Unless there's a political shift, Gen Y won't come to the party

Generation Y just won't play ball in Australian politics. We're not joining major parties, and we're not voting for them either. The interest in political issues is there, but the traditional party structures are foreign to us.

Young people's reluctance to even dip a toe in the water of the party political system must be annoying to the party animals concerned about renewal. They should be concerned, too. Both Liberal and Labor party membership numbers are in decline, and the average age of ALP members is 50. No firm figure is available from the Liberal Party, but an educated guess would be that its membership is older still.

So why won't we join? It's complex, but here are a few thoughts.

Advertisement: Story continues below

First, for many of my fellow Gen Yers, joining a party says to the world that you subscribe to a set of political philosophies in a cookie-cutter way. Yet we are a generation that is used to expressing our individuality and exercising choice. If something doesn't fit us, we are willing to walk away without a second thought.

Second, many of us reckon we wouldn't have the time or don't know how to get started.

Third, respect for politicians as professionals is, well, lacking. This is certainly not Generation Y-specific, but cynicism seems to have been snowballing through the generations, to the point where Generation Y sees the griminess of Australian politics as fact, reinforced by media focus on the worst of our pollies' behaviour. As a fellow Gen-Y traveller said to me, ''Everyone there [in political parties] is a wanker … plus everyone will hate you, and you won't get anything done that you want to.''

Alternatives to the mainstream parties are also abundant. There are the obvious groups like GetUp! and the Youth Climate Coalition, which are very sophisticated at attracting members in schools and unis and who understand the online sphere. They also focus on single-issue campaigns, which tend to be more popular because then we don't have to squeeze ourselves into that political cookie cutter.

For these non-party political groups, membership is easy, just a click away. Political parties are improving on this front, but joining up online is still difficult and over-complicated. At the moment if you try to join NSW Labor, the page comes up with an error message and simply says ''We're Sorry''. Symbolic perhaps.

Members of Gen Y, maybe more than previous generations, like to feel empowered. These alternate political groups have an ingenious ability to make young people feel like we're part of something larger and that our contribution is important. Whereas in political parties, the power for younger members is close to zero, and there are old networks that are not for the likes of you and that operate through different mediums to what you're used to. Things are organised through phone calls and meetings, not Facebook or email. Even if you're willing to work your way up that greasy pole to elected office, your power is tempered by the party itself.

There are, of course, still young idealistic people who do join the parties. I asked a couple of them why. Liberal member Paul Boulus, 21, and Alex Cubis, 24, a member of the ALP, both said they saw that society needed change, and they believed that in our democratic system the major parties were the best vehicles to bring that about.

''By being involved you can do a bit of good,'' Cubis said, adding that being in the party offered ''great life experience'' to young people. Boulus also saw empowering young people as very important, and said the parties could do a lot better in this regard: ''The way the parties run themselves today, it's not conducive to new members and it's not conducive to young new members especially,'' he said. ''I don't blame some people for not bothering.'' But he added: ''Those existing structures don't change unless younger members sign up - the more young people there are voting in the party, the more power we have to influence the direction of the party.''

When Tony Blair's famous media spinner Alastair Campbell was interviewed about a film based partly on himself, he confronted the interviewer saying: ''If people like you [in the media] just go round the place … spreading that message that politics is venal, and politics is crass … then don't be surprised if young people then start to say, 'Why should we give a shit about the world?''

We're stuck in a terrible loop here: elements of the major parties present themselves poorly, the media focuses on the worst of party politics, young idealists don't join, we get more people of a less-than-idealistic nature joining, which in turn makes the parties even worse. Then the membership becomes even narrower and less representative.

If the big parties really want to turn this around, they're going to have to drastically change and start playing ball with Gen Y. And maybe Gen Y, too, will have to brave those shark-infested party political waters to make things better.

How Twitter tweeted before Obama sang

Osama bin Laden's death could have been just another Twitter rumour but before it was officially confirmed, the social media site was telling us what US President Barack Obama was going to say before he said it.

