Hanson loses Health as Coe gives all 11 Libs MLAs a gig

Garfield said :

Mysteryman said :

Garfield said :

I’d be interested to hear from John Hargreaves or Greg Cornwell on the pros & cons of having all members on the front bench and no back benchers. It’s my understanding that they’re all bound by ministerial solidarity meaning that nobody can even consider crossing the floor unless they resign their portfolios. While that may promote the illusion of harmony, it also means that nobody can come out and say that a policy the party has adopted is wrong.

A solid voting block of 6 could completely disregard the views of the other 5 without consequences. I’m not saying that having a Benardi or Christenson breaking ranks would be good for the Libs in the ACT, as part of the problem here is the perception of being too conservative already, but having a couple of socially moderate back benchers able to threaten to publicly disagree on any stances taken that are too conservative could be a good thing for them.

Do you realise that the Labor party functions this way? Labor policy does not allow any member to cross the floor – minister or backbencher. If you do, you’re out of the party. The only exception is for a conscience vote. And they are rare as hens teeth.

Their ‘problem’ of being too conservative is only seen as a problem for people on the left. They seem to think that every party improves by moving closer to left-wing politics.

I’m fully aware that Labor functions that way and I think it’s a big weakness for them. If a Lib backbencher threatens to cross the floor the leadership has to be more consultative which should result in broader support and better policy. Ideally a threat to cross the floor would be done behind closed doors rather than in public.

The problem of being too conservative is seen by people who are socially left of where the Libs have been sitting, which does not necessarily mean its confined to people who are left of centre. There’s also the issue of the ACT being socially left of centre on average, meaning for the Libs to govern they need to win the votes of some people who are left of centre. I looked up the Lib’s values on their website one day and there’s stuff there about personal freedoms, but they seem to be against the freedom of same sex couples to marry, against the freedom of terminally ill people to choose to end their suffering, against the freedom for people to choose to smoke pot, against women being able to choose to have an abortion and against people choosing to use prostitution services that are freely offered. About the only freedom they seem to support is free speech, and in the ACT that’s been in the context of supporting people harassing women seeking to have an abortion.

If the Libs were to become less socially conservative they could appeal to more Canberra voters, and doing that wouldn’t need to see them abandon their economic conservatism or indeed move away from their party’s stated principles. The problem with people on the right is that they seem to see left v right as a single axis and either can’t distinguish between social and economic issues, or place their own personal social views ahead of economics and the public’s social views.

I’m socially rather libertarian but more economically conservative and each year that goes by its getting harder to vote for the Libs because they seem to be getting more socially conservative and placing that ahead of the economics. If they don’t change course, one day I’ll end up voting for someone else and they will have lost a long term voter. I think they’re at great risk of transitioning back to a purely conservative party rather than the broad based liberal party that was originally formed, meaning lengthy spells in opposition such as here in the ACT, or having to compromise with less conservative middle ground parties, and they haven’t shown a great talent for compromise in the ACT.

Those same arguments are made constantly about the Federal Liberal party. And they won the last two elections. So the idea that the Liberal party are “too conservative” for most voters doesn’t seem to hold water. In the ACT, well, the they lost by 1 seat. And the “huge swing away” that has been reported really wasn’t that huge. I don’t think it was their conservative social policies that lost the election, it was the poor campaign and the lack of visibility in the 4 years between elections.

Left-leaners always want parties to be less conservative, and they speak as though their position is the default position and what everyone else should be aspiring too. That mentality colours the way they view anyone to the right, but I’d argue that it’s not based in reality. The few voters the Libs might pick up by mimicking Labor’s left-wing social policies would be negated by the masses of voters they’d lose for doing it.

Mysteryman said :

Garfield said :

I’d be interested to hear from John Hargreaves or Greg Cornwell on the pros & cons of having all members on the front bench and no back benchers. It’s my understanding that they’re all bound by ministerial solidarity meaning that nobody can even consider crossing the floor unless they resign their portfolios. While that may promote the illusion of harmony, it also means that nobody can come out and say that a policy the party has adopted is wrong.

A solid voting block of 6 could completely disregard the views of the other 5 without consequences. I’m not saying that having a Benardi or Christenson breaking ranks would be good for the Libs in the ACT, as part of the problem here is the perception of being too conservative already, but having a couple of socially moderate back benchers able to threaten to publicly disagree on any stances taken that are too conservative could be a good thing for them.

Do you realise that the Labor party functions this way? Labor policy does not allow any member to cross the floor – minister or backbencher. If you do, you’re out of the party. The only exception is for a conscience vote. And they are rare as hens teeth.

Their ‘problem’ of being too conservative is only seen as a problem for people on the left. They seem to think that every party improves by moving closer to left-wing politics.

I’m fully aware that Labor functions that way and I think it’s a big weakness for them. If a Lib backbencher threatens to cross the floor the leadership has to be more consultative which should result in broader support and better policy. Ideally a threat to cross the floor would be done behind closed doors rather than in public.

The problem of being too conservative is seen by people who are socially left of where the Libs have been sitting, which does not necessarily mean its confined to people who are left of centre. There’s also the issue of the ACT being socially left of centre on average, meaning for the Libs to govern they need to win the votes of some people who are left of centre. I looked up the Lib’s values on their website one day and there’s stuff there about personal freedoms, but they seem to be against the freedom of same sex couples to marry, against the freedom of terminally ill people to choose to end their suffering, against the freedom for people to choose to smoke pot, against women being able to choose to have an abortion and against people choosing to use prostitution services that are freely offered. About the only freedom they seem to support is free speech, and in the ACT that’s been in the context of supporting people harassing women seeking to have an abortion.

If the Libs were to become less socially conservative they could appeal to more Canberra voters, and doing that wouldn’t need to see them abandon their economic conservatism or indeed move away from their party’s stated principles. The problem with people on the right is that they seem to see left v right as a single axis and either can’t distinguish between social and economic issues, or place their own personal social views ahead of economics and the public’s social views.

I’m socially rather libertarian but more economically conservative and each year that goes by its getting harder to vote for the Libs because they seem to be getting more socially conservative and placing that ahead of the economics. If they don’t change course, one day I’ll end up voting for someone else and they will have lost a long term voter. I think they’re at great risk of transitioning back to a purely conservative party rather than the broad based liberal party that was originally formed, meaning lengthy spells in opposition such as here in the ACT, or having to compromise with less conservative middle ground parties, and they haven’t shown a great talent for compromise in the ACT.

Garfield said :

I’d be interested to hear from John Hargreaves or Greg Cornwell on the pros & cons of having all members on the front bench and no back benchers. It’s my understanding that they’re all bound by ministerial solidarity meaning that nobody can even consider crossing the floor unless they resign their portfolios. While that may promote the illusion of harmony, it also means that nobody can come out and say that a policy the party has adopted is wrong.

A solid voting block of 6 could completely disregard the views of the other 5 without consequences. I’m not saying that having a Benardi or Christenson breaking ranks would be good for the Libs in the ACT, as part of the problem here is the perception of being too conservative already, but having a couple of socially moderate back benchers able to threaten to publicly disagree on any stances taken that are too conservative could be a good thing for them.

Do you realise that the Labor party functions this way? Labor policy does not allow any member to cross the floor – minister or backbencher. If you do, you’re out of the party. The only exception is for a conscience vote. And they are rare as hens teeth.

Their ‘problem’ of being too conservative is only seen as a problem for people on the left. They seem to think that every party improves by moving closer to left-wing politics.

I’d be interested to hear from John Hargreaves or Greg Cornwell on the pros & cons of having all members on the front bench and no back benchers. It’s my understanding that they’re all bound by ministerial solidarity meaning that nobody can even consider crossing the floor unless they resign their portfolios. While that may promote the illusion of harmony, it also means that nobody can come out and say that a policy the party has adopted is wrong.

A solid voting block of 6 could completely disregard the views of the other 5 without consequences. I’m not saying that having a Benardi or Christenson breaking ranks would be good for the Libs in the ACT, as part of the problem here is the perception of being too conservative already, but having a couple of socially moderate back benchers able to threaten to publicly disagree on any stances taken that are too conservative could be a good thing for them.

I guess the other obvious pro is that it gives all the newbies a chance to cut their teeth and demonstrate their talents immediately, but even that raises two questions for me. What if someone doesn’t perform? Does Coe single them out as entirely unsuitable by forming a backbench of 1 person? To me that would be more conspicuous than having a number on the backbench and just doing a reshuffle. My concern is that someone who is not ministerial material could retain their portfolio as it would be too embarrassing for the party to drop them.

Then there’s also the issue of whether Dunne & Doszpot will run again in 2020. Neither performed well at this election as the only sitting Lib MLA’s in their electorates and both must be approaching the end of their parliamentary careers. If they’re not likely to run, wouldn’t it be better to give the responsibility to the next generation so that they’re up to speed in the case of a Liberal win in 2020, however unlikely that may appear now.

The final thing I noticed is that law lecturer Elizabeth Lee as the only lawyer of the lot is not shadow AG. I wonder if that’s just a temporary anomaly so that Hanson can oversee the Libs efforts regarding the establishment of the ICAC or whatever they’re going to call it. He at least has first hand experience dealing with Labor & the Greens in the Assembly and maybe they’re worried a newbie might fall into a trap that could lead to a longer term disadvantage for the Libs.

I wonder if they may have been better assigning the higher level responsibilities to the 5 returning MLA’s who are likely to contest the next election, and have the other six operate as assistants. They could even rotate the others through various roles like a grad program so that they get something of an understanding of a broader range of areas and the opportunity to display strengths or weaknesses in the different areas.