InDaily

Adelaide's independent news

Support

Your views: on selling an election message, Labor leadership and Brand SA

Reader contributions

Today, readers comment on an Adelaide ad agency’s role in the Coalition win, generational change for Labor, and the wisdom of defunding Brand SA.

Print article

Commenting on the story: The Adelaide ad agency that engineered a Coalition coup

The story should be a lesson to us all.

It shows the development of a lie that damages a person’s character and career and for which there is no defence.

It may in fact have also harmed all Australians and Australian political culture.

Why present these people’s character assassination as praiseworthy? A lie is a lie is a lie. They did it for money. – Paul Andrew

I’m not sure that I’d be as happy as Mr O’Loughlin to be heaping praise on myself over ads that so patently lack truth.

I am totally sure that I should be able to hope for more in an ad than O’Loughlin who says “….the only thing you can hope for in political advertising is that it’s clear”.

Personally, I hope for policy not scaremongering. Clearly truthful might be ok but these ads were clearly lacking in truth.

Perhaps if they had more space available on the notorious “The Bill Australia can’t afford” billboard referring to “More debt” they could have gone on to explain that they meant more debt than the doubling of Labor’s debt achieved by the coalition in the last 6 years.

They might also have referred to the fact that Morrison was the Treasurer responsible for most of that and he, who is of course much better at handling money than Labor, managed to do the doubling without a GFC.

So instead of being able to say “More debt than ScoMo has already added to Labor’s debt”, for reasons of lack of space and clarity they just said “More debt”.

Clear; you might argue. Dishonest and a disgusting reflection on the sad gullibility of Australian voters; you bet. David A Bridges

I personally thought the ads were very bland, compared with the Labor party’s campaign advertising 

Big leap of faith, congratulating the advertising company. Mike Lesiw 

Isn’t it overstating it a bit, and parochial, to say that kwp! “engineered a Coalition coup”?

There were many other factors involved. – Tim Simpson 

Commenting on the story: Crucial decisions on future for election winners and losers

Michelle Grattan is spot on with her advice to Labor in advocating jumping to the new generation and installing Jim Chalmers as the next parliamentary party leader.

I’ve supported Labor at almost every federal election for four decades, and in my opinion, Albanese, Plibersek, Burke, and Bowen have had their chance.

They have a collective responsibility, as part of Bill Shorten’s “team”, for the loss on 18 May.  They belong to yesterday.

It’s time to move on. Stephen Trenowden

Commenting on the story: “A bad, short-sighted decision: Brand SA boss blasts funding cut

It seems clear that funding various organisations that are involved in the promotion of the businesses in this state was always going to be under some pressure.

Maybe there are too many organisations in the same space all wanting government support, but the sum total of what they bring to the table should be what they are judged on.

A reduction (or re-direction of funds as it is being slightly untruthfully called) can only be justified where results don’t measure up.

The argument that their work was too localised really doesn’t stack up, as Brand SA encouraged and supported businesses to export and produce, as well as for local consumption.

In itself, this promotion not only creates revenue to the state but also helps to keep some of our youngest and brightest here, a hidden factor in the debate.

The maths say that the organisation employs 16 people, so the government subsidy amounts to $100,000 per person, allowing for wages, rents, advertising and other overheads.

I imagine that most government departments, many of which would be nowhere as effective, would not be able to keep their costs to that level.

Having said all that, it is unlikely that the government can or will now back down, so it is refreshing to hear that Business SA chair, Nikki Govan, said that they may be able to take up some of the roles they performed.

What a wonderful challenge for incoming CEO Martin Haese to take advantage of the considerable IP, employees and their contacts with organisations that have not been part of Business SA because it didn’t meet their specific needs.

One larger organisation doing what two smaller may not have been able to achieve.

A marriage might be better for all concerned, rather than a divorce or wake. Eric Granger

Want to comment?

Send us an email, making it clear which story you’re commenting on and including your full name (required for publication) and phone number (only for verification purposes). Please put “Reader views” in the subject.

We’ll publish the best comments in a regular “Reader Views” post. Your comments can be brief, or we can accept up to 350 words, or thereabouts.

InDaily has changed the way we receive comments. Go here for an explanation.

We value local independent journalism. We hope you do too.

InDaily provides valuable, local independent journalism in South Australia. As a news organisation it offers an alternative to The Advertiser, a different voice and a closer look at what is happening in our city and state for free. Any contribution to help fund our work is appreciated. Please click below to become an InDaily supporter.

Powered by PressPatron

More Reader contributions stories

Loading next article