23 March 2006

Karin MacDonald Should Join the Front Bench

23 March 2006 | Tess-bag

Now that there is an opening on the ACT front bench with the resignation of Ted Quinlan, Karin MacDonald should fill that vacancy.

She clearly has the experience and has done a fabulous job in her committee work and as Govenrment Whip. There is no doubt the Stanhope Ministry would benefit from having a second woman’s perspective in Cabinet.

Join the conversation

All Comments

All Comments
Website Comments
Facebook Comments

LatestOldest

burnoboy_no311:35 am 29 Mar 06

OMIGAWD!
i saw the headline and laughed out loud!
tea-bag you cant be serious!

macdonald, thats gold!
*shakes head* this will keep me warm all winter.
hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Mal12:48 am 28 Mar 06

Oh, Areaman, its not about you!

An MLA’s recognition level doesn’t magically decline just because they’ve left the front bench. You’d still expect them to pick up a proportional section of any party swing or “floating” votes from retiring members. This is what you observe in 04. Contrary to what you say, the increase in primaries for MacDonald & Hargreaves was proportionally pretty much the same (go do the calculations yourself). This is in itself impressive for MacDonald, since voters for a Grey Old Male would be expected to be more attracted to another Grey Old Male than a Young Energetic Female. I think you’re bending things too much to suit your prejudices.

My past observations of factional matters is that the small signs of open division, like I’ve referred to above, are the tip of a much larger iceberg. Given that, the Hargreaves faction’s relative numbers in “important places” are likely to be transient. Moreover, given that the Left is the largest faction at Labor conferences, it would be creating trouble for itself by supporting the precedent that numbers in “other important places” matter more, no matter how ephemeral.

Areaman, I think you realise that you’ve overshot the mark a bit, and that unintentionally you’ve given succour to those you yourself call misogynistic (and, for that matter, religious bigots) by repeating the things you’ve heard. (And BTW, this really isn’t a need to shout, we can all read.) As for “seen nothing” – there seems to be alot you’ve missed in other matters – is it not possible you’ve missed something in “MacDonald’s work” that the electorate clearly saw?

areaman3:25 am 27 Mar 06

Mal, I wasn’t talking about the 2001 election, I was discussing 04 where she wasn’t running against any front benchers and had the benefits of incumbency, had a whole lot of former Wood ALP votes floating around yet still, to my mind underperformed. It true that most of Hargreaves’s improvement in his vote happened 98-01 due to the benefits on incumbency, which makes the point that his vote grew by a larger percentage than MacDonald’s did for the 01-04 period (when she should have been able to capitalise on new incumbency) even more painful.

Ha, now I’ve been accused on RA of being a member of the Centre Coalition and a member of the Greens. Well I’m neither, and nor would I want to be, though I’d rather be in the Greens if I had to choose. I never claimed that CC had the numbers at conference, but I can’t think of any of their motions being voted down, where as there were a heap of Unity ones that were (maybe if the SDA would stop putting the same “word from the vatican” motions every year they wouldn’t look so foolish). There are, however, to other important places where the Old Right does have the numbers over Unity: preselection (which is entirely rank and file), and ACT parliamentary caucus. What this means big picture for the two rights I have no idea, and while I do love seeing them squabble and fight, I’ve seen no signs (from my distant viewpoint) of either one collapsing.

Mal, I haven’t heard what Hargreaves’ mates are saying about MacDonald, though knowing them and their misogynist views it’s probably rather offensive. What I have seen is MacDonald’s work as an MLA over the last 4+ years, and in that time I’ve seen nothing that suggests she’d make a good minister.

Mal3:18 pm 26 Mar 06

Damn. Being a luddite, I haven’t mastered the HTML stuff. Here are the posts I refer to in the previous post:

http://andrewlanderyou.blogspot.com/2005_07_30_andrewlanderyou_archive.html
http://the-riotact.com/?p=1908

Mal3:15 pm 26 Mar 06

Re factional shenanigans, Areaman, you are clearly a member, or getting your info, from the Hargreaves faction (aka “Centre”Coalition).

I’m going on publicly available information. According to this by a Hargreaves faction member, the pro-union right (which you call Unity) was clearly much larger at the last Labor conference (56 vs 36). Presumably the Hargreaves group had more rank & