Five of the best political adverts: It’s Time

This week we’re running a series featuring five of the most effective political adverts. Today it’s the turn of Australian politics and an early 1970s musical classic:

Yesterday’s Lyndon B. Johnson Daisy Girl advert was a one-off, but by contrast one of the most effective TV advertisements in Australian political history was part of a well-planned wider campaign. After 23 years of Liberal Party rule, Gough Whitlam’s Labor party in 1972 used the slogan “It’s time“ to sum up its argument that it was time for a change. This theme was reflected widely in the Labor Party’s activities and also in the classic TV advert.

Looking more like the sort of pop video that subsequently became popular, the advert featured an Australian rock singer, Alison McCallum, singing a song about how it was time to change, intercut with stills of Gough Whitlam’s background and a supporting singing chorus of Australian celebrities. It worked far better than that might make it sound!

(Also available on YouTube here.)

You can see all the posts in this series on our Political Ads page – and scroll to the bottom of that page for Luis Fishman’s classic. The stretch from 7 seconds in until 22 seconds in is fairly normal. But as for the rest…

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.

One Comment

  • John Ritson 9th Dec '10 - 9:24pm

    For many years I have been a member and supporter of the Liberal Democrats because of “What we stand for”. Of particular relevance is the statement that:

    “For those youngsters leaving school, university is getting more and more expensive. To get a degree, young people are saddled with thousands of pounds of debt when it is tough enough to get a job, get on the housing ladder and make ends meet.

    Liberal Democrats believe university education should be free and everyone who has the ability should be able to go to university and not be put off by the cost.”

    This has been and continues to be a fundamental principle that I consider of vital importance, not just for the students concerned, for the continued prosperity of this country.

    It is self-evident that the standard of living of everyone in this country depends upon the standard of education that every young person is able to obtain, whatever their background. For this reason I have to express my absolute disgust at the support the Liberal Democrat party leadership has given to the proposals for higher education tuition fees. Whilst the poorest members of society might have been protected, the vast majority of families will question benefit of a University qualification when considering the cost, will be denied the opportunity or take the decision not to attend university. As an additional point, it seems the party leadership are unaware that today an income of £21,000 p.a., after deduction of tax, national insurance, pension contributions, accommodation and basic living costs, is just about the minimum figure to live on independently in the South East, particularly taking into account the indirect taxes which are imposed on most expenditure, Are we going to have any doctors trained in the country if they are likely to finish their training with debts of over £50,000?

    The pledges that were signed before the election were given in the full knowledge of the financial situation and the likely outcome of those elections, but have meant nothing, and the LibDems have lost all credibility as a result. Disillusionment on this issue is widespread among students, their parents and grandparents, and the possibility of winning future by-elections and the likelihood of retaining LibDem seats at the next general election has significantly diminished.

    We all understand fully the financial problems faced by the UK, but it would have been far better to put a (temporary) surcharge on the higher tax rates than prejudice the education of the next generation. The LibDem memberships of both my wife and self are now being terminated, and I sincerely hope that there will be a change in this policy by those who are in a position to influence the decision. Nick Clegg should have taken a tougher stance and threatened to terminate the coalition; perhaps David Cameron would then have reconsidered the exceptionally severe cuts to education funding proposed by the Treasury.

    We cannot tolerate duplicity and both are resigning

    John and Jean Ritson (members 3626237and 8364214)

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • theakes
    Excellent question yesterday from Christine Jardine over the VAT on Private Schools and the negative effect it appears to be having in Edinburgh and within the ...
  • Paul Barker
    Thanks for a very useful article. Something like a quarter of 2024 conservative Voters are likely to die before the next General Election - that shift on its ...
  • David Le Grice
    Why the hell do we only get two questions? We got more than half the seats and votes that the Tories got, if they get a whopping six then we should get at least...
  • Peter Davies
    @Paul Yes. Most organised areas do tallying....
  • Peter Davies
    "even in London we have no councillors (and so no councillor tithes) in 19 of the 32 Boroughs" it's not really 'even'. London Boroughs have the highest proporti...