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.