There is a rising star in the ranks of Britain's Conservative Party. Mark him well, because despite being in Parliament just two years he has designs on the Tory leadership and, at 38 has time on his side.
Dominic Raab wants to re-brand the Conservatives in his own image - and for many in Britain that picture would not be pleasant. He wants to truncate unfair dismissal laws, abolish the minimum wage and renegotiate The United Kingdom's membership of the European Union with a list of demands that would probably end with it leaving the EU altogether.
The current David Cameron-led Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition is failing. Two years of tough economic measures since its election in the wake of the global financial crisis appear to have brought little benefit. The economy stagnates, unemployment is high (for Britain) and the perennial anger with the European Union is reaching high water marks. On top of this there is talk that the Liberal Democrats, who have seen their popularity plunge since joining the coalition, may leave and go into opposition in the hope of regaining lost popularity. This has led to widespread speculation that the Government will not last until the end of its term in 2015.
If that is the case an early election would almost certainly see the return of a Labour Government that narrowly lost in 2010. It would not take much of a swing in voter sentiment to bring this about, but how Labour might deal with the malaise it inherits is problematic and there would certainly be very little in the way of a honeymoon period from an electorate remembering the last dismal years of the Blair-Brown administration.
This is where Raab may seize his chance to grab the Conservative leadership with a campaign rather like the Thatcher call for action in the late 1970s. A weak and indecisive Labour Government would be a juicy target and who would bet against a return of a new look, right-wing Tory party around 2018?
A lot of what Raab says is sheer nonsense. Britons are not, as he claims, among the worst idlers in the world, working among the lowest hours, retiring too early and with no interest in bettering themselves. Britain's work rates compare favourably with many of those in the EU and, further afield, Australia and New Zealand. The unions do not dominate working life in the way they might have done 30 years ago However, Raab's simplistic catch cries are music to the ears of the Tory faithful and - of course - to the big business the party needs to mount a successful election campaign.
Should Raab ever climb the greasy pole he will moderate his views in office. There hasn't been a Prime Minister in recent times who has not faced the need to compromise. But just how far he will be prepared to go - and whether he take his party and a majority of the nation with him - will be interesting fodder for speculation over the next decade.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
End this brand protection stupidity
Now that the London Olympics are over, isn't it time to review some of the ridiculous and heavy handed tactics relating to advertising and 'brand protection'.
Of course a sponsor who sinks millions of dollars into supporting a major sporting attraction does not want to see its main competitor getting a look-in for free. Of course genuine 'ambush marketing' has to be prevented for the good of the advertiser and the reputation of the organisers of the event who struck the deal in the first place.
But some of the lengths to which organisers go in their enforcement of branding restrictions are just plain stupid and verge on harassment. The latest Olympics have produced the usual crop, but there are instances that date back to the Sydney Olympics and even before.
Take the example of the corner Olympic Cafe. The Greek owner had proudly named his establishment some 25 years previously, but suddenly found that he was in contravention of legally enforceable branding restrictions and was ordered to remove the sign. After negotiations it was finally agreed that he only had to obliterate the 'O' of Olympic for the games period.
A group of ticket-holding football supporters were told they could not enter a stadium because they were wearing shorts that sported a rival brand to the sponsor of the tournament. They were finally allowed to watch the game in their underpants.
Pimms, a long-standing and beloved English liqueur, which is as much a part of the annual Wimbledon tennis championships as strawberries and cream, had to be renamed 'No 1 Cup' for the Olympic tournament because it was not a sponsor. Pimms did not want to put up signs or claim that it was in any way supporting the competition, it simply wanted to be on the drinks menu as it had always been. The organisers were firm in banning the P word.
The Goodyear Blimp became simply the blimp during the Olympics and journalists who turned up at the Games with Dell and Apple computers had to have the logos of these non-Olympic sponsors taped over.
The Australian team - who else - breached the blockade by smuggling in Kangaroo Condoms - for the gland down under - manufactured by Ansell, a rival of the official condom supplier (yes they even have one of those) to the London Olympics.
