Limbo

For the first time since 1940, Australians woke the day after polling day to find that they had no government.

Which was probably a relief to lots of them. A goodly number wouldn't vote unless they were forced to by our constitution, and an even larger number try and have as little to do with politics and politicians as possible. Three quarters of a million of the electorate voted informally, and about the same number lodged a 'donkey vote,' numbering the boxes in sequential order from the top of the page to the bottom, without and consideration of who they were actually voting for. So a day after polling day newspaper headline that read:



Would disappoint surprisingly few.

But, of course, this is not the case. We still have a government and it's the same government that we had before Saturday's inconclusive poll.

As neither major party was able to win 76 seats in the House of Representatives, to garner a majority in their own right, Australian politics has entered a kind of limbo state. The Labor Party will remain in office, with Julia Gillard as Prime Minister, at least for the next week or so while things sort themselves out. And by 'sort themselves out' I mean while the two major parties offer the tie breaking Parliamentary independents their own ministries, choice of parliamentary jobs, dump trucks full of cash for their electorates, flat screen TV's, iPhone 4's and anything else that might tickle their fancy in order to get their vote.

A minority government, which is what the eventual winner of this combined lottery/raffle will be, is a tough gig, but in comparison to not getting a gig at all, it's the only gig worth gigging.

In the mean time, while this barter between Labor, Liberal and the Independents continues, the two leaders both have to try and keep their party's well behaved and united. Which will be no mean feat and will require different skills from both Gillard and Abbott.

The Labor Party has emerged from the election blinking and disorientated, like someone who's just been in a plane crash and is amazed to find that they've somehow survived... And who then grabs a microphone off one of the TV news crews reporting the crash and starts slagging off the entire country on National TV. Really, the National ALP leadership doesn't seem to know whether to be happy, sad, puzzled, disappointed, angry, patient or philosophical. It's been a dizzying two months for them, in which they've dumped a first term Prime Minister, installed the country's first female PM in his stead, soared in the polls, crashed in the polls and then fought a thoroughly inept election campaign that ended in a deadlock. You have to pity Julia Gillard having to try and present this lot as a united team, 'ready to govern.'

The Liberal Party, on the other hand, have come out of the election like someone who's just seen their numbers come up on Powerball... and then realised that they forgot to put their ticket in. Somehow, they've managed to simultaneously win and lose the election, which is undoubtedly bothering them all very badly. They comfortably beat the Labor Party on primary vote figures - 44% to 38% - and won a host of seats and really, if you'd told them that that would be the outcome 12 months ago they would have laughed in your face and then probably installed you as leader. Nevertheless, despite these successes, their relentlessly negative, policy free election campaign was not enough to win the count outright. The biggest challenge for them then, is going to be trying not to sound like they did win the campaign outright and that they deserve to be installed in government without any debate. A tough ask for someone like Tony Abbott, who has 'Born to Rule' tattooed on his shoulder.

And so, for different reasons and from different starting points, both major parties find themselves in a similar position, one that neither one would want to be in. They're both of them stuck trying to woo a handful of independents from the cross-benches that they've both aggressively ignored these past ten years or so. I imagine both leaders are practicing their pitch right now:

'You know how I've never returned your phone calls or agreed to any meetings or allowed you to introduce any legislation into Parliament... well, let me just say, it was all a big misunderstanding! Are you comfortable? Would you like some water? You can have it with a twist of lime if you like. Very refreshing! Well let me know. We can always get you a lime.'

The independents themselves are a mixed bunch. Three of them - Bob Katter, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor - represent former safe National seats (Katter and Windsor are former members of the National Party) and so are considered more likely to side with the coalition. Although, The Man in the Hat, Bob 'The Mad' Katter:



Had this to say about the Howard Goverment:

If they were good for the bush, then I'm a Martian astronaut.'

Which paints an interesting mental picture, as well as indicating no particular love for the conservative side of politics. The other two independents are newly elected Greens member for Melbourne Adam Bandt and former Greens Candidate and army intelligence whistle blower Andrew Wilkie, who are both on or thought to be on the left side of politics.

A diverse group, all of them playing their cards fairly close to their chest, as smart people on the make are wont to do.

And so the limbo period looks set to continue for some time longer. There'll be a lot of meetings and talks and discussions and canvassing of opinion, and probably no definite results for at least a week, and maybe three or four. There will be much debate and speculation and almost nothing will be certain until the very end.

One thing we can be sure of, though, is that the two major party leaders would much rather be watching John Sayles' 'Limbo':



Then living through their current limbo experience.

In Focus

'Stop the boats.'

'Moving forward.'

'Dismantle the debt.'

'Jobs, education and the economy.'

'An action plan for Australia.'

As has been noted here and everywhere, Federal Election 2010 has been overrun by sloganeering. So much so that the casual political observer would think that there has been little else other than slogans on offer... and a more engaged political observer would also think this, and be angry about having wasted more time finding it out.

And there's a reason for all of this empty, banal word play: The major political party's in this country think you're stupid.

And disengaged, disinterested, disenfranchised and disabled (mentally that is. See previous point). They assume that you, the voter, have no real interest in how the country is or will be run, and you wouldn't be able to understand the way it is or will be run even if you did. You like football and porno and books about war. Little else interests you, certainly not how billions and billions of dollars of your money, harvested straight out of your pay packets, is going to be spent. Hell, you can hardly even count to ten! Best leave the politickin' to the politicians while you get on with... whatever it is you do, out there in the suburbs.

But every few years, our nations elected and wannabe elected have to come to us looking for our vote. What then do they do, to try and get us interested in a subject - politics - that we have no interest in and don't understand? They turn to the advertising industry.

Because everyone knows that the advertising industry can sell any idea, any concept, anything to anyone.

Take the 'Advanced Medical Institute' as one example, among, well, all of the corporate world. Started by a Russian immigrant to Australia with no medical background, the AMI sells nasal spray with no beneficial properties - and possibly some harmful ones - to the public under the vaguely worded promise that it'll 'Make Sex Last Longer.' The modern day equivalent of the old travelling medicine show that contemporary westerns make fun of... right? Right?

Did I mention that the AMI has billboards, lots of them, dotted around every capital city in Australia that say things like:



and that they also have some really crappy TV ads? And did I mention that they sold $36 million worth of their benign-if-you're-lucky product in Australia last year?

The power of advertising.

And so it's only natural that our major political party's will turn to the same dark... scratch that, evil forces of marketing and advertising to try and get us to vote for one of them over the other. So you're familiar with the ads on radio and television and in the press. And by familiar I mean bombarded. What about the slogans then. How do they come about?

And this is where we get to talking about a particular aspect of the dark... sorry, evil, art of advertising: Focus Groups. It works like this.

The major political party's know that the election will be decided in a handful of marginal seats out of the 150 in the lower house of parliament. And an analysis of the electoral results will show that most of these marginal seats are on the suburban fringe of our major cities. And some quantitative research from among the population on the fringe of our major cities will show that most of the people living in these areas are 25 - 44, have 1 - 2 kids and a mortgage that they can barely afford (Now do you understand all the education refunds and increased baby bonuses and child care super premium rebate thingos that get handed out to middle class parents during every election campaigns?).

So what happens next?

Firstly, a large and obscenely expensive marketing company, paid for by YOU most of the time, goes onto the Labor or Liberal payroll. This company will go out to a marginal electorate and look for people willing to participate in 'discussion groups.' These people will be 25 - 44, have 1 - 2 kids and a mortgage they can barely afford. The marketing company might advertise in the local paper or just contact people directly off lists the major party's keep of constituents who have identified themselves as swinging voters at some point (during a doorknocking campaign or at the local Church fete or in an overheard conversation in the Woolies check out queue) and ask them if they'd like to participate. Sometimes the marketing company will offer small cash inducements, but mostly they have no trouble finding people willing to contribute to what's pitched as something to do with policy formulation.