For at least an hour in the lead-up to his televised address, there were Tweeters guessing and joking about the reason why Barack Obama had called a late night press conference. The arrival of the iPhone5 or aliens were just some of the more ridiculous ones to emerge from the Twitterverse.

But the first serious tweet came from Keith Urbahn, a staffer for former defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. He tweeted at 12.24pm Australian time that he had a reputable source telling him US forces had killed Osama Bin Laden.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Then strangely WWF wrestler the Rock alluded to Osama's death in this tweet and CNN's Steve Brusk tweeted that Obama would be talking about a national security matter.

And then CBS Capitol Hill reporter, Jill Jackson confirmed it at 12.32pm, tweeting "House Intelligence committee aide confirms that Osama Bin Laden is dead. US has the body."

This first tweet may have only come a hair's whisker before the TV networks, but in news, who's first matters.

For those looking, you could have even seen signs of Bin Laden's death in the Twitterverse much earlier. About nine hours earlier in fact when @ReallyVirtual or Sohaib Athar tweetedfrom Abbottabad, the village where bin Laden was killed, that he had heard gunfire and helicopters.

"Helicopter hovering above Abbottabad at 1AM (is a rare event)." Later he tweeted that he was just "a tweeter, awake at the time . . ." and there weren't "many twitter users in Abbottabad."

But after the tweets from Jackson and Urbahn, the number of Osama-related tweets mushroomed, and again when CNN was running it as a confirmed story on their network. So before Obama told the world, many avid Twitter fans had already known for at least an hour.

Before Obama's address one in five tweets in the world were about Bin Laden's death. Indeed Twitter itself said that the story had prompted the highest sustained rate of tweets ever, 3000 per second.

An internet poll last night of 11,500 people, had nearly 36 per cent say they found out about Bin Laden's death first through Twitter, and about 14 per cent said they found out first through television news. Even Facebook beat the TV networks, with about 19 per cent finding out that way. Bear in mind this was a poll of social media users.

Even so Twitter's role in delivering what is one of the biggest news stories in recent years must be the tipping point for the microblogging site; that Twitter will finally be taken seriously as a news source.

But this could easily have been just another rumour, it's happened before. We saw this most recently when Twitter told us that a Qantas A380 had crashed in Indonesia, parts of the story were true (for example debris falling into the jungle) but the rest of the story was obscured by online hysteria.

Twitter is perfectly designed to be the best generator of Chinese whispers; lots of people, not much detail and and a speed unrivalled by any other media. It also has the ability to bemuse as happened yesterday when there was persistent confusion among twitterers between the hash tag #osamadead and #obamadead.

But what makes it a dubious news source is also what makes it the best news source - when it gets it right. It delivers faster than anything else can because it's like the chaos theory of news generation. And it delivers it with wit, humour and original voices.

Despite the gravitas of yesterday's situation, Twitter's irreverent humour was at its best. For example, one of the top tweets of the day was "R.I.P Osama Bin Laden - World Hide And Go Seek Champion (2001 - 2011)". A few tweeted along these lines: "Osama dead: Donald Trump demands the death certificate." And yet another had this punchline on the day: "Osama probably regrets signing up for the Playstation network I'm guessing."

US comedian and writer Dana Gould made the followingobservation: "Bin Laden officially dead, the same week we learned Obama officially born. Weird . . . :

As much as Twitter showed what it was capable of yesterday, it's important to know that while many punters heard it first through social media, that was merely the first step. To know more than the basics or the humour of the day, one had to look further.

But to have news break on a medium and see how a whole group of people react to a single event all on one day in the same medium was something to behold. What it is capable of doing in the future could be even more remarkable.

Bella Counihan writes for the National Times.

I'm as un-Australian as...

Clubs Australia recently launched a campaign against the government's proposed pokies pre-commitment scheme, designed to stop problem gamblers from losing too much on the one-armed bandits. The pokies reform, lobbied for by independent members Andrew Wilkie and Nick Xenophon, was advertised in newspapers and online as a licence to gamble and unequivocally ''un-Australian''.

