The view from here: the Griffith by-election (3.5 in a series, and a full-stop)

...or, what went on in the mind of one voter. 

I did

I'm often asked, in the course of my day job, to 'predict' election outcomes; to interpret the opinion polls ; to tell us what people are thinking. Well, here's a truth: I can't really give any better sense of what people are thinking than the next person. We can estimate, guesstimate, prognosticate and offer possibilities but, when all is said and done, I can't be inside the heads of 97,000 or so potential voters on the day. So really, what will be will be. I shy away from the 'science' part of my political science disciplinary spectrum which seem to find answers to voting behaviours via the sorts of mathematical equations that ought to stay in the pages of my senior high school algebra textbooks. Good luck to my colleagues who do that stuff, their conclusions are always interesting but I just disagree with the path that gets them there. 

The analysis from all quarters after a by-election makes interesting reading. Some muffled grunts in agreement, some eyebrow raising at the wild guessing in the guise of 'authoritative opinion'. The latter often being in inverse proportion to the kilometres away from the actual boundaries of the said electorate. I feel, then, it is my solemn duty as a political observer to try and for you dear reader, a sense of what goes on in the mind of a voter in this critical (not critical), highly (over) analysed by-election. I have lived in this electorate for over twenty years; I was here when Kevin Rudd failed in his first campaign (1996) and I'm here at the end of his era as the member for Griffith. [Whether I remain a 'good burgher' or not will depend on the moniker the new member decides to use.] What follows is not particularly scientific,  and it is rather uncensored. It is no doubt, a variation on one of 80,275* or voters' minds the commentariat were so interested in on the by-election weekend. 

[*in the end, an 82% voter turnout; it compares favourably with the 34% voter turnout for the Tokyo Governor, which also happened on the weekend... #justsayin']

Let's put down a few variables and parameters through which you may choose to refine your lens on my lens on the voting process.

1. I am a swinging voter in that I rarely give one of the two major parties my first preference. I generally opt for a minor party (or independent) first and over time have probably alternated ALP and LPA candidates down the list, fairly evenly. I really don't see a lot of difference between the two once they swap the treasury for the opposition benches, or vice versa.

2. I have, as often as is practicable, voted at the same polling booth at each election and usually at about the same time. This is about as scientific as my voting gets, seeking some order of consistency. (It has mostly been a largely ALP booth during Kevin Rudd's terms.)

3. Partly because it is my job, but mostly because I am interested, I do take note of the material distributed by candidates. 

4. I am a member of a non-aligned union, as part of my professional engagement, the tertiary education union, the NTEU. Views on union participation matter. Bill Glasson made his name as the head of his professional association, the Australian Medical Association; Terri Butler is an employment and industrial relations partner with noted law firm, Maurice Blackburn. Both candidates then, had 'union' credentials, in a way.

5. Regular readers of this blog will know I have followed Kevin Rudd's career quite closely and hold particular views about his skills, management abilities, rhetoric v reality and other matters. Given Mr Rudd triggered the by-election by resigning after he was elected back in September, and I hold strong views about the importance and privilege of being elected to parliament, my vote, in the end, might have been influenced by that.

Tipping point paraphernalia: LNP top, ALP below

Professionally, I was also interested in how voting a second time within a few months might change one's vote: do you vote the same way because it is in effect, a re-run ballot? Do you have a chance to 'change your mind' given the outcome was or wasn't the one you wanted before? (These are particularly interesting questions in the case of the upcoming Western Australian Senate re-run election...so much to think about there.)

The LNP candidate, Dr Bill Glasson, basically picked up from where he left off in his 2013 campaign. His supporters, nicknamed 'Glasson's Gladiators' continued their occupation of street corners each Saturday morning (and with increasing frequency and appearances as the Saturday approached). The Glasson campaign had elements of the 'grassroots' support about it (if local opinion was anything to go by) though with the obvious backing of the party organisation. 

The ALP candidate, lawyer Terri Butler, pitched her campaign as being part of a young working family who understood the situation of many working families in the electorate. I think she did a reasonably good job over the term of the campaign to separate herself to a point from being a 'replacement' Kevin Rudd. 

In total, we again faced 11 candidates to choose from. The Greens ran with Geoff Ebbs again (having, apparently, briefly flirted withe the idea of running Andrew Bartlett). We also had interstate comedian Anthony Ackroyd standing for the Bullet Train Party, I guess to get some publicity (for the party, and himself). People I spoke to, by the way, found this a little too trivialising for the by-election. Maybe the response would have been a little less hostile, in a general election. 

