How the Australians may be coping with election night!

As in most elections in most countries, there will no doubt be wall-to-wall coverage on all the Australian TV networks. So for Australians it is time to choose your station, invite mates over, and once you're settled in for the evening's entertainment you can start the game of Australia Drink-Decides 2007!

The rules are simpler than a Senate voting ticket. Here they are:

1. Any time your own electorate is mentioned, you must drink.
2. Any time a number of one billion or more is mentioned, you must drink.
3. Any time Pauline Hanson's name is mentioned, or a reference to One Nation is made, you must drink.
4. If Pauline Hanson actually appears on TV, you must completely finish the drink you are holding. If you are not holding a drink, you must immediately fetch your next drink and consume it in its entirety.
5. Any time a supporter wearing a "Kevin07" T-shirt is shown on TV, you must drink.
6. Any time a cute/attractive politician appears on TV, you must drink. (Note: this rule is not expected to come into play, with the possible exception of the Greens' Larissa Waters.)
7. Any time the phrase "working families" is uttered, by politician or TV commentator, you must drink: once for yourself, and once for each of your children.
8. Any time the phrase "balance of power" is uttered, you must drink AND eat.
9. Any time a politician claims victory on TV, you must drink.
10. Any time a politician concedes defeat, you must drink twice. (Once for their sorrow, once for our joy)
11. If in doubt as to the meaning or application of any of the above rules, or any time you are thirsty, just have a bloody drink.
12. If John Howard wins, you must drink until your feeling of disappointment goes away.

Who says politics is boring!!!! Kevin Rudd is the favourite, by the way, he is tipped to be on his way to a historic landslide bring Labour back to power for the first time in twelve years and be the first new prime minister in the same period; but that is not what the game is about!

Thanks to Prof. Phil Harris for sharing this: if there is an election next year I expect Britons to do their duty and... make up their own version!

Securing the orange vote

Australia's Liberal Prime Minister is widely believed to have a matter of days left in office as he is predicted to lose to Labour's Kevin Rudd. His campaign has been fraught with problems, with many viewing it as the campaign of a team that know they are beaten. In particular Youtube users have remorselessly attacked him using a range of mash-ups; the incredible farting PM certainly undermining his credibility.

His last foray on Youtube is clearly attempting to position Howard as a nice guy, caring about disabled children, the environment and who listens. But the reaction is perhaps not the one he wanted.

Comments on Youtube suggest his video may have won over the orangutans (the orange vote), or that it promotes Daniel Clark more than Howard. Daniel is the young disabled boy who wrote to Howard to ask him to intervene on behalf of the apes. Watch it, it makes many political video advertisements seem quite engaging.

Having the reverse effect

Youtube is predominantly a site used by young people, or at least this is the perception. Politicians who use Youtube certainly want to portray themselves as being younger, or at least cool and in-touch; it also gives them the chance to reach out to young voters. But there are risks when anyone can comment on your video. Australian Prime Minister John Howard seems to have passed his sell by date, the youthfulness of leaders has been a feature of Australian elections previously; thus at almost 68 Youtube allows Howard the chance to shake off a few years in the eyes of voters. Hence he, or a misguided member of his staff, felt it a good idea that he used Youtube to talk about an issue important to young people: the environment



It is a typical talking head shot, a little wooden and perhaps indicative of why Howard prefers talk radio. Searching for it one finds several user generated rebuttals, such as this! Also it elicited several negative remarks such as "what a shit politician" or "Hey, Nice Name JohnHoward2007, I'm guessing 'Bush's Bitch' was taken ??? Nice to see you put the year in your username, as it is is quite significant seeing it'll mark your governments last year in power ". These types of remarks also drove instantly negative media coverage as the whole initiative was deemed a failure. It also means that he is side by side with some seriously prejudicial material, the below shows him being mocked in parliament under the caption "John Howard is a Farting Fossil Fool'

This highlights the dangers of attempting to jump on the social media bandwagon with no real understanding of the environment. Maybe it was a last ditch attempt to change his image, done in the spirit of things cannot get worse. Or maybe actually someone thought this was a good idea. The problem is the lack of strategic thinking and cost-benefit analysis. Anyone can post stuff to Youtube, a lot probably goes unnoticed; but if you are in the public eye there is a risk. If you are in the public eye and disliked by the users of Youtube, the risks are huge.