Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Politics

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

Jeremy Hanson FTW!

By johnboy - 9 December 2008 67

Just heard on the ABC that the new Liberal MLA, Jeremy Hanson, has used his maiden speech in the Assembly to assert his support for a woman’s right to choose and gay and lesbian civil unions.

Hardly revolutionary, but sadly unusual to hear from the mis-named “Liberals”.

Now if he can convince the rest of the party they might be in with a show.

Lucky he’s got four years to work on it.

UPDATED: The report is now online.

    “I support a women’s right to choose, and I’m encouraged to serve in an Assembly where nearly 50 per cent of its members are women,” he said.

    “I believe in advancing the rights for gay and lesbian people.”

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
67 Responses to
Jeremy Hanson FTW!
1
colourful sydney rac 12:09 pm
09 Dec 08
#

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

Report this comment

2
jakez 12:17 pm
09 Dec 08
#

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

Report this comment

3
jakez 12:22 pm
09 Dec 08
#

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.

Report this comment

4
johnboy 12:28 pm
09 Dec 08
#

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.

Report this comment

5
jakez 12:31 pm
09 Dec 08
#

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

Report this comment

6
johnboy 12:38 pm
09 Dec 08
#

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.

Report this comment

7
jakez 12:40 pm
09 Dec 08
#

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.

Report this comment

8
johnboy 12:49 pm
09 Dec 08
#

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.

Report this comment

9
housebound 12:52 pm
09 Dec 08
#

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.

Report this comment

10
H1NG0 12:54 pm
09 Dec 08
#

I sense a bit of a political tilt in this article

Report this comment

11
S4anta 1:03 pm
09 Dec 08
#

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.

Report this comment

12
jakez 1:08 pm
09 Dec 08
#

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.

Report this comment

13
johnboy 1:08 pm
09 Dec 08
#

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.

Report this comment

14
johnboy 1:11 pm
09 Dec 08
#

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

Report this comment

15
jakez 1:12 pm
09 Dec 08
#

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.

Report this comment

1 2 3 5

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site