Some of the independents, during the campaign, received some particularly strong profile-rasing coverage, although as the figures show, after the Greens captured their usual third spot with about 10% of the vote, all others hovered above or below the one percent mark. Voters continue to be reluctant to cast their votes outside the major two-party system. 

FIRST PREFERENCES

Polling places Returned: 48 of 48   Enrolment: 97,857   Turnout: 82.03%

Candidate	Party	Votes	%	Swing (%)
LAWRENCE, Timothy	Stable Population Party	666	0.86	+0.67
EBBS, Geoff	The Greens	7,635	9.82	-0.36
WILLIAMS, Christopher	Family First Party	729	0.94	+0.20
BOELE, Karel	Independent	504	0.65	+0.65
ACKROYD, Anthony	Bullet Train For Australia	602	0.77	+0.77
REID, Anne	Secular Party of Australia	424	0.55	+0.04
BUTLER, Terri	Australian Labor Party (Qld)	30,023	38.63	-1.73
THOMAS, Melanie	Pirate Party Australia	1,172	1.51	+1.51
WINDSOR, Travis	Independent	656	0.84	+0.84
SAWYER, Ray	Katter's Australian Party	821	1.06	+0.37
GLASSON, Bill	Liberal National Party (Qld)	34,491	44.38	+2.16
......	Rise Up Australia Party	0	0.00	-0.48
......	Socialist Alliance	0	0.00	-0.44
......	Palmer United Party	0	0.00	-3.36
......	Other	0	0.00	-0.82
FORMAL		77,723	96.82	+1.58
INFORMAL		2,552	3.18	-1.58
TOTAL		80,275	82.03	-11.11

TWO CANDIDATE PREFERRED

Polling Places Returned: 48 of 48   Turnout: 82.03%

Candidate	Party	Votes	Margin	This Election (%)	Last Election (%)	Swing (%)
BUTLER, Terri	ALP	40,229	2,735	51.76	53.01	-1.25
GLASSON, Bill	LNP	37,494	-2,735	48.24	46.99	+1.25

Source: Australian Electoral Commission, 2014.

vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-17552-163.htm

We also note that for the second time, Bill Glasson received the most first preference votes and Terri Butler had to rely on the second preferences. This is a repeat of the September 2013 election where Kevin Rudd, despite a 5% swing against him, was elected on second preferences. 

So then, to the ballot box....

The first thing that struck me was that the rolls were on a laptop, all electronic, perhaps in the wake of higher security demanded after the WA Senate votes problem. We also received, for the first time I can remember, a sticker declaring we've voted (but with no 'ink-dipping' expectation to wear it--see above). The school P&C had their sausage sizzle up and running too, true Australian democratic practice.

It would be fair to say I go to the polling place with a range of things on my mind. Often, I have sorted my first preference but sometimes waver on which way to go with preferences. What struck me about this campaign was that as the campaign proceeded, Bill Glasson seemed to lose his naturalness and became very much a cog in the party machine. This was a change in his 2013 campaigning. It made it harder to be convinced that he could 'stand up' in Canberra as he insisted. Terri Butler seemed to get by with being Terri Butler and not Kevin Rudd. Given the distribution of preferences in the seat, it was probably always going to be hers to lose anyway. 

In the end, I preferenced both major parties down the list. I will tell you, dear reader, that there were changes in campaigning and yes, I did switch the order of preferences for the two main candidates, once I got there. 'Which way?', you ask. Well, I still value the anonymity of the 'secret ballot', so that's all you'll get from me. Ultimately, I was disappointed with the tone of the material which came our way, the photo above being but one example. Neither of the cards, posted to letterboxes, were obvious in their origins and only sad psephies like me looked for the 'authorised by' fine print to pick who was who. Memo to party headquarters: unnecessary tactic thanks. 

And yet, while I probably over-intellectualise the process, for every one of voters like me, I couldn't help but wonder about the other voters in my polling place at that time. The first time voters, people who have come from other countries, perhaps a little perplexed by the process. Or indeed, the woman next to me who struck up a conversation, utterly confused about how many times she had to fill in a paper, her insistence that there were only 10 candidates and why did all the how to vote cards tell her she must vote this way or that... (NB: No vote coaching happened during my polite exchange of explanation with this voter.)

I love my profession. I'm passionate about cultivating an understanding and engagement in our political processes with as many people as possible. I enjoy trying to work out people's motivations, interests, reasons for decisions. I think it is just a far more fuzzy 'science' than we are willing to sometimes admit (it's not the stuff of successful grant applications). It has me pursuing the spectrum of thought, ideas and philosophies down the ages as a means to understand our 'human condition'. And, I've found that unlike our present politicians and their campaign 'advisors' who seem to think the narrowcast bread-and-butter issues and a cultivation of envy and avarice are all that concern voters, digging a little deeper and exploring the ideas that make us who we are are the sorts of things that intrigue us, challenge us and re-engage us in our society.

It's a job, and someone has to do it. 
Cheers.

My teaching is done here

'What is necessary for the public realm is to shield it from the private interests which have intruded upon it in the most brutal and aggressive way'

--Hannah Arendt, c. 1973 

Oh, that Hannah Arendt were alive today and enduring the 21st century tertiary education sector. The above quote is attributed to a speech she gave at a Columbia University conference on the topic of 'Private Rights and Public Good' (see 'Quote of the Week', Hannah Arendt Center, Bard College, 1 October 2012). As 2013 closes and 2014 approaches, I am 'retiring' from teaching and aspects of that decision are tinged with regret while in other ways it comes with huge relief. 

Closing the office door, December 2013

For me, 2014 will largely be a year away from the classroom, for the first time in about fifteen years in this instance, and a career that began in the English conversation classes in Japan in 1984. There is a family legend that at the end of my first year of Harbord Public School in Sydney I sat down with my grandmother and decided then at the age of five going on six, that I would become a teacher. I recall my grandmother's encouraging words about my decision, mainly for the holidays and pay. In the intervening years, everything I did was directed towards that goal: my choice of university was based on an innovative (for then) joint Bachelors/DipEd program over four years. 

As I completed each level of education so too did my aspirations of teaching level: in primary school I wanted to be a primary school teacher like Mrs Day or Miss Turner; at high school I imagined myself teaching my two passions, Japanese and biology; at university I learnt the state education department had rather strict guidelines about teaching combinations and Japanese and biology didn't fit into the pro forma arts/humanities OR science/maths requirements. At the entry point to university, I had to choose between Science and Japanese...we know which way that choice went. 

I surprised myself in the mid-1980s when the first thoughts of becoming an 'academic' began to emerge. Not ever really the done thing for a kid from my side of the tracks...'bit above yer station isn't it?' as some were wont to say. But pursue an academic road (albeit rocky at times) I did and here I be...(as some are wont to say). 

I have gained far more than I could have ever imagined from what seems to be a life of teaching. There are no greater rewards than seeing students have their 'light bulb' moment. I've been privileged witness to students who eyes have seemingly lit up upon 'getting it'; guiding them through those 'big questions' of politics and philosophical prognostications. As with most 'teachers', my students have remained constant sources of inspiration and learning for me too. 

1. Teaching and knowledge gathering could be collegial
Cai Guo-Qiang, Heritage, 2013; QAGOMA. Author pic

However, as Arendt identified forty years earlier, the intrusions on the public education sector are such that I can no longer be the teacher I want to be nor can I be the teacher I know I can and should be. The moments of 'dread', though few, outweigh the magic moments to the point that it is better I take off my teacher's mask. The autonomy of the academic has been under attack for some time. The 'value' of academic contribution is now determined by quantitative formulae which privilege big prestigious grants; it is determined by a demeaning competitive race for 'tier one' journals and publishers regardless of the genuine merit. The collegial approach of the academy which once sought to pursue knowledge for knowledge's sake, to question, to ponder, to think, is now condemned by and large, to compete against each other to earn a faux prestige...as a number of sincere colleagues have noted, the emperor truly has no clothes. Or, as some might see it, there seems to be a privileging of mediocrity in the academy (and I am simply not sufficiently mediocre).

2. But now feels like this...a pack of wolves
Cai Guo-Qiang, Head On, 2006; QAGOMA.
Author pic, 2013.

We are therefore made to contrive research projects which become complex and complicated and expensive beyond all necessity. In recent years, as I have reluctantly given in to 'playing the game', I have tried individually and in an even more contrived 'research group' to get on the funding merry-go-round. Inevitably I fall off because my research consists largely of sitting, reading, thinking, translating and writing. It is not the the sort of research which requires annual funding of five or six figures on high rotation. Indeed, I have estimated that my annual research budget would require less than the fortnightly salary of a typical vice-chancellor. There is much waste in research funding and distribution...a courageous education minister would stand on the brakes to purge the sector of the neoliberalism which has poisoned our path to expanding our knowledge universe. A redistribution of funding according to need and not ambition could in fact result in far greater knowledge outcomes than our contrived system extrudes. Counterintuitive to the bean counters I guess. 

