books — Labor's recurring cross. One concerned taxpayer tweeted "2 years ago the Federal Government gave out money in the form of the Tax Bonus and is now hitting taxpayers for a refund with the flood levy". Another seemed to agree with the sentiment: ". . . we will NOT be taken as fools by this economically incompetent and untrustworthy Labor govt".

Those in favour of the levy have pointed to the uncharitable nature of those who are unwilling to pay a small amount to help rebuild. One blogger took the idea of people on higher incomes not wanting to pay the levy to a unique conclusion. She offered to pay it for them — as long as they sent her a picture of themselves fanning banknotes with a caption that read "that's right — I don't want to help!".

One tweeter shared much the same sentiment: "Next time you hear someone bitch about paying the Flood Levy, throw 'em two bucks and tell them 'the first month's on me' ".

Many agreed the whole issue revolved around trust, with one microblogger noting: "The point of paying tax is 4 the gov't 2 use it in our best interests! We need 2 trust the gov't we elected to follow through."

This debate does boil down to an issue of trust — those who have faith in the government and those who do not. How you solve this dilemma is what the government has to resolve. And sharpish.