Well, dammit, I wish someone had told me. I don't want anything to do with it if it's un-Australian. I mean that would make me un-Australian and god knows what would happen then. But this worries me, do I really know which things are un-Australian and which things aren't? Kangaroos, Uluru, Vegemite — now that's Australian, but what about the rest of things that compose this universe?

The term has been around for the best part of the 20th century, rising to prominence in the 1990s but still none of us can figure out what it means. One historian, Klaus Neumann recentlysearched through decades of parliamentary proceedings in Hansard to try and define the term by the people that use it the most — politicians. Neumann found no logic behind the use of the term, instead concluding that politicians' references to un-Australian were basically ''incoherent'' and that the term ''has barely any historical reference points''.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Whole social studies have looked into the term and have found much the same thing, it means any manner of things to different people, albeit under the same very broad pop culture umbrella. They're all associated but not exclusive to ''violence, intolerance, selfishness, waste, racism, divisiveness, separatism and immodesty''.

With a bit of research I've now made this handy list for you readers out there to realise when you're endorsing something that just doesn't quite cut the Australian mustard enough to belong to this wide brown land. And so in no particular order all the things that I've been told are un-Australian:

1. Not eating lamb, especially on Australia Day - Sam Kekovichtold me that was definitely un-Australian.

2. ''Dibber-Dobber'' Julian Assange - Illustrious men's magazineZoo told me he was not only un-Australian, but the ''un-Australian of the Year''. Gillard and Rudd both featured in the top 5.

3. Pauline Hanson's jailing - The red-haired fox of Australian politics, who very nearly got a spot in the NSW parliament, told us herself that her imprisonment was un-Australian, as well as countless other things during her tenure in parliament. Ironically she too has also been named un-Australian.

4. Lleyton Hewitt — Or just about any Australian sporting star who's had a bit of a sook.

5. Anti-globalisation protesters, nuclear testing in the Pacific and comments by Sydney's Muslim cleric Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali— Howard told us they were all un-Australian.

6. Asylum seekers — surely there's a radio shock jock somewhere that told me they were un-Australian, I mean come on, they're not even from Australia. How un-Australian can you get?

7. Anything to do with ''banning'' Christmas because of political correctness — Don Randall, the man that brought you the term''Gay-BC'' for the nation's broadcaster, told us that ''banning'' Christmas carols was un-Australian.

8. Vegetarians — Everyone from Sam Kekovich to Wil Anderson (who is himself a vego) has told me these tofu sausage eaters are un-Australian.

9. Dole bludgers and tax cheats — Christopher Skase also comes to mind and all definitely un-Australian.

10. WorkChoices — the ACTU's secretary at the time, Greg Combet, also told us the Howard government's controversial IR laws were ''unfair and un-Australian''.

The list could seriously go on and on and on.

So, at this point all we have to go on is what other people tell us is un-Australian, even if it's ridiculous, even it's conflicting and even if it's obviously over the top. It's a term that can be used anywhere, any time, to discredit and spook us about anything. But hey, maybe me questioning the term ''un-Australian'' is itself un-Australian. Just what kind of dole-bludging, vego, hippy, student am I?

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

Politics channels the Twilight Zone

Ok, show's over, I don't want to add to the pessimism surrounding Julia Gillard here but there's been one final sign which shows for sure that Kevin Rudd is going to be Prime Minister again. This morning he went on Fairfax radio and told listeners that he was more likely to captain the Brisbane Broncos than come back as PM.

I know it's a lifetime away but if you cast your memories way back to 2010, Julia spookily enough said very similar things, albeit with an AFL tinge, just before she became PM in that unforgettable overnight coup. So that's it. Game over, man, game over. This is the final sign of a pending Labor armageddon.

Before Kevin's fall, there were many colourful Julia linescoming out of constant media tussles over the leadership issue. In one interview, where she promised she wouldn't be leader before the 2010 election, she said that the interviewer may as well have asked her if she was "anticipating a trip to Mars". In another she said she was more likely to do a Jessica Watsonand sail around the world, or that she'd sooner be expecting a call from Steven Spielberg before a leadership ballot.

