He’s going to be lonely in the party room…

OH YEAH! I was going to take the day off to go watch the maiden speeches. Oh well, hansard it is.

Although I absolutely support the legality of abortion and civil unions (to the extent that Government is going to be in the relationship business, they should be available to same sex couples), I don’t think those two issues are the Liberals magic bullet to electoral victory.

That would be like me saying that all the Liberals need to do is embrace small Government. I want them to do that. It would be right for them to do that. However that doesn’t mean it will win them an election.

If you have some evidence that supports your position I would love to see it though. It would come in handy.

It’s not a silver bullet, but it is a pre-requisite to electoral success in the ACT.

Exhibit A being the only Liberal leader to actually win an election, Kate Carnell, a social progressive.

If you run knuckle dragging social conservatives, no matter how cute they look in their sweat suits, you’ll struggle to get over 30% of the primary vote because those issues are deal killers to much of the rest of the electorate.

That’s not evidence johnboy, that is subjective personal opinion. Give me some evidence. I’ll make it easy and accept something about Osbourne.

Jakez, there can never be conclusive evidence on this sort of thing.

But run the Seselja/Dunne/Coe social conservatism to the next election and the Liberals will lose again.

A tragedy for Canberra to have an opposition that chooses to be un-electable. But if they’re such slow learners they probably won’t make for a good government anyway.

Clearly we both agree on the policy issue and both have no real evidence to back up your assertion. If you find some let me know, I could put it to good use.

Evidence:

Elections actually won by Liberals in the ACT = 1

Leader of the victory = Socially progressive.

Elections lost by socially conservative Liberal leaders = 6

Elections won by socially conservative Liberal leaders = 0

If you can’t draw anything from that then the world will remain a very confusing place for you.

The other way of looking at this is that Coe was the most vocal pro-life person out there, and he didn’t do terribly badly for a very young first-timer. Maybe the thing with democracy is that not everyone votes for the same things.

I’d be interested to hear if there is some sort of screening that potential Lib candidates have to undergo in order to get preselected – ie pro-life = no preselection – because that seems to be one interpretation of JB’s comments.

Maybe not everyone votes on the basis of the life-death options. I am still of the veiw that the social issues are greater than that very narrow definition.

I sense a bit of a political tilt in this article

I doubt that these two issues dicussed by JB and Jake had much to it with the ALP pulling a minority government. It probably had more to with the ACT electorate not wanting to vote in a bunch of argumentative back stabbing muppets at a time when there are some serious issues to attend to, with the whole economic down turn and all.

These two issues are things that do need to be addressed, once and for all, preferably quickly. But for them being ‘a pre-requisite to electoral success in the ACT’ is clutching at straws a bit. Alot of the comment immediately after the election from punters had sweet FA to do with abortions and same sex marriage.

johnboy said :

Evidence:

Elections actually won by Liberals in the ACT = 1

Leader of the victory = Socially progressive.

Elections lost by socially conservative Liberal leaders = 6

Elections won by socially conservative Liberal leaders = 0

If you can’t draw anything from that then the world will remain a very confusing place for you.

Correlation does not equal causation johnboy. If you want to play serious politics then that does not even come close to a necessary analysis.

A nice start would be to determine which of those elections had abortion and civil unions as big issues.

My point has always been that neither of us have polling. Without that, we are doing a very subjective dance. We have to do our best in this situation, but so far there is nothing more than a hunch that you and I share, but that you believe is more valuable than I do.

There were a lot of people out there who wanted to vote Liberal but couldn’t stomach the fringe lunatic social agenda of the party.

Let’s not kid ourselves, in Canberra that’s what it is.

Plus add in the women who’ve had abortions, and the gays and lesbians, none of whom much like being described as “morally wrong” (funny that). Those people vote too.

Jake, I’ll play at any level I please.

housebound said :

The other way of looking at this is that Coe was the most vocal pro-life person out there, and he didn’t do terribly badly for a very young first-timer. Maybe the thing with democracy is that not everyone votes for the same things.

I’d be interested to hear if there is some sort of screening that potential Lib candidates have to undergo in order to get preselected – ie pro-life = no preselection – because that seems to be one interpretation of JB’s comments.

Maybe not everyone votes on the basis of the life-death options. I am still of the veiw that the social issues are greater than that very narrow definition.

At The Fraser preselection for the 2007 election, abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage were questions, however I don’t think there was much emphasis put on the answers.

