Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here’s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Want to be leader? Who cares?

By William Hill - posted Wednesday, 2 November 2016


On a fantastic episode of South Park Eric Cartman was kidnapped by a deranged serial killer, tied to a chair and (in the true fashion of Thomas Harris) is forced to watch the murderer's slideshow of his vacation experiences. In painful desperation, Cartman screams 'Oh God. I am so bored somebody help me'!

Now think back to how you felt watching the great debate between Turnbull and Shorten or any speech you hear by the regular attendees on Q&A. You're not buoyed with excitement, are you? If you want to be entertained sadly you need to watch the Trump vs. Hilary debate. Well, 50 per cent of it anyway.

Now, politicians deal in complicated problems. There's little that they can reasonably answer with a simple 'yes' or 'no'. But obfuscation is the name of the new game. Commitments are replaced by aspirations. Every promise is conditional. Anything said can be unsaid. Why settle for a ten 10-word answer when you can run out the clock.

Advertisement

When you ask why this is so, one explanation comes to mind. Politicians are terrified of the ultra-specific questioning flung at them by (usually ABC) interviewers. These excruciating attempts to pin down politicians for all time with their answers with absolute categorical commitments are a blight on intelligent thought.

The most pitiful example of this is the question of leadership. Interviewers somehow think the public will be enthralled when some minister, shadow minister or former leader refuses to rule out any conceivable situation where they may challenge for the top job.

And this is populist garbage. Sarah Ferguson, Leigh Sales and Tony Jones couldn't care less who's ruling in or out their future leadership ambitions. It just isn't standard practice that someone explicitly states that they will contest a leadership ballot before the crunch. And they know that or at least their producers, who do all the actual work, do.

They invite on their victims, probably giving them the impression there will be a substantive discussion, you know like whether the government has an economic policy or whatever. Then once the gazelle is in the studio with the doors locked they can open fire. Hectoring them with all the usual, 'will you stand', 'if he resigned', 'if so and so refuses to challenge will you put your name forward'.

My favourite is the linguistically challenged, 'if you are drafted by your colleagues would you accept the leadership'? Well if you were drafted, doesn't that entail that no one else was available or willing to do it? And for the sake of one's party and electoral prospects isn't it fairly inconceivable that someone would say 'thanks but no thanks'. John Howard had no choice but to assume the Liberal leadership in 1995 because there was no one else. Bob Carr likewise had to become NSW Labor leader despite his own reluctance.

We're probably not far off from a 'journo' (ugh!) asking 'well if your leader kicked the bucket, then would you stand?' Terrifying isn't it?

Advertisement

And what about that incessant interruption that you see on Q&A and 7:30. That 'sorry to interrupt' is carefully designed, not to extract an answer, but to paint the guest as an avoider of questions and the interviewer as a fearless warrior for the truth. Please! This is brand reinforcement, pure and simple. The great news satire Frontline, was spot on when one of the reporters ambushed a dodgy lawyer at his home hoping he would slam the door in his face only to have the guy invite him in. 'We want the guy on camera not answering the question' said Martin Di Stasio. There's nothing worse for journalists when the subject wants to cooperate.

In the UK, probably the only country with a political culture more irritating than our own, there is a germ of honesty to be found. If you can fight through the avalanche of drivel that gushes from the Blairites, the Cameroons and the EU fanatics. And if you can deftly sidestep the rivers of froth that emanate from the snarling mouths of the Corbynistas, the Scottish Nationalists and the Guardian, you may just traipse upon an aggressive up and comer, Jess Phillips. She has a bit of the Trump brashness in her which has given her a significant profile for a Labour MP just elected in 2015.

In a sit down with the likeable Owen Jones, Phillips, in response to some polite questions said if Corbyn began to damage Labour's prospects (Ahem!) she 'wouldn't knife him in the back, I'd knife him in the front'. Jones later asked 'Would you like to be leader one day?' Phillips responded without any clever construction, 'I am ambitious for the Labour Party and if I thought that me being the leader of the Labour Party would help more people like the Labour Party I would do that absolutely'.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

This article was first published in The Spectator.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

4 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

William Hill is a graduate from the Australian National University with a Bachelor of International Security Studies. He has a strong interest in political science and issues of foriegn policy.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by William Hill

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of William Hill
Article Tools
Comment 4 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy