Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Political motives lay behind ceremonious mourning of Ted Kennedy’s passing

August 29th, 2009 by Daniel Young | No Comments | Filed in Politics

The wall to wall coverage of Ted Kennedy’s death gets my goat.

kennedybrothers

He may have achieved a lot but lets not forget the fact that he was born into a family of immense privilege within the political elite. His brother was President of the United States. Of course, its appropriate to recognise his contribution but I can’t help but be annoyed by the fanfare, the group clapping and back slapping and the self important and self congratulatory tone that surrounds his passing.

I feel that our political leaders are maximising the significance of this event to aggrandise their own significance, to justify their existence and to re-inforce their importance.

They draw attention to the ‘greatness’ of this man and then bask in the reflected glory.

Its obvious that the Democrats have a political motivation. They are taking the opportunity to leverage Ted Kennedy’s commitment to universal health care at a crucial time in the public health debate in the States.

Wait for the: ‘We owe it to Ted Kennedy’ type statements around Obama’s proposed health care reforms.

This might all sound somewhat disingenuous but politicians these days are adept (and I’m afraid shameless) at creating distractions and I believe that the hysteria and sense of tragedy that has been manufactured around Ted Kennedy’s death is exactly that – a distraction.

This is news but it doesn’t justify 5 days of blanket coverage across the media.

I am not disparaging the man.

I can’t be the only person feeling this way, can I?

You may disagree with me. In that case check out this collection of tributes.

Yahoo! News: Political luminaries pay tribute to Kennedy

And you (like me) may know very little about Ted Kennedy. You might find the following useful:

Website: Edwards M. Kennedy

Wikipedia: Ted Kennedy

Wikipedia: Chappaquiddick incident

Time: The ascent of Ted Kennedy

The anti internet filter campaign ad that Qantas banned

July 22nd, 2009 by Daniel Young | No Comments | Filed in Politics, Social media, Technology

Here is the Get Up! ad, which was banned by Qantas for being ‘political in nature‘. Get Up! wanted the ad shown on all domestic flights into Canberra.

The ad provides some relevant parallels for what – in effect – the Government’s Internet Filter will mean for Australians. 

The trials of the filter are months behind schedule, supporting the argument that the Government’s approach is not only inappropriate but also unlikely to work. The plan is opposed by numerous stakeholders, including high profile interest groups for children in Australia

The decision to ban the ad has probably resulted in greater exposure for the campaign, inculding this story in the SMH and items on Sky News, Seven News and Meet The Press. 

Approaches to Re-Building Trust Between the Public, Business and Government

June 12th, 2009 by Daniel Young | No Comments | Filed in Blogging, Politics, Social media, Technology

Marketing is all about building relationships and establishing trust.

Every organisation has a clearly defined target market, which can now be abstracted down to the level of the individual.

Digtial Marketing offers the the promise of one to one communications.

cctvTechnology provides insights  into the effectiveness of marketing communications and a depth of knowledge about individual customers – including their preferences, interests, buying patterns and capacity to spend – that is way in excess of anything that was possible before.

The analogue approach to marketing could be described as a scatter gun, while digital marketing is more like a laser sniper, which can pick out individuals from afar.

(more…)

Rudd Prepares For Military Strike By China – But Why?

May 6th, 2009 by Daniel Young | No Comments | Filed in Politics

Australia ‘enjoys’ an uncertain relationship with China.

Two stories caught my eye in the last week which illustrate this point.

1. Kevin Rudd announced a 3 per cent increase in defence spending and directly references the military build up in China as the justification for the spend, which will be detailed in the upcoming Federal budget. Current annual defence funding is in excess of $20bn.

2. The Reserve Bank takes the decision not to cut interest rates and cites recovery in China and the firming up of commodity prices as a key driver for an upswing in the Australian economy.

So in a nutshell Australia is arming itself to defend itself against the threat posed by a major trading partner.

I fail to see why China would invade / attack Australia especially if China consumes more and more of Australia’s raw materials and commodities in the coming years, as the Reserve Bank predicts.

With all due respect, what would be the point?

In an official response, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhong Xu said that “China is a peaceful force that forms no threat to any other countries.”

I appreciate that Australia needs to be aware of what is going on in the region but surely there are more progressive approaches available to the Australian Government, especially from a leader who has capitolised on a strong and long personal relationship with China.

CHINA-AUSTRALIA

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Critical Mass: Use of social media to mobilise cyclists in cities around the world

May 2nd, 2009 by Daniel Young | No Comments | Filed in Blogging, Politics, Social media

The use of social media by corporates is an interesting area and one that I intend to blog on in the future but I am also interested in the use of social media to mobilise individuals and create communities of action around particular topics and campaigns with a focus on changing stuff.

(more…)

Tags: , , , , , ,

Gordon Brown on YouTube does more harm than good

April 26th, 2009 by Daniel Young | No Comments | Filed in Politics, Public Relations, Social media

On Thursday, we had UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown on YouTube talking about the introduction of new reforms to deal with the issue of MP expenses.  Apparently, Gordon rarely meets young people that want to become MPs and he feels that refoming expenses rules for MPs is one of the reasons for this.

(more…)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Australian Federal Government Announces the Result of its National Broaband Network nbn Tender

April 7th, 2009 by Daniel Young | No Comments | Filed in Politics, Technology

…and the winner is?

No-One!

oh, hold on …the Government!

The Government awarded the contract for its National Broadband Network build to itself having ‘formally teminated’ the NBN tender.

The proposals submitted by Acacia, Axia Netmedia, Optus, Tasmania, Telstra and TransACT were ‘under-developed’ – especially Telstra’s effort.

The Australian Federal Government will establish a public private partnership to roll out ‘the largest investment in infrastructure’ in Australia’s history. In five years time the Government will sell down the company as a wholesale and open access network operator.  

The Government also announced a discussion paper to seek public comment on ways to improve telecommunications regulation to make it work more effectively in the interest of consumers and businesses.  The Government is keen to break Telstra’s ‘monopoly’ hold on telecommunications services in Australia as the owner of the once public telecommunciations infrastructure and the largest retail service provider in the country.

It’s hard to believe that the Government doesn’t have a pre-prescribed view on what form telecommunications de-regulation (the separation of Telstra’s operations) should take given the size ($43billion) and scope (fibre to the home) of its public private solution.

The Regulatory Reform paper canvasses a range of options for reform, including:

  • streamlining current regulatory processes, by allowing the ACCC to set up-front access terms for companies wanting access to Telstra and other networks;
  • strengthening the powers of the ACCC to tackle anti-competitive conduct by allowing it to impose binding rule of conduct when issuing competition notices;
  • promoting greater competition across the industry, including through measures to better address Telstra’s vertical and horizontal integration, such as functional separation;
  • addressing competition and investment issues arising from cross-ownership of fixed-line and cable networks, and telecommunications and media assets;
  • improving universal access arrangements for telephony and payphones; and
  • introducing more effective rules, requiring telephone companies to make connections and repairs within set time-frames.

The Government is seeking submissions by 3 June 2009, before making final decisions and introducing legislation into the Parliament.

The net result of this anouncement is delay. The Government is taking on a high risk project – public private partnerships don’t have a fantastic track record in Australia. Many are suffering from a lack of private funding.

The Government directly references Telstra’s control of the last mile as one of the reasons for failing the NBN tenderers - citing their exposure to extensive legal liabilities which make the business case for building the network unpredictable and untenable.

The biggest obstacle between the Government and a national high speed broadband network continues to be Telstra. Its appropriate for Telstra to protect its business interests having been fully privatised by the Federal Government just over 2 years ago.

Could this new approach by the Government be designed to provide an incentive for Telstra to separate its wholesale and retail operations and partner with the Government to establish the nbn, which would make it the ideal purchaser of the network assets in 5-years time.

It also provides the Federal Government with an opportunity to stimulate the national economy through job creation and big fees for consultants as we embark on YET ANOTHER episode in the long drawn out saga of a high speed broadband network spanning the country.

Finally, combined with the proposed Internet filter this strategy will provide the Government with a great deal of control over the Internet – lets hope they wield this power in a truly open fashion.

This extract from the Government Panel Evaluation Report provides a succinct summary of the decision making process.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Social Networks Weaken Arguments Against National Identity Cards

April 6th, 2009 by Daniel Young | No Comments | Filed in Politics, Social media

In April 2006, the Australian Prime Minister John Howard announced plans to introduce an Access Card system for health and welfare services. The half baked proposal received a lot of negative press and the Government was accused of attempting to introduce an national identity card by stealth.  The Labour Government dropped the idea shortly after winning the 2007 Federal election.