This last example is a healthy reaction to the over-zealous attitude to brand protection. Event organisers may claim that advertisers demand exclusivity, but this should not be at the expense of individuals' freedoms to wear what they like (providing this does not contravene other laws relating to obscenity and racism), buy computers that they like, or drink their favourite tipple.
In the end, advertisers need the Olympic Games, the World Cup football finals and a host of other major events around the world. If they didn't they would not support them and the problem would not arise.
Of course a sponsor who sinks millions of dollars into supporting a major sporting attraction does not want to see its main competitor getting a look-in for free. Of course genuine 'ambush marketing' has to be prevented for the good of the advertiser and the reputation of the organisers of the event who struck the deal in the first place.
But some of the lengths to which organisers go in their enforcement of branding restrictions are just plain stupid and verge on harassment. The latest Olympics have produced the usual crop, but there are instances that date back to the Sydney Olympics and even before.
Take the example of the corner Olympic Cafe. The Greek owner had proudly named his establishment some 25 years previously, but suddenly found that he was in contravention of legally enforceable branding restrictions and was ordered to remove the sign. After negotiations it was finally agreed that he only had to obliterate the 'O' of Olympic for the games period.
A group of ticket-holding football supporters were told they could not enter a stadium because they were wearing shorts that sported a rival brand to the sponsor of the tournament. They were finally allowed to watch the game in their underpants.
Pimms, a long-standing and beloved English liqueur, which is as much a part of the annual Wimbledon tennis championships as strawberries and cream, had to be renamed 'No 1 Cup' for the Olympic tournament because it was not a sponsor. Pimms did not want to put up signs or claim that it was in any way supporting the competition, it simply wanted to be on the drinks menu as it had always been. The organisers were firm in banning the P word.
The Goodyear Blimp became simply the blimp during the Olympics and journalists who turned up at the Games with Dell and Apple computers had to have the logos of these non-Olympic sponsors taped over.
The Australian team - who else - breached the blockade by smuggling in Kangaroo Condoms - for the gland down under - manufactured by Ansell, a rival of the official condom supplier (yes they even have one of those) to the London Olympics.
This last example is a healthy reaction to the over-zealous attitude to brand protection. Event organisers may claim that advertisers demand exclusivity, but this should not be at the expense of individuals' freedoms to wear what they like (providing this does not contravene other laws relating to obscenity and racism), buy computers that they like, or drink their favourite tipple.
In the end, advertisers need the Olympic Games, the World Cup football finals and a host of other major events around the world. If they didn't they would not support them and the problem would not arise.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
The death of journalism?
By Graham Cooke
Is journalism dead? No, but in its traditional form it is dieing, and it will not be long before the last rites are held.
I stress 'in its traditional form'. Journalism as a whole will not die. People will still want information; they will want to know about things going on around them - we are by nature inquisitive, and that's a good thing.
But the kind of information we access, and the way it is brought to us, is changing and the concern is whether the new-style journalism that is also evolving, is up to the task.
A recent survey conducted by the Media Trust in the United Kingdom surveyed the state of regional journalism in that country and its findings make bleak reading.
It found that newspaper closures and job cuts were having a 'devastating' effect on the quality of news in local areas, with job insecurity and commercial priorities limiting journalists' ability to question and analyse.
Reporters were stuck at their desk, cutting and pasting media releases, scarcely finding time to lift a phone and call contacts, let alone get out into the community and find stories.
The internet, instead of becoming a valuable additional tool for research was becoming the be-all-and-end-all; media officers and publicity companies were increasingly dictating what appeared in the news pages.
As traditional journalism sinks into this malaise it is being replaced by a new breed of 'citizen journalists' - untrained amateurs using mobile phones and emails to tap into the media, providing information on everything from the local Rotary Club meeting to potholes in the road outside their homes.
It is a development that is enthusiastically embraced by media owners - free news from an army of unpaid reporters and photographers. Many actually encourage the practice by running prizes and give-aways for the best news tip or photograph of the week.
Meanwhile, the increasingly diminishing pool of trained journalists are put to work knocking the often semi-literate contributions into shape.
In parallel with this is the growth of so-called celebrity journalism. What might have once been material for gossip columns is increasingly represented as hard news. Again media owners will argue that its popularity demonstrates that is what the public wants. Maybe, but is it all it wants? And does this represent a demeaning race to the bottom?
A free and unfettered media is a cornerstone of all democracies. The paradox is that with the exception of government-financed television and radio channels this essential service is provided by commercial interests. For most of modern history the hybrid system seemed to work reasonably well, and it is only in the last decade or so that it has been showing signs of breaking down.
If professional journalists are chained to their desks, and 'citizen journalists' do not have the training or experience to seek stories other than those right under their noses; if we become obsessed with the latest B-grade starlet's sex scandal to the exclusion of all else, then who is left to uncover dirty dealings at City Hall?
As one frustrated journalist, writing in response to the Media Trust report put it: "There's no time these days to cultivate contacts, go out and cover stories and give your work any thought - it's just like bagging spuds. Do one, on to the next one.
"It's heartbreaking."
Is journalism dead? No, but in its traditional form it is dieing, and it will not be long before the last rites are held.
I stress 'in its traditional form'. Journalism as a whole will not die. People will still want information; they will want to know about things going on around them - we are by nature inquisitive, and that's a good thing.
But the kind of information we access, and the way it is brought to us, is changing and the concern is whether the new-style journalism that is also evolving, is up to the task.
A recent survey conducted by the Media Trust in the United Kingdom surveyed the state of regional journalism in that country and its findings make bleak reading.
It found that newspaper closures and job cuts were having a 'devastating' effect on the quality of news in local areas, with job insecurity and commercial priorities limiting journalists' ability to question and analyse.
Reporters were stuck at their desk, cutting and pasting media releases, scarcely finding time to lift a phone and call contacts, let alone get out into the community and find stories.
The internet, instead of becoming a valuable additional tool for research was becoming the be-all-and-end-all; media officers and publicity companies were increasingly dictating what appeared in the news pages.
As traditional journalism sinks into this malaise it is being replaced by a new breed of 'citizen journalists' - untrained amateurs using mobile phones and emails to tap into the media, providing information on everything from the local Rotary Club meeting to potholes in the road outside their homes.
It is a development that is enthusiastically embraced by media owners - free news from an army of unpaid reporters and photographers. Many actually encourage the practice by running prizes and give-aways for the best news tip or photograph of the week.
Meanwhile, the increasingly diminishing pool of trained journalists are put to work knocking the often semi-literate contributions into shape.
In parallel with this is the growth of so-called celebrity journalism. What might have once been material for gossip columns is increasingly represented as hard news. Again media owners will argue that its popularity demonstrates that is what the public wants. Maybe, but is it all it wants? And does this represent a demeaning race to the bottom?
A free and unfettered media is a cornerstone of all democracies. The paradox is that with the exception of government-financed television and radio channels this essential service is provided by commercial interests. For most of modern history the hybrid system seemed to work reasonably well, and it is only in the last decade or so that it has been showing signs of breaking down.
If professional journalists are chained to their desks, and 'citizen journalists' do not have the training or experience to seek stories other than those right under their noses; if we become obsessed with the latest B-grade starlet's sex scandal to the exclusion of all else, then who is left to uncover dirty dealings at City Hall?
As one frustrated journalist, writing in response to the Media Trust report put it: "There's no time these days to cultivate contacts, go out and cover stories and give your work any thought - it's just like bagging spuds. Do one, on to the next one.
"It's heartbreaking."
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Is this Gillard's biggest mistake?
By Graham Cooke
The decision by Julia Gillard to head into an election campaign less than a month after becoming Prime Minister is beginning to look like the biggest mistake of her political career.
As well as Australia's first woman Prime Minister, she is in serious danger of becoming one of shortest-lived.
At the time of writing the Tony Abbott-led Coalition, while not exactly having the Government on the run, has certainly seized the initiative. There is still plenty of time for Labor to pull back the lost ground, but any thoughts of a comfortable cruise into a second term have evaporated.
The early election strategy revolved around two major factors: Capitalising on the honeymoon period a new Prime Minister normally receives and enthusiasm for the fact a woman held the office for the first time.