So the marketing company gets these people together and asks them what they think about a hot button contemporary topic:



The answers that are given are recorded:



And they try and get as many views as possible:



While encouraging people to be as honest, as off-the-cuff, as non PC as possible:



The marketing company then draw up a report which highlights the key statements of the group:



Which they present to Labor/Liberal HQ, so that the campaign team and the speech writers can convert it into a short slogan or two that they can bludgeon us over the head with.

QUESTION: Mr Abbott, you've committed to substantially reducing Australia's Greenhouse Gas emissions but have also pledged not to put a tax on carbon. How will you achieve one without the other?

ANSWER: Well that's an important question that needs to be addressed, but an even more important question and one that the the Labor Party have failed to address entirely is what they're going to do about the fish problem plaguing this country and that's why I'm ready to stand here committed to a policy of STOP THE FISH!

Essentially feeding the people in the marginal seats their own views back to them, in slightly rephrased form. Which bizarrely, somehow, makes the Labor or Liberal leader look like they understand them and how they feel. At least in theory. What it actually makes the Labor or Liberal leader look like is a mindless little drone with a few push button, pre-programmed responses to anything they get asked

And the other purpose of all of this activity, time and money? So that when we think of Tony Abbott, we'll immediately know that he wants to 'STOP THE FISH!' I mean, BOATS! Without thinking about it too much ourselves.

Which leaves the idea of political leadership or courage in this country exactly... where? I don't need my own expensive focus group and quantitative research to know the answer to that. I'll let Bill Hicks sum it up for me:

Debate

There's not much to be said about Sunday's Great Debate. Everything you need to know is right here:



I really wanted this entry to be an in depth analysis of the cut and thrust of the debate, the policies the leaders presented and the vision for the country that each had on display, but this has proved impossible. No such vision was on display.

For each candidate, the debate was more about what they were trying not to do; Julia trying not to look too much like Rudd, Tony trying not to look too much like an angry nut. On this score, you'd say that Tony fared better. Julia, with her empty sloganeering and vague promises, was pretty Rudd like. Tony was presentable and didn't say or do anything that would've frightened anyone too much.

In terms of what they talked about well, anyone with even a passing interest in national politics could've guessed beforehand. As I heard the PM's campaign spokesman say before the debate occurred; 'Julia Gillard stands for better schools, better health and a strong economy' (presumably her opponent is against these things). Her part of the debate was her saying this over and over and then rephrasing it to say it again and trying to ignore anything else.

Q: Can you tell us how you and Kevin Rudd are substantially different?

A: Well I won't comment on that. What I will comment on is my commitment to a improving education and health and building the economy.

Abbott stuck to the relentlessly negative tone of his campaign and ragged on everything the Government has done over the last three years (except the revised IR laws which he's very supportive of... or something). There was also a fair bit about turning boats back and stopping boats and sending boats somewhere else. Moving away from this safe territory proved a bit trickier:

Q: Can you outline what the top priorities of an Abbott Government would be in the areas of helath and education?

A: .... (pause)... (pause)... Stopping the boats!

Sometimes I htink it's a shame that these live, televised debates aren't taken a bit more seriously in Australia, like they are in the States. In US politics, the three debates are seen as absolutely key to winning office and shape the remainder of the campaign once they're done. Here, while it was well watched, it caused nary a blip on the national consciousness. Both candidates, having agreed to just one debate in the non prime time slot of 6.30pm Sunday, seemed eager to get it over and done with and forget about it.

Another example of moving forward, perhaps.

Come on Rudd, For Fucks Sake!

Looking and sounding a bit like a Richie Benaud doll with flat batteries, Kevin Rudd made his debut appearance in Campaign 2010 yesterday. Fresh from his $40 000, tax payer funded, first class flight back from his working holiday in the US, the ex PM was out and about in his seat of Griffith in Queensland, which he has represented since 1998.

The Rudd-bot sat out in the sun for a bit, chatting to shoppers along one of the main streets in the electorate, before moving on to Coorparoo State School, where he addressed the kids about their new hall. The sparkling Rudd public persona, so fondly remembered by anyone who has followed politics in this country these last two and a bit years, was on display again:

RUDD: Hands up now, what's the best thing about having a new school hall.