Do you know who I am?

Do you know who I am?

The Access Card was the latest attempt by Federal and State Governmentin Australia to introduce an identity card.

The world has changed significantly since 2006 – we’ve seen a major shift in consumer attitudes towards personal information as a result of mainstream social networking.

Internet companies now have access to vast amounts of data and in a wide variety of formats, take Google Street View for example.

Companies like Salesforce.com are tapping into social networks in order to cross reference the information that is readily available there with the information that they hold in databases and CRM systems.

Governments around the world have invested heavily in bail-outs and stimulus packages sending many into deep deficits.  Will the heightened need to ensure that public funds are spent wisely strengthen the argument for citizen accountability via an identity card?

One wonders if these developments will compromise attempts to oppose the introduction of an identity card – or equivalent – in the future.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Social Media Monitoring is Extreme Says Coalition Communications Minister

April 5th, 2009 by Daniel Young | 2 Comments | Filed in Politics, Social media

Government plans to monitor social media in Australia are a ‘waste of tax payers’ money, according to the Nick Minchin, the Opposition communications spokesperson.

Huh? What’s the point of social media if no-ones listening?

Blogs, forums and other forms of social media provide Government with access to a large amount of public feedback and sentiment. Of course they should be monitored. They provide a litmus test of public opinion. The Government needs to invest in the ‘comprehensive digital monitoring service(s) for print and electronic media’ in order to do this.

One would like to think that advisors and Ministers are listening to online conversation as this enables them to shape legislation and details to respond to the needs of the community.

Or perhaps the Government wants to monitor in order to identify sources of opposition and stiffle dissent.

Social media is driving community, media and our institutions through a transition. Governments are more than happy to use social media during election campaigns to gain power.

The real question should be: What are the Government’s objectives for social media monitoring? One can’t help but be a little cynical in the context of the Federal Government’s Internet Filter.

K-Rudd’s online activity has declined signficantly since coming into power.

The future of social media will be bright as long as Governments and corporations recognise the value of online discussions and the insights they provide rather than seeking to control or place limits on what can and cannot be discussed online. The conversations are occuring (and have always occurred) – heavy handed Governments will drive the online discussion underground (in a digital sense) which is the worst possible outcome.

I see nothing wrong with monitoring per se. It’s essential.

There are numerous free and paid tools out there for managing and monitoring social media. We use Radian6, which is by the best tool that I’ve come across (and I’ve seen quite a few).

Do you think the Government’s Internet Filter will filter out dissenting and opposing voices in addition to the pornographic and illegal content (its stated aim)?

This post takes issue with the not very popular Senator Conroy’s seemingly contradictory statements on the issue of social media monitoring. Conroy and K-Rudd will be announcing the winner of the NBN tender next week.

Here’s a snapshot of social media discussions that may be of interest to Minister Minchin:

nick-minchin44 nick-minchin12

nick-minchin31

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Prison Officers Threatened with Disciplinary Action for Anti-Privatisation Comments Made on Facebook

April 4th, 2009 by Daniel Young | 1 Comment | Filed in Politics, Social media
Opening the door to privatisation

Opening the door to privatisation

The New South Wales Department of Corrective Services has threatened to sack a group of employees for comments that they made on Facebook, which it says are in contravention of the Public Services Employment and Management Act. The employees were discussing the issue of prison privatisation in the State.

So much for social media as a channel for individuals to express themselves! This issue raises the question: Should online activity be protected by the principle of Freedom Of Speech?

A follow up story by Crikey alledged that the Facebook activity was actually of a defematory and sexist nature but doesn’t refute the claim that prison officers are being threatened with discipline for voicing their anti-privatisation views.

Prison officers went on a 24 hour strike this week and held a rally outside Parliament house (with twelve rebel Labor MPs) in demonstration against the plans to privatise two prisons in NSW.

For a perspective on the moral and practical issues associated with prison privatisation check out this opinion piece by George Monbiot, which includes the following passage:

Only two groups want them built: ministers and the prison companies: they offer excellent opportunities to rack up profits. And the very nature of PFI, (private finance initaitive: a type of public/private partnership) which commits the government to paying for services for 25 or 30 years whether or not they are still required creates a major incentive to ensure that prison numbers don’t fall. The beast must be fed.

Tags: , , , ,