It seems the honeymoon has failed to survive the blistering spotlight of an election campaign, while the expected support for a woman PM among woman voters has not crystallised - at least not yet.
Instead, the man she deposed, Kevin Rudd, has become a factor, with many potential Labor voters turned off by the ruthless way he was deposed in the wake of significant, but far from catastrophic falls in his popularity rating.
Add to the number of leaks and counter-leaks springing from the Labor camp and the Opposition is successfully portraying Gillard as an opportunist who doesn't have the full confidence of her own party, let alone the electorate.
Hindsight is wonderful, but had she waited until later in the year - the end of November or even early December - the Rudd 'assassination' would have faded in the public's memory.
As I said, Labor can still turn it around. A key factor will be Rudd, and how he conducts himself when he returns to the campaign trail after his gall bladder operation. Unqualified support for Gillard and a willingness to campaign for her nationally, will be a major plus.
But as things stand the Coalition must be seriously contemplating a return to government that would have been unthinkable less than a year ago.
The decision by Julia Gillard to head into an election campaign less than a month after becoming Prime Minister is beginning to look like the biggest mistake of her political career.
As well as Australia's first woman Prime Minister, she is in serious danger of becoming one of shortest-lived.
At the time of writing the Tony Abbott-led Coalition, while not exactly having the Government on the run, has certainly seized the initiative. There is still plenty of time for Labor to pull back the lost ground, but any thoughts of a comfortable cruise into a second term have evaporated.
The early election strategy revolved around two major factors: Capitalising on the honeymoon period a new Prime Minister normally receives and enthusiasm for the fact a woman held the office for the first time.
It seems the honeymoon has failed to survive the blistering spotlight of an election campaign, while the expected support for a woman PM among woman voters has not crystallised - at least not yet.
Instead, the man she deposed, Kevin Rudd, has become a factor, with many potential Labor voters turned off by the ruthless way he was deposed in the wake of significant, but far from catastrophic falls in his popularity rating.
Add to the number of leaks and counter-leaks springing from the Labor camp and the Opposition is successfully portraying Gillard as an opportunist who doesn't have the full confidence of her own party, let alone the electorate.
Hindsight is wonderful, but had she waited until later in the year - the end of November or even early December - the Rudd 'assassination' would have faded in the public's memory.
As I said, Labor can still turn it around. A key factor will be Rudd, and how he conducts himself when he returns to the campaign trail after his gall bladder operation. Unqualified support for Gillard and a willingness to campaign for her nationally, will be a major plus.
But as things stand the Coalition must be seriously contemplating a return to government that would have been unthinkable less than a year ago.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Grey power needs to organise
By Graham Cooke
The call by the Council on the Ageing for a Minister for Older Australians to be part of the next Government deserves support. This is a segment of the population that is increasing in size and, potentially, influence and ought to be given due recognition.
We already have a Minister for Early Childhood and for Youth. There is a Minister for the Status of Women and for Indigenous Australians. It is true that Justine Elliot holds the non-Cabinet position of Minister for Ageing, but her portfolio is wrapped up in health and biased towards aged care rather than the broad spectrum of issues that concern the over 55s.
Ageism is the last of the 'isms' to be properly addressed in Australia. Legislation exists, but it is weak and largely ignored. It has also failed to keep pace with the ambitions and aspirations of older people.
Today's seniors are healthier and more active than at any time in history. An Australian reaching the age of 55 in 2010 can, on average, look forward to another 25 years of life. For many it is much longer than that.
So it is no wonder that many people do not want to spend this length of time sitting on the porch or playing golf, yet outlets - especially in continuing employment - are significantly limited compared to any other age group.
COTA says a Minister for Older Australians should have Cabinet clout and be responsible for reviewing all current legislation that might have inbuilt discrimination against seniors. That would be an excellent beginning.
However, there is one theory going the rounds as to why both sides of politics can ignore the demands of their older voters.
It is that by the time they reach their 50s people have locked into support for a particular party and rarely change, meaning the concentration must be on the swinging voters in the 18-to-34 age group where elections are won and lost.
This is a view put forward by the highly respected Chief Executive of Newspoll, Martin O'Shannassy, so it should be given some weight. In which case it is high time older Australians began to organise themselves around the issues rather than simply following long-standing emotional attachments.
Politics today has become as brutal and back-stabbing as it was during the schemes and plots of Regency England, and if the views of Australia's older citizens are not to be trampled in the day-to-day rucks and mauls they had better organise themselves and learn how to play the game.
The call by the Council on the Ageing for a Minister for Older Australians to be part of the next Government deserves support. This is a segment of the population that is increasing in size and, potentially, influence and ought to be given due recognition.
We already have a Minister for Early Childhood and for Youth. There is a Minister for the Status of Women and for Indigenous Australians. It is true that Justine Elliot holds the non-Cabinet position of Minister for Ageing, but her portfolio is wrapped up in health and biased towards aged care rather than the broad spectrum of issues that concern the over 55s.
Ageism is the last of the 'isms' to be properly addressed in Australia. Legislation exists, but it is weak and largely ignored. It has also failed to keep pace with the ambitions and aspirations of older people.
Today's seniors are healthier and more active than at any time in history. An Australian reaching the age of 55 in 2010 can, on average, look forward to another 25 years of life. For many it is much longer than that.
So it is no wonder that many people do not want to spend this length of time sitting on the porch or playing golf, yet outlets - especially in continuing employment - are significantly limited compared to any other age group.
COTA says a Minister for Older Australians should have Cabinet clout and be responsible for reviewing all current legislation that might have inbuilt discrimination against seniors. That would be an excellent beginning.
However, there is one theory going the rounds as to why both sides of politics can ignore the demands of their older voters.
It is that by the time they reach their 50s people have locked into support for a particular party and rarely change, meaning the concentration must be on the swinging voters in the 18-to-34 age group where elections are won and lost.
This is a view put forward by the highly respected Chief Executive of Newspoll, Martin O'Shannassy, so it should be given some weight. In which case it is high time older Australians began to organise themselves around the issues rather than simply following long-standing emotional attachments.
Politics today has become as brutal and back-stabbing as it was during the schemes and plots of Regency England, and if the views of Australia's older citizens are not to be trampled in the day-to-day rucks and mauls they had better organise themselves and learn how to play the game.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Top cop has every right to speak
By Graham Cooke
What on earth was all the fuss about Victorian Chief Police Commissioner Simon Overland giving a speech at the school his son attended?
Commissioner Overland's planned address to a $100-a-head fund-raising night for the private Xavier College gave the Herald Sun apoplexy, with a front page lead story continued inside the newspaper and a leading article condemning his actions.
The newspaper was outraged at the fact the Police Commissioner was favouring his son's alma mater and demanded to know whether he would perform the same service for other, less privileged educational establishments.
What a ridiculous beat-up. Of course Xavier College has the right to ask a prominent citizen who has a significant link with it to assist in its fund-raising. It happens the world over and is a perfectly acceptable practice.
Certainly it was an expensive night out for those who attended, but that is the nature of fund raising. Presumably Xavier College knows its constituency and what that constituency can afford.
Whether Commissioner Overland would do the same for other schools is irrelevant and he was quite within his rights to refuse to answer that question.
The Herald Sun quoted Victorian Council of School Organisations President, Nicholas Abbey as saying it was "unfair the way some schools were able to raise more money than other schools".
Well Mr Abbey, life isn't always fair and schools without the resources to hold $100 dinners can always find other ways of raising smaller amounts more frequently through sausage sizzles, fetes and so on.
Much more sensible was the quote buried at the end of the article from the President of Schools Victoria, Elaine Crowley who said that she "did not find it unreasonable that [Commissioner Overland] is going to speak there given his child went there".
If this article discourages other prominent citizens from lending their name to school fund-raising activities, the Herald Sun will have done education in Victoria a grave disservice.
What on earth was all the fuss about Victorian Chief Police Commissioner Simon Overland giving a speech at the school his son attended?
Commissioner Overland's planned address to a $100-a-head fund-raising night for the private Xavier College gave the Herald Sun apoplexy, with a front page lead story continued inside the newspaper and a leading article condemning his actions.
The newspaper was outraged at the fact the Police Commissioner was favouring his son's alma mater and demanded to know whether he would perform the same service for other, less privileged educational establishments.
What a ridiculous beat-up. Of course Xavier College has the right to ask a prominent citizen who has a significant link with it to assist in its fund-raising. It happens the world over and is a perfectly acceptable practice.
Certainly it was an expensive night out for those who attended, but that is the nature of fund raising. Presumably Xavier College knows its constituency and what that constituency can afford.
Whether Commissioner Overland would do the same for other schools is irrelevant and he was quite within his rights to refuse to answer that question.
The Herald Sun quoted Victorian Council of School Organisations President, Nicholas Abbey as saying it was "unfair the way some schools were able to raise more money than other schools".
Well Mr Abbey, life isn't always fair and schools without the resources to hold $100 dinners can always find other ways of raising smaller amounts more frequently through sausage sizzles, fetes and so on.
Much more sensible was the quote buried at the end of the article from the President of Schools Victoria, Elaine Crowley who said that she "did not find it unreasonable that [Commissioner Overland] is going to speak there given his child went there".
If this article discourages other prominent citizens from lending their name to school fund-raising activities, the Herald Sun will have done education in Victoria a grave disservice.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Gillard caves in to reactionaries
By Graham Cooke
The Australian Labor Government's new policy on asylum seekers is a bitter disappointment.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard has caved in to reactionary forces and produced a position that is little different from what existed under the previous Howard Government.
Instead of the Pacific Solution we have the Timor Sea Solution.
It is to be hoped that the proposal will be roundly rejected by the Government of East Timor and that it will not give in to the financial inducements that will inevitably be offered to allow a 'Regional Processing Facility' to be set up on its soil.
In a prime example of the spin employed by governments of all persuasions these days that Gillard has attempted to dress up this objectionable plan as a way of halting the people smuggling trade, while trying to hide it behind the announcement that processing will begin again on asylum seekers from Sri Lanka.
The Coalition and Labor are now engaged in a disreputable race to the bottom, with eyes firmly fixed on how their pronouncements play out in the opinion polls. The concept that governments provide leadership on the important issues of the day is dead.
The sad fact is that this is really a non-issue. As the prominent lawyer, Julian Burnside, has pointed out, even at the current rate of arrivals, it would take 20 years to fill the Melbourne Cricket Ground with boat people.
The problems existing in some of the outer suburbs of our major cities are real, but they are caused by poor planning and incompetent local authorities, not by asylum seekers arriving by boat.
We are entering a new and dangerous era in Australian politics where opinion polls and the pronouncements of populist media shock jocks form government policy and, therefore, the way we live our lives.
A not so brave new world.
The Australian Labor Government's new policy on asylum seekers is a bitter disappointment.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard has caved in to reactionary forces and produced a position that is little different from what existed under the previous Howard Government.
Instead of the Pacific Solution we have the Timor Sea Solution.
It is to be hoped that the proposal will be roundly rejected by the Government of East Timor and that it will not give in to the financial inducements that will inevitably be offered to allow a 'Regional Processing Facility' to be set up on its soil.
In a prime example of the spin employed by governments of all persuasions these days that Gillard has attempted to dress up this objectionable plan as a way of halting the people smuggling trade, while trying to hide it behind the announcement that processing will begin again on asylum seekers from Sri Lanka.
The Coalition and Labor are now engaged in a disreputable race to the bottom, with eyes firmly fixed on how their pronouncements play out in the opinion polls. The concept that governments provide leadership on the important issues of the day is dead.
The sad fact is that this is really a non-issue. As the prominent lawyer, Julian Burnside, has pointed out, even at the current rate of arrivals, it would take 20 years to fill the Melbourne Cricket Ground with boat people.
The problems existing in some of the outer suburbs of our major cities are real, but they are caused by poor planning and incompetent local authorities, not by asylum seekers arriving by boat.
We are entering a new and dangerous era in Australian politics where opinion polls and the pronouncements of populist media shock jocks form government policy and, therefore, the way we live our lives.
A not so brave new world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
