Jeremy Hanson FTW!

jakez said :

Do you really believe that abortion was in the top 5 issues for electors in the 2008 election?

No. These issues rarely are.

But when intelligent, socially progressive voters are confronted by a spittle-flecked conservative nutsacks who want to ‘perform the work of god’, it provides a clear reason not to vote for them, regardless of their attitudes to the quotidian matters.

It may not be/have been a huge election issue, but I find Jeremy’s willingness to speak up, publically, on these issues very refreshing. I just hope it is genuine and not voter-pleasing rhetoric.

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”

Just as well as Troy Williams would not have got up. Answered them honestly by all accounts, so either nobody listened or nobody cared. Then again in a seat like Fraser why bother?

Tragic Williams didn’t stand, a Hanson-Williams ticket might have been electable in 2012.

And here I was thinking this term wasn’t going to be interesting.

NickD said :

Given that the ACT swung to the left of the Labor Party in the last election, the ACT Liberals have no hope at all unless they can convince people that they’re socially liberal.

I wonder if there’s enough study tours to send Alistair Coe on? A whole lot more convincing needed if he can’t be silenced.

Given that the ACT swung to the left of the Labor Party in the last election, the ACT Liberals have no hope at all unless they can convince people that they’re socially liberal.

‘For The Win’.

can someone disentangle ‘FTW!’ for me? this is modern sms/net jargon with which i too often struggle… [like, ‘we can has… something’ – like, wtf?]

I’m not in disagreeance Caf. I was more taking aim at the concept of social progressivism.

Republicanism, at least in the Australian context, is “anti-establishment” and certainly a cause associated with social progressives. (This doesn’t mean that there aren’t socially-conservative republicans, of course – certainly devout Catholics would tend to that view).

Ahh that’s fine Caf, johnboy and myself started another separate conversation regarding abortion and civil unions. Slightly to the side of the original topic so I can understand the confusion.

caf said :

Speaking for myself, I personally wasn’t ever arguing that abortion was the key issue, rather that a general move towards more liberal social politics is needed for the Liberals to be electable in the ACT.

That’s exactly what I think Caf. My point wasn’t that the Liberals shouldn’t be socially progressive, but that johnboy was placing a ridiculous emphasis on abortion and civil unions. Civil unions was a minor issue and abortion wasn’t even on the radar. THAT’S my point.

Data points like the republican referendum are thus completely germane, quite apart from having the commendable attributes that it covered almost 100% of electors in the Territory (albeit 9 years ago) and its results are publically available for us to see and debate here.

I don’t accept that being republican is being socially progressive but I think my above comments clears this thing up.

I’m not quite sure why the focus here is on abortion rights.

The initial quote from Hanson that started this all of mentions several issues, and what I took away from the editorial was that it was more socially progressive policies in general that would be required, not abortion rights in particular. Speaking for myself, I personally wasn’t ever arguing that abortion was the key issue, rather that a general move towards more liberal social politics is needed for the Liberals to be electable in the ACT.

Data points like the republican referendum are thus completely germane, quite apart from having the commendable attributes that it covered almost 100% of electors in the Territory (albeit 9 years ago) and its results are publically available for us to see and debate here.

Hmm, I’ll be interested to read the speech then.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/09/2441538.htm

Alistair Coe isn’t all about human rights, abortion, or the gays it would seem. I guess any 24 year old standing as a Liberal candidate had to be a bit of tosser.

ant said :

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

I’ve not heard it put this way before- but what a fantastic description

caf said :

I can buy the “lack of evidence” argument, but it seems to me that your implicit choice of null hypothesis (“the political agenda of our leaders/candidates does not affect our electoral success”) is a puzzling one. It would seem to me that the null hypothesis should be the opposite – that is, that you do better electorally when your politics are in tune with the electorates. Your default view sounds like a very cynical view of democracy, where it is all about the “brand” rather than the policies.

I don’t see how I have suggested that the political agenda of our leaders/candidates does not affect elecotrate success. Where do you get this implicit point?

I haven’t said that at all, I have absolutely affirmed that that is the case and suggested to johnboy that his specific policy (abortion) is not as important a point as he believes. In order for me to argue relative importance, I would have to believe that they have an importance.

I am not directly connecting republicanism and pro-choice, merely that the support for the republican referendum is one data point suggesting that the generally held view of the Canberra electorate as being more politically progressive than Australia generally is true.

I understand what you are trying to do, I’m merely suggesting that it is a weak piece of evidence when compared to something like polling.

Do you really believe that abortion was in the top 5 issues for electors in the 2008 election?

I can buy the “lack of evidence” argument, but it seems to me that your implicit choice of null hypothesis (“the political agenda of our leaders/candidates does not affect our electoral success”) is a puzzling one. It would seem to me that the null hypothesis should be the opposite – that is, that you do better electorally when your politics are in tune with the electorates. Your default view sounds like a very cynical view of democracy, where it is all about the “brand” rather than the policies.

I am not directly connecting republicanism and pro-choice, merely that the support for the republican referendum is one data point suggesting that the generally held view of the Canberra electorate as being more politically progressive than Australia generally is true.

Oh, also on your first paragraph caf. It becomes much more difficult to make such assumptions when there are multiple policy issues, elections that emphasise different issues more than others, and a broad range of people that themselves place different emphasis on policy positions.

From my own quick research today, ACT Right to Life were confident that Kate Carnell never would have voted to legalise abortion, and the vast majority of her elected liberal colleagues were endorsed by ACT Right to Life.

Am I saying that the ACT gets off on pro life stances? Absolutely not. Am I saying that the key to electoral success of the ACT Liberals is to have a pro life stance? Absolutely not. All I am saying is that none of what we have in this thread is good enough evidence and that the only decent evidence is locked away in HQ. My hunch is that pro choice would play a lot better here than in most other places.

caf said :

jakez:

Correlation does not equal causation johnboy
The third possibility is that both political agenda and electoral result are caused by a third force, however for this to be given any wait you need to be able to come up with a theory as to what this third force is.

(Furthermore, if you really believe that political agenda doesn’t influence electoral result, then that’s a pretty severe vote of no confidence in the democratic system, isn’t it? Say it isn’t so…)

If you want a further data point about the political progressiveness of the ACT electorate, how about the republic referendum? The ACT was the only state or territory where a majority voted in favour of the republic, and did so with 63.3% in favour – the closest behind us was Victoria, with 49.8% in favour.

On the first paragraph: Absolutely true. I have never said I don’t think the ACT is largely ‘pro choice’. I was merely saying that we need better evidence with which to act on this. You also need to consider in a multi member system, what your base and the swing voters think about the issue. There could be a third factor, I don’t know what it is, whether it exists, and I never claimed to.

On the second paragraph: As Winston Churchill said, democracy is the worst system of Government bar everything else. It’s two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. I do not venerate it, I tolerate it as the best tool to defend liberty within Governance.

On the third paragraph: I don’t think you can connect the two issues in the manner you are suggesting. It may be the case that most republicans are pro choice, however that isn’t good enough to be sure. The world doesn’t work like that. It won’t stand against polling that I don’t have access to.

Ugh, “s/wait/weight”.

jakez:

Correlation does not equal causation johnboy

With the two data points we are looking at here (the political agenda of the leader of a political party, and that party’s showing at elections), the most straightforward explanation when a correlation is found is that the political agenda is the cause of the electoral showing. Clearly the opposite is impossible due to the temporal disconnect (future electoral results causing a past change in leadership). The third possibility is that both political agenda and electoral result are caused by a third force, however for this to be given any wait you need to be able to come up with a theory as to what this third force is.

(Furthermore, if you really believe that political agenda doesn’t influence electoral result, then that’s a pretty severe vote of no confidence in the democratic system, isn’t it? Say it isn’t so…)

If you want a further data point about the political progressiveness of the ACT electorate, how about the republic referendum? The ACT was the only state or territory where a majority voted in favour of the republic, and did so with 63.3% in favour – the closest behind us was Victoria, with 49.8% in favour.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

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. quote]

How many people in voter land actually knew this? I am not sure he was screaming it from the hilltops…

[colourful sydney…]

Ok then. If no body knew it, how on earth could they NOT vote for Coe because of it?

Your statement contradicts JB’s argument. One of you must, if you take an absolutist stance, be wrong.

Plus have a look at the electoral system.

You could easily get six candidates in on a christian fundie platform.

But you need nine to form a government.

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. quote]

How many people in voter land actually knew this? I am not sure he was screaming it from the hilltops…

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.

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?

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”

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

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

Reply

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Good on him.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I sense a bit of a political tilt in this article

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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