Advertisement: Story continues below

It seems somehow we've gotten trapped in a loop. Someone has accidentally torn a hole in the political time-space continuum, allowing us to go round and round in ever more depressing circles. There a few signs of this, including the above-mentioned, weirdly similar leadership denials. The other patterns are more obvious, part one is that carbon pricing is on the agenda, part two is a PM slumps in the polls with a rival who's gaining popularity and then part three, they get the boot. We've got part one and part two already lined up in the chamber, someone just needs to pull the trigger and we'll have part three.

As Mary Jo Fisher said recently in parliament, in all of this carbon mess we seem to be dancing the Hokey Pokey and doing the Time Warp all over again. Even Pauline Hanson is getting back into politics and so the broken record goes.

What Julia needs is something to break the cycle, switch gears. If Kevin says that he'd sooner go to Mars than be PM again, we know it's really the end of Labor's world. Tony Abbott and the shock jocks need to settle down, have a juice box and a nap. And the moons need to be aligned so that we're not condemned to replay this.

Otherwise Kevin becomes a dead cert to be PM again, and then maybe he'll bring back an ETS, we'll have a poll dive, and Julia will come back. Maybe this is the Groundhog Day of Australian politics and we're just doomed to repeat and repeat this terrible mess until someone does something right, something different. What else do we do? Time to hold on while we go ever further down the rabbit hole.

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

Welcome to the conspiracy theory superhighway

Did you know that Julia Gillard has been accused of treason, making her ineligible for office? That John Howard told Muslims to get out of Australia? Oh, and Lady Gaga is actually a medium of mind control for the Illuminati. Yeah, I read it all on the internet, so it must be true.

The internet is an absolute gold mine for conspiracy theories. But in political terms, it can become a platform to promote misinformation and inflated rhetoric, which could be a problem for the notion of democracy. On forums, blogs and comments on news sites, there are now ever more ways to share the fear you have with your fellow couch-bound worriers.

One man has been on an internet crusade to expose a conspiracy of state and federal
government, along the way accusing Julia Gillard of treason. Brian Shaw, who stood as an independent candidate for the Altona state byelection (Gillard's own home turf), alleges "the Government of Western Australia, without referendum process, removed the State of Western Australia from the Crown of the United Kingdom" and therefore "committed treason". What that quite means is hard to figure out, but constitutional expert George Williams, a professor at the University of NSW, told the National Times that he is unaware of any such removal.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Shaw brought a few cases against a wide range of political figures including all members of the WA government and Julia Gillard for this believed breach. He goes on to argue that under Section 44 of the Constitution anyone ''attainted of treason'', which by his definition means accused of treason, is therefore unable to run for any position in parliament, which means Gillard's is ineligible for office.

Professor Williams explains, however, that "attainted" means convicted. He told the National Times "an allegation would not be enough. You would actually have to have a ruling", adding that Shaw's argument has "no foundation." Shaw has since been ruled to be a vexatious litigant but his theory is still onYouTube, his website and on other blogs and forums arguing the conspiracy.

YouTube has also propagated various other accusations against Julia Gillard, that she is
a dangerous communist, that she belongs to a reptilian racethat controls the world and also she is a part of the ''New World Order''.

Kevin Rudd too, had many conspiracy theories floating around in the online ether. During his prime ministership he too was part of a conspiracy with the New World Order, and another to make Australia a Nazi state.

In America, of course the problem is much more widespread and particularly prevalent since President Barack Obama's administration. There are so many conspiracy theories around the President that there's an entire website devoted to cataloguing them. His religion, his birth certificate, you name it, there's an Obama conspiracy attached to it.