At the Molonglo preselection, I don’t even remember abortion being mentioned. In fact, I struggle to think of a time when it has been discussed in my 4 years as a member.

Good on him.

I gotta admit I’m wondering what the hell he’s doing in the Liberal party though.

S4anta said :

I doubt that these two issues dicussed by JB and Jake had much to it with the ALP pulling a minority government. It probably had more to with the ACT electorate not wanting to vote in a bunch of argumentative back stabbing muppets at a time when there are some serious issues to attend to, with the whole economic down turn and all.

These two issues are things that do need to be addressed, once and for all, preferably quickly. But for them being ‘a pre-requisite to electoral success in the ACT’ is clutching at straws a bit. Alot of the comment immediately after the election from punters had sweet FA to do with abortions and same sex marriage.

Ding Ding Ding Ding.

johnboy said :

Jake, I’ll play at any level I please.

Johnboy, you are free to do so, and the level you choose dictates the credibility of your claims.

Can there be any higher praise than to lack credibility with young liberals?

This is just childish now johnboy.

I can’t go to someone who has detailed polling on numerous political topics, with a hunch and pretend I know what the voters want. That’s the end of it.

Nice to see a real “liberal” in that far-right eco-rat social conservative party. He’s in for a rough ride though. Shows the bloke can think for himself, he’s got ideas and beliefs, and he’s not going to hide them because they might earn him some harsh words.

Good on him.

Oh, and “pro-life” is a nice, fluffy euphemism. Without the fluff, it’s more accurately termed “Forced-birth”.

ant said :

Oh, and “pro-life” is a nice, fluffy euphemism. Without the fluff, it’s more accurately termed “Forced-birth”.

Funny how all the ‘pro-life’ ones instantly become ‘pro-death’ when talking about the death penalty.

I only believe in gay marriage when both chicks are hot.

johnboy said :

“If you run knuckle dragging social conservatives, no matter how cute they look in their sweat suits, you’ll struggle to get over 30% of the primary vote”

I think you read too much into it Johnboy. Once again, based on no evidence, I say that the relative ‘social progressiveness’ of candidates played little part in the Labor victory. In my view it was a combination of factors;

-Having just seen off the widely disliked Howard government, voters were reluctant to vote liberal again.
-A plethora of minor parties and The Greens, which splintered the anti-Stanhope sentiment.
-An appalling media campaign by the Libs, and a good campaign by a well-funded Labor outfit.
-A young, inexperienced and little known Liberal leader.

In the great tradition of Mungo MacCallum, I predict a sweeping Liberal victory in the next round:

-The Labor side still has the widely disliked Stanhope as leader. His most obvious successor is Katy Gallagher, who has the Midas touch in reverse. After her, in cricket parlance, Labor has a very long tail.
-The single issue parties were shown to be a useless distraction at the last election, and The Greens have not shown early promise.
-Stanhope does not have the luxury of scoring points with Howard haters by grandstanding on social, political and economic issues.
-The Libs have time on their side: time to get some political runs on the board at little risk. Time to show they have some talent.
-It’s hard to see Labor’s performance improving in the interim. We have already seen evidence that they learned nothing from the last election. By the time of the next election, they will simply have accumulated more negative political baggage.

S4anta said :

Funny how all the ‘pro-life’ ones instantly become ‘pro-death’ when talking about the death penalty.

swings and roundabouts Jimbo. What mythology giveth it taketh away!

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

I only believe in gay marriage when both chicks are hot.

HAHA, of course. I love the RiotACT

Actually JB, Elections Actually Won in the ACT = 2 – Kate Carnell won in 1995 and 1998.

Oh, and “pro-life” is a nice, fluffy euphemism. Without the fluff, it’s more accurately termed “Forced-birth”.

And “pro-choice” is a euphemism for “killing babies”

GnT said :

Oh, and “pro-life” is a nice, fluffy euphemism. Without the fluff, it’s more accurately termed “Forced-birth”.

And “pro-choice” is a euphemism for “killing babies”

Sorry, but no.

Who told you this muck? Was it the magical sky god or perhaps his undead zombie son?

GnT said :

And “pro-choice” is a euphemism for “killing babies”

Only if you consider a tiny bunch of cells a baby, which most sane people do not.

Even then it’s not actually actually about what you want to do, rather that you want to force others to do.