KID: This ones got seats!

RUDD: This one's got seats. That's very good.

Which made me kinda sad. Clearly, losing the top job has taken the edge off Rudd. If it had been the last election and he got this kind of response, he would then have gone:

RUDD: Is it better having seats in your school hall? Yes it is. Am I glad that you've got them? Yes I am. Would my opponent have delivered seats for your new school hall? No he wouldn't. Has my opponent had 12 years to deliver seats to your new school hall? Yes he has. Has he failed to deliver the seats to the new school hall? Yes he has...

And so on, for another fifteen or twenty minutes, far past the point where anyone in his audience could remember what had set him off in the first place. Makes a pundit almost feel nostalgic, especially during these grim days of 'Moving Forward' and 'Stop the Boats.'

But almost is the operative word when it comes to Rudd, as it seems a fair bet that the only one who misses seeing him in the PM's office is Tony Abbott (well, maybe Therese too). Abbott was all set to have a nice little 'Regular If Angry Man versus Inhuman Rudd-Bot' election before Gillard and the factional leaders in the ALP stepped in to make his task much more nuanced.

Leaving the leader of the Opposition to one side, the PM and other senior Government ministers seem to want Rudd to disappear as quickly and discreetly as possible. There's been a lot of talk of Rudd focusing on 'local issues' and 'campaigning in his electorate' and 'maybe fucking off back to the States until August 22.' I mean Rudd is the principle reason for the whole 'Moving Forward' campaign strategy. They want to move forward, from him, and only see him occassionally in the rear view mirror. And even then only by accident.

When asked whether she would campaign with Rudd in Griffith, Gillard sounded a bit like Abbott trying to explain his stance on 'Work Choices':

GILLARD: Well I will if he wants me to... Which he probably doesn't... Although we haven't spoken about it... But if he did ask I probably would... If there was space in the diary... And he wanted me to, which he probably doesn't... He's got a pretty safe seat anyway and I'm pretty busy... But I'd help him out if he needed it... Who were we talking about again? Judd? That bloke who plays for Carlton?

And that reminds me of something that my girlfriend said the other day when we were watching Carlton getting belted in the AFL. Chris Judd was having a very dark day and when, on one occasion, he grabbed the ball and then booted it out of bounds on the full, she went, 'Come on Rudd, for fucks sake!'

Says a lot about the last few weeks in Australian politics really.

Politickin'

A few days into the election campaign, and things have mostly settled into a comfortable routine for both major parties. Each day the two leaders do a round of breakfast media before jetting off to one marginal seat or another for a stage managed photo op with some rusted on supporters, the media coverage of which makes for a non threatening evening news backdrop.

Julia repeats the things that she's in favour of: (listed here in case you haven't been paying attention) growing the economy, money for schools, moving forward... And Abbott repeats the things that he's against: debt, boat people, Julia Gillard. They both shake hands with some bewildered looking passersby and then scram as quickly as their campaign bus/plane/fleet of cars can get them out of there.

As journalist Matthew Franklin, covering the Gillard campaign for 'The Australian,' put it: 'The Prime Minister appears to be avoiding contact with any real human beings.'

This then, is the essence of the modern election campaign. And this surely makes you wonder what the point of the whole process is.

I mean, these jokers, on both sides, get elected and spend three years tucked away from the rest of us in Canberra, doing God knows what and spending great swathes of our money while they do it. The one time that they're actually forced out from behind the skirting board, out into the light with the rest of us, asking for our vote, and they still don't want anything much to do with us.

I mean, why don't they get out more amongst regular people and find out what we want? Or what we're thinking? Town Hall meetings? Walking down the main street of a regular suburb? Well, last night Channel 7 showed a grab of Federal Treasure Wayne Swan having a go at it yesterday:

SWAN (To shop owner he was walking past): How's business?

SHOP OWNER: Good... No thanks to the Government.

No doubt Swanny is in a bunker under the Treasury building right now, still in tears, interviewing lookalikes so he never has to go out in public ever again. But really, what's the big deal?

Well, the big deal is that the major party's are terrified that this is what'll get played on the 6pm news that night. Instead of what they want played on the 6pm news, which is some speech the leader has given where they repeat 'Moving Forward' or 'Stop the Boats' 97 times in an effort to drum it into our heads.

But imagine, instead, if Swan had thrown back his head and chuckled, said something like 'Good on yer mate,' and paused to shake the blokes hand. Maybe bought a sandwich or an apple or a piece of fetish gear or whatever the shop owner was selling. That clip would've been on the evening news and people would've loved it. And the shop owner himself, while probably not changing his vote, may have thought of the Federal Treasurer as something other than a cunt, which is almost certainly how he feels about him now.

Part of this problem of sanitised modern politickin' comes down to contemporary media coverage and the 24 hour news cycle, which has a tendency to magnify even small incidents as media outlets search for content. And part of the problem comes down to the sort of people who, for the most part, make up our elected representatives nowadays. Constructed from soy protein and pencil sharpenings and grown in large vats in the basement of the major parties headquarters, they are indoctrinated from an early age with the key mantra of modern politics: Stay On Message. And the best way to stay 'On Message?' Avoid anything that's off message.

As former Keating speech writer Don Watson put it: 'Most modern polticians have never done anything but be in politics.' And so the deadly dull nature of a Federal election campaign, with its stage managed photo ops, 'On Message' sound bites and ridiculous slogans seem entirely natural to them.

Which is bad news for anyone with even a passing interest in politics in this country. 'The Age' election bloggers Mark Davis and Jacqueline Riley sum it up, commenting on the end of Day 4 of campaigning:

Another day where Gillard Labor's tactics came from from the Modern Campaigning 101 playbook: staying relentlessly on message while unveiling a "new" policy which was more presentational than substantive (National Trade Cadetships). By contrast the Abbott operation looked more DIY, struggling again to get its chosen message across cleanly on the all-important prime time TV news bulletins due to self-inflicted distractions.

You can almost hear them saying, '4 and a half weeks to go? AAARGGGHHH!!!'

Moving Forward

This morning, walking home, I listened to the ABC's 'Insiders' program on Radio National and the ABC's footy show 'The Sunday Inquisition' on 774 and the two of them weirdly blended together in my mind. Helped, undoubtedly, by an overabundance of the phrase 'moving forward' in both. Sample dialogue:

Insiders (Random political commentator): Well the Labor party wants this election to be a bout moving forward.

The Sunday Inquisition (Random AFL personality): Well the club is happy about the win but we've got to keep it in perspective moving forward.

Which is to say, that once Julia Gillard announced the election, she then immediately stepped up to provide the election with what will become its ludicrous, annoying tag line: 'Moving forward.' According to today's 'Age,' the PM said the phrase 'moving forward' in her campaign launch speech no less than 22 times and, according to my own unofficial estimate, she'll be gearing up to say it 9 065 000 more times before polling day.

Expect to see 'Moving Foward' on TV commercials, on leaflets, on banners and placards and those funny curtain things they hang up behind political leaders when they talk on television. It'll be on the tax payer funded propaganda that clogs up your mail box (that's right, you're paying for that stuff!) and on the ALP's how to vote cards. It'll probably even show up on naff t-shirts that some of the more clueless in the community will wear:



And it will serve to make life easy for Government MP's who might otherwise struggle with tricky questions on the campaign trail:

QUESTION: What is the ALP going to do with asylum seekers that arrive by boat.

ANSWER: Well, what we'll be doing is attempting to move forward with this issue in a realistic and prudent fashion.

QUESTION: What will the Government do to curb carbon emissions in this country?

ANSWER: Well, what we'll be attempting to do is move forward with this issue in a realistic and prudent fashion.

QUESTION: What will... well, you get the idea.

The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, did not come up with a snappy slogan of his own in reply, declaring in fact that the election 'was not about glib slogans, but about competent government.'

Given the Government's recent record of mismanagement and policy backflips - the abandoned ETS, the move right on asylum seekers, the disastrous home insulation and green loan schemes - Gillard and the Labor party hierarchy will hope that their slogan sticks and sticks hard.