The internet is increasingly how people can consume the kind of news they want and seek the revelations that they feel the mainstream media isn't telling them. Tea Party forums consistently reproduce the same false anti-Muslim speech, variously attributed to John Howard, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. The speech was in fact originally an editorial in an American newspaper, which ranted against Muslim migration to that country. But, as ABC's Michael Brissenden explains, even though this is a clear fabrication which only a modicum of googling or research would disqualify, members of the Tea Party continue to believe it.

So what does this all point to? Is the media failing us? Is political discussion so unsatisfactory that people have to believe in something beyond the norm? Or is it the fault of that wild and chaotic internet, which has no checks and balances?

There's no conspiracy here, simply that people will always look for meaning in random events, linking things together that are not actually related by logic or evidence. That the time and effort to actually verify things accurately is too time-consuming and most are willing to believe what their friends say over an unknown ''expert'' or news source. Distrust in authority, trying to be an individual in a sea of convention, these are all factors. The online world simply gives people an ability to communicate these fears, passions and beliefs with each other.

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

Lady Gillard must confront climate change

Aren't things getting dramatic in federal politics? Suddenly every policy issue is a bomb about to go off with no one knowing who it will destroy — a leader, a party, a government.

A carbon tax is now back on the agenda — despite the PM explicitly promising that there wouldn't be one — and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has been running the hyperbole at high volume since the announcement. This was a ''betrayal'', there would be a ''people's revolt'' — all a bit OTT. But he may have had something when, last week in Parliament, he compared Julia Gillard to Lady Macbeth.

If you remember your year 12 English, Macbeth is the story of regicide. Lady Macbeth encourages her husband to kill the king so that he can succeed him. But then she is consumed with guilt and dies mysteriously. Like all great Shakespearean drama, the tragedy is foretold long before the end of the first act and we are left to watch the whole mess play out.

Advertisement: Story continues below
Prime Minister Julia Gillard during question time last Thursday, the day she announced the government's proposed carbon pricing deal. Photo: Andrew Meares
It's not just the broken promise that will haunt Lady Gillard. Her earlier decision to convince Kevin Rudd to slay his emissions trading scheme — a move that led to him losing the top job — will come back to plague her too.
Climate change is here to stay as a political issue. With the blood of climate change policy on her hands, Gillard will have to confront the issue head on, admit missteps or she will be forever trying to prevent the issue from dominating the agenda. To switch plays here, there may never be a story of more woe, than this of Julia and her Kevin . . . and, ahem, carbon pricing.

A positive sign is that Gillard seems to already be taking great pains to admit her mistakes. After tip-toeing around the word ''tax'', she finally said she was ''happy'' to use the word. Initially unwilling to admit that she had broken a promise, Gillard said the hung parliament meant changed circumstances and then that carbon pricing had always been on the table. But she finally said ''yep, it was me, I did it''. This is a promising start but would have helped more had it been earlier.

As in the Scottish play, it is the corrupting power of ambition that threatens Lady Gillard in this potential Labor tragedy. She may want to succeed so much that admitting to mistakes will be difficult. So she will never really get to grips with what haunts the government. The same issues — high ambition and rhetoric, but going about it in the wrong way — also screwed up Rudd.

Watching the doomed characters in Macbeth, you often wonder about the hypotheticals. If Lady Macbeth had not convinced her husband to kill the king then, as an esteemed kinsman, he would have been rewarded. Eventually, they may have been king and queen anyway, with no murder to haunt them.

Similarly, if Gillard (along with others) had not convinced Rudd to slay the ETS, the polls wouldn't have been as terrible. Rudd wouldn't have got the chop and he may have survived, with Gillard to have logically succeeded him in time. By then climate wouldn't have been a problem for the government. But if the issue dominates the next national vote (whether it be a referendum or a general election), Gillard may, like Lady Macbeth, have created her own undoing.

We have no weird sisters and witches to predict the future here. We do have polling and we will soon see what the public reaction is to a carbon tax. A slight majority might support the policy — as with the flood levy. This would be a small ray of hope for the PM.

But, as Shakespeare wrote, ''what's done cannot be undone''. Gillard will have to confront the mistakes of the past, and screw her courage to the sticking place if she's to go on to win the next election.

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