I am taking time out in 2014 to research, write and think. I have the safety net of a teaching-free semester followed by long service leave, and I am grateful that I am in that position to do so (though it has come as a result of too many hours teaching...it's a kind of performance management thing in fact so it is imperative I 'perform' in other ways next year). 

But I see this as the end of teaching in any formal way for me. As I reach the half-century with no prospect of career advancement, I have made that decision, as difficult as it is for me to do so; as difficult as it has been for one who has envisioned a career of teaching and learning for most of my life. There is disappointment but also anticipation of what might be ahead. I have much to write about: on Australia-Japan relations, on Northeast Asian security, on Japanese adventurers of 120 years ago and on Hannah Arendt, a new project for 2014 which will explore evil, brutality and our human condition. I have wanted to return to Arendt's work since being introduced to her thought as a wide-eyed undergraduate some 30 years ago by a lecturer whose key tool was passion...what goes around... Arendt's work has been on my shelf ever since, bubbling away in the subconscious, knowing but not knowing; one day seeking understanding. 

I think I may have found a way to understand the emotions emergent in the Thai-Burma railway experiences as exemplified in two recent interpretations: the movie The Railway Man and the novel by Richard Flanagan, The Narrow Road to the Deep North. It won't cost much financially, but hopefully it will add to our understanding of who we are and why we, as humanity, do what we do. It is a timely confluence of events, and decades of research and thinking I've done on various topics, nothing more. It may be the one 'big work' that, as a naive undergraduate, I once imagined that was what one did. 

I look forward with eagerness and trepidation to the challenge as I step outside the formal institutional structure. Outside that structure there remains a space where these things an be explored and discussed and I am grateful for the opportunities provided through the blog and twitterspheres...and other media. I will have more time for this blog and I look forward to that.

Arguably, the public university is effectively dead...we need to see it for what it is, quasi-public-private 'partnership' with the authority weighted heavily in the wrong elements. The public realm remains, just not at the university. I remain committed to upholding the value of the public realm, but for now, my teaching here is done. 

See you in the new year. Cheers, and thanks for being interested.

CarrRudded: The sound of our 44th parliament

Men in general judge more by the sense of sight than by the sense of touch, because everyone can see but few can test by feeling. Everyone sees what you seem to be, few know what you really are; and those few do not dare take a stand against the general opinion. 

Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

KRudd resigns : bloggers blog

And so, on the evening of Wednesday 13 November 2013, Mr Rudd resigned...and we have now all blogged about it. Well, blog we must, and here is my contribution to the record. 

Not so quiet now, the local paper seeks out
 the member for Griffith
Southeast Advertiser October 2013

Those of you who have read my previous posts about Kevin Rudd will know that I take something of a 'view from Griffith' approach. That is, I am a constituent of this electorate. Not only that, I hope to bring to my view a slightly different take on my local member, as one who shares a similar educational and background (Asian Studies), a short stint in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as one whose profession it is to observe politics at its very heart and one who has, over some two decades or so encountered elements of the Rudd career trajectory via his report into studying Asian languages from the early 1990s, to encounters in federal parliament when I worked for a Queensland senator, to active constituent in electorate events. It is an interesting mix.

Mr Rudd, as we know, was re-elected as the member for Griffith in September. He regained his seat on the back of second preferences and had a 5% swing against him. Interesting that his swing went against him, while Labor candidates in neighbouring electorates had swings towards them...we good burghers of Griffith had mixed feelings methinks. In looking over the individual booth results (ah, yes, I do that sort of thing...occupational hazard of psephologists everywhere), I noted with interest that my local booth was one of the few in the electorate to show an increase in first preferences since the previous election...but I digress. 

At Troy Bramston's book launch,
in the electorate, 16 March 2013, the
prime ministerial ambition burned then.

There was a sense on the day of the election that, frankly, we were likely to head to a by-election within months, perhaps weeks, despite assurances otherwise. That may have gone some way to explaining that interesting swing against. In the event of the ALP losing government, it was highly unlikely Mr Rudd would stick around to go back from whence he came--an opposition back bencher. 

Those of us not playing in the ALP pick-a-leader playground for the month after the election were getting a little frustrated that the 'Rudd reform' of the party was dragging out over a month while a new government with wobbly training wheels was afforded an almost scrutiny-free month to settle in. All eyes were on the Shorten-Albanese sideshow. Meanwhile, our local member went on a two-week holiday overseas with family to rest and recover. Well, fair enough I suppose. Dr Glasson went back to his surgery. 

After a long, long wait, the 44th Parliament opened at the beginning of this week with all the pomp and ceremony that accompanies that. It is an exciting and deserved time for new members and territory senators (other new senators will join next July...). It is when the first (or maiden) speeches begin...each new member rising for the first time in this place to put on the record, in Hansard, their aspirations, their dreams, their political philosophy, their reason for being there in this place...first speeches are truly a joy to read. They are each and every member and senator at their most heartfelt (well, mostly). 

I was driving home after a long day at work (nine hours of exam workshops), listening to some of the first speeches replayed on the radio; the reactions of family, friends and communities to their new members, particularly the more prominent ones, the ones with high public profiles and even higher expectations. 

And so, it was not surprising on this important evening to hear the breaking news that Kevin Rudd, the member for Griffith, the immediate past prime minister, sometime foreign minister, opposition leader etc, was entering the chamber to announce his resignation from parliament. There were the usual paeans to family and colleagues on both sides of the House; the emotion-filled first draft at establishing one's legacy in what had really been a rather tumultuous few years; the speech of one who polarised his party, the Cabinet, his constituents. Members from both sides rose to offer valediction...he had been prime minister, twice, after all. 

By the time I reached the outskirts of Brisbane, the radio was abuzz and 612ABC's Rebecca Levingston and producer Lachie Mackintosh were in full-on live coverage mode. By 8.05, it was my turn to contribute and so from the car park of the home of the whopper (I had to pull off the main road) I had a chat with Rebecca about the by-election, what is to come and what of the member for Griffith's legacy. 

Former Senator Bob Carr had announced just a few weeks ago that he intended to retire from the Senate, his decision to remain as an 'elder statesman' was merely 'irrational exuberance'. While it came as little surprise, the resignation was met with the usual cynicism that is the public's response to our parliamentarians. The resignation of a senator doesn't require a by-election in the same way the resignation of a member of the House of Representatives requires (notwithstanding what is about to unfold over in Western Australia). 

The public, by and large, do not like unnecessary by-elections (well, I don't mind the opportunity to go all psephologist again of course). The resignations of Messrs Rudd and Carr though, call into question the vocation of politics. What these resignations suggest to the public is that some politicians, given the privilege to represent constituents in the highest of democratic institutions, mistake the purpose of politics to be beyond self-interest and self-aggrandisement. And it is here, dear reader, that I think we arrive at the nub of our broken contract (yes, this post was always going to return to my Kantian rhythms...). Not all the action happens on the front bench, in question time, on the evening news...places where those who seek very public acclamation play out their game plan. Unfortunately, the very public expectations nowadays now put the emphasis on the 'game', on the superficial over substance. 

What is wrong with being a 'backbencher'? Nothing actually, indeed the backbench is a vastly underrated space from where a parliamentarian can make a huge difference to the lives of individuals, their constituents, case-by-case. Some do that very well. Some indeed, satisfy themselves career-wise with the focus on the micro, rather than macro. There are committees as well, where a backbencher can channel their efforts to craft and influence the legislative process, quite out of the spotlight. Indeed, perhaps our politics has reached its nadir because high-profile and experienced politicians find the work of a backbencher mere drudgery. Indeed, it was my former Minister who is attributed with coining the expression 'relevance deprivation syndrome', and in doing so, he gave the 'pass-out' for others who have followed in his footsteps, the justification for the departure they feel they deserve. 

I'm not suggesting that all elected members should remain in parliament forever. But the position of parliamentarian shouldn't be seen as a stepping stone to a second or third career. Our polity can only benefit from the experience that experienced politicians can offer, whether from the government or opposition backbenches, our parliament can thrive on a judicious mix of youthful idealism and hardened experience. 

It is something I hope they think about. 

In closing, as I write, we good Griffith burghers are none the wiser over likely candidates, probable dates (sometime in the new year) and our new member. The insurmountable dialectical polarity of Kevin will be likely be his lasting legacy in the end. Triggering a by-election in these circumstances will ensure that. Seeing out the current term at least, as mundane as it might have been, might have gone some way, just a little, towards repairing that ailing social contract of ours. 

Me on twitter: who'd have thought...

'Dare to know [sapere aude]' 
Immanuel Kant, What is Enlightenment

I was asked to give a presentation today, on twitter...me, yes me. Now a few of you will be laughing, or L[Y]AO as we say in the twitterverse...but present I did. My university has been promoting Open Access Week and as part of that one of our librarians asked me to offer a few pointers about twitter and research. Well I wasn't sure about that. My twitter account started as an adjunct to my research but it has turned out to be so much more and nearly all for good. How might I compact all that into ten minutes? 

We thought it best to simply show by example and get my twitter page up and walk people through it. It didn't occur to me to formalise it in anyway until I tweeted about what I was doing. A couple of tweeps, including Belinda (@zimgrrrl) said they'd like to *read* my paper...oops, paper, what paper? 

So here is the post I promised. I'm post-teaching, almost post-marking and I've missed my regular writing so thanks @zimgrrrl, here we go. 

One of my early posts was about how and why I ended up on twitter, by accident and reluctantly. I don't engage with any other social media platforms (Facebook etc) and it took about 18 months between starting up the account in 2010 before I really took to it and began to appreciate its value and potential. Yes, the plan was to use it to gather information and clues for my research in Australian and Japanese politics, follow accounts that related to that and probably remain somewhat passive, a 'lurker' as they might say. After all, it's not as if I would have all that much to say and in just 140 characters...

What I came to appreciate very quickly with twitter was the importance of 'engagement'. Simply sitting on the sidelines seemed to be almost cheating...leaving others to do all the hard work while I was simply reaping the benefits. I eventually got up the courage to make my account public and began to offer a few comments, a few responses. Dare to know? Dare to engage, more like it and doing so has added layers to my academic contributions but also, as many of us on twitter find, I think, just added layers to life in general. 

Connecting via twitter has given me the opportunity to trial and develop research ideas with a wide range of people. It has prompted this blog (something I never imagined I would do!). Writing a blog has returned me to the 'routine' of writing and articulating ideas. That can happen because tweeps begin an exchange with me about something from a Japanese source that I might retweet; it might come from a comment I make about the topic of the day; it might come from a simple 'thought bubble' I put out in the twitterverse to gauge a reaction. It is a concrete way to get ideas down in a print form in a way that might not necessarily happen with a passing comment in the corridor at work...yet so many tweets can be just that, a passing comment but someone might catch it and a dialogue begins. I now use this and one or two other blogging spaces to write up first drafts of articles and next year, a book or two I'm working on. 

I'm endeavouring to use twitter as part of my teaching practice. I use twitter to link articles of interest to students in my politics and Japanese classes. These links in turn, generate conversations and tute discussions and hopefully, access to materials with a sense of immediacy sometimes needed in politics. That element is still a work-in-progress.

There is the inevitable question, as an academic with twitter training wheels: just what is the right balance between academy seriousness and alter-ego? For me, a funny thing happened on my initial excursions in the twitterverse which shifted my perceptions, and my approach quite dramatically: a tweet about a storm on the SunCoast to 612ABC (which I stream at work to keep up with the politics of the day). Something about the tweet caught the eye of the Drive presenter Tim Cox, we had a chat about it--on air--and the rest, as they say, well, you know what they say. 

In other words, my timid beginnings on twitter have expanded beyond 'for research purposes only' to a wider 'media' exposure which, for an academic in my field at my university (which is unable to support my research endeavours in any substantial way), has diversified and exposed my work in ways I can't get through the more orthodox peer-reviewed journal pathway. It is not an either/or situation of course, the journal articles and books must appear too; however, twitter has provided a platform for disseminating my work to a broader audience and an audience that, in many ways, I think is more important to speak to about my line of work. 

The presenters and producers at 612ABC Brisbane (and ABC Gold and Sunshine Coasts) have been extraordinarily generous in this regard. 612ABC has a great twitter following and from that, my twitter engagement is further enhanced by the group we call the #612tweepsters, a number of whom I have met in real life and we offer a great support network on and off twitter. Similarly, I engage with a group of tweepsters throughout Australia and the world on a range of topics. It is like a virtual barbecue gathering, shifting in and out of conversations. 

There are the usual cautions and potential pitfalls on twitter as there are with other forms of social media but I've found a carefully curated following/followers list can skirt some of the more unpleasant aspects. I aim for a diversity of views and opinions because it matters for me as a political scientist that my views don't get caught in echo chambers. 

Once I got started, it was hard to keep my enthusiasms to ten minutes today. I have certainly surprised myself. In sum, yes we can use twitter as an innovative research tool but I think to get the most out of it we must also engage with it. To do that, we have inject a little of our own personality too, and not be afraid to do so. In that respect, the information I put in my twitter-bio is quite important; it's taken a bit of tweaking, but it indicates the range of interests--work and play-- you are likely to encounter on my timeline. 

Having said that, I am conscious of my public profile and the responsibility that comes with being an employee of a public institution. I wouldn't say anything on twitter that I wouldn't be prepared to say to my vice chancellor if I found myself having to explain a 'rogue' tweet. It's a simple observing of common sense really. 

I was asked a question at the end--where do I find the time to engage like this on twitter? Actually, I hadn't really thought about that and I don't know how much time I really spend on twitter. In the end, I said I don't have a TV which seems to give me some extra time that others might not. I don't know, I might have to rethink that. 

I have to thank my Politics and Media class of 2010 and in particular, Todd Winther (@toddocracy), a USC graduate and now Griffith Uni PhD candidate in political science, for getting me here. His guest lecture back then about this 'new' social media platform was instrumental setting me up. He is in no way responsible for the 34,000 tweets that have happened since (well, maybe some, but not all).  (^o^)/*

So that is today's presentation in a nutshell Belinda. Hope it helps, and let me know if you'd like to continue the convo, via twitter of course!

Juggling elections...

Election day, 2010

Japan's Upper House election: why does it matter?

I've managed to time my annual research trip to Japan to coincide with the Upper House election in Tokyo in 21 July. Well, it's a little borderline, classes actually start on 22 July this year. Oh well, I consider it good up-to-date material to present...

Of course, currency with my field of teaching is just one reason why I like to make a regular trip to Japan. This time however, the outcome of the Japanese election could be quite important. Should the Liberal Democratic Party win a majority in the House of Councillors (a weaker version of the Australian Senate) then it will have the numbers to make major changes to the 1947 Constitution. This could have serious ramifications for the region. 

Candidates board, 2010

The incumbent Prime Minister Abe is said to be keen to 'take care if some national security business left unfinished' when he left office last time (Asahi Shimbun editorial, 8 July 2013). The proposed changes to the Constitution might lead to a stronger military interpretation of Article 9.

There are a couple of other reasons though why this election might be interesting from an Australian point of view. In Prime Minister ABE Shinzo, we have a former prime minister returning for a second go after being humbled out of office six years ago. PM Abe is building a high profile on social media using both twitter and facebook. Indeed, this is the first election where previously strict rules governing use of media have been somewhat relaxed. A number of politicians and candidates have taken up twitter as have their supporters. People still angry with the fallout from Fukushima are active users of twitter and have run a strong high profile campaign. The twitter map below (courtesy of BillioMedia and Asahi Shimbun) show tweets about nuclear energy outweigh others which include tweets about the internet and campaigning, economic policy and 'Abenomics'.

Mapping tweets... (Source: Asahi Shimbun)

We will also be watching the outcome of electronic voting.

Of course, all eyes will be on Abe as he negotiates his second term at PM, not unlike the political situation here in Australia. In a fit of party reform some years ago, the LDP also shifted its voting system for party president (who then becomes party leader/prime minister) to incorporate rank and file party members to be included in the voting process. This was also seen as trying to open up the party to its broader membership.

I will also be watching with interest how successful women candidates will be this time around. There are some high profile women in the Upper House and their success or otherwise will also tell us much about the current state of Japanese politics. Women have been quite prominent across a number of issues in Japan especially around Fukushima, nuclear power and the future health of their children. How will this translate to voting intention and voting outcome.

Engaging young people in the process is also key. One of the more high profile candidates, actor Yamamoto Taro, has been attracting large crowds to his stump speeches around Tokyo, I hope to see some of this activity over the next few days. Voting is not compulsory in Japan, unlike Australia. The activities of younger, charismatic candidates like Yamamoto are generating a new level of engagement.

Much is to be anticipated in this election for Japan. I look forward to reporting from the frontline next week.

The view from here: Griffith in 2013 (2.0 in a series)

I could not stand idly by...

The good burghers of Griffith find themselves being represented by the nation's prime minister again. Kevin Rudd has made the comeback he clearly thought he had to make to save the nation from a Tony Abbott-led government, or so he determined. I discussed the events as they unfolded on 26 June over at the twelvepastsix blog. 

The local paper (cheekily) sums it up.

We've been enduring a rather questionable period in our nation's politics, and it is now well beyond the apathy v. distrust questions which triggered this blog originally. 

There has been an underlying visceral combativeness that has not advanced our public discourse. In a forthcoming post, I will look more closely at the speech Kevin Rudd made on the day. This passage of politics has been a most interesting example of the intersection between politicians and the media, both social and 'mainstream'. There are elements of his speech which had me raising my eyebrows. How do I as a political scientist explain with conviction to students that when a politician says no, they mean no, but later on they actually didn't mean that. There are many examples. 

In the same vein, much was also said about the contrast in the speeches given by Julia Gillard on the day too...there is perhaps a deeper feminist analysis to be made there. 

The Saturday following the change in leaders, the street corners here in the electorate of Griffith were again populated by volunteers cheering on Mr Rudd's key challenger, the LNP's Bill Glasson. Of course, for Dr Glasson, he has gone from challenging a former prime minister and backbencher to back to challenging the incumbent Prime Minister. 

This will be interesting. Perhaps ordinarily, a challenger might say that the prime minister will be too busy to focus on the local issues. Kevin Rudd, however, since his first attempt at gaining the seat in 1996 (he failed at the first attempt; we should never underestimate his tenacity, he came back in 1998...and succeeded). 

There is an element of the analysis about Mr Rudd that he is loved by the public and loathed by his party. In the years I've been observing him, as a constituent and resident political tragic/analyst, and asking around the neighbourhood, Kevin Rudd is a very good local campaigner. He donates bikes to schools, he established awards for language students, he famously led a charge against the new runway at Brisbane Airport. In his speeches to Parliament, he rarely missed an opportunity to talk about his school visits, his constituent enquiries and so on. His relationship with the local paper has been, we might say, 'symbiotic' and his 'Rudd Report' a regular feature. 

I've met him as a constituent; I've engaged with him professionally. I've seen the two sides to Kevin from Queensland. For all the discussion about the public wanting Kevin Rudd as prime minister, of course, our political system means that it will be up to the good burghers of Griffith  (as he is wont to call us from time-to-time) to determine whether or not he will continue as a federal representative. He holds Griffith by a margin of about 8%. Since its establishment in 1934, it has swung reasonably evenly between the two major parties. At the 2010 election, Kevin Rudd suffered a 9% swing against on first preferences, and almost 4% on two-party preferred calculations. Most of that first preference swing went to the Greens candidate Emma-Kate Rose.

Bill Glasson comes to the electorate with a reasonably high media profile as a prominent ophthalmologist and president of the AMA. He has spent much of this year, so far, on the streets and on street corners. His team is visible...on a  Saturday morning. 

Until last week, one might have expected a similar set of figures across a similar range of candidates. The Greens will no doubt stand another candidate (they've been consistent there) and we will no doubt see a range of people putting up their hands to 'have a go' against the prime minister. 

As a psephologist, I've always been hesitant to make a 'prediction'. Certainly, I like to dig down deep into the figures: the votes cast at individual polling places, for example, and I always vote at the same polling place, simply to gauge a 'mood'. The people in the neighbourhood who have previously voted for Rudd are divided over his return to the prime ministership and the manner in which it happened. Three years ago, they were pretty annoyed at how he lost the prime ministership. 

At present, the battlelines are being drawn on the street corners of Griffith each Saturday morning. We, the burghers of Griffith, are acutely aware that the spotlight is back here and that it will be our vote that returns the 'people's PM' or offer up a Maxine McKew in Bennelong experience. That is, might the challenger defeat the incumbent PM. 

It is a different set of circumstances to those of 2007. Of the 90,000 or so of us enrolled to vote here, about 84,000 or so of us cast a formal vote (about 92% turnout on average). 35,445 went Kevin's way last time on first preferences. The previous LNP candidate garnered 28,784. There was quite a strong Greens vote last time (12,378 or about 15%). There's work to be done on all sides. It will be an interesting place to go about the usual business on a Saturday morning between now and the election. 

We'll keep you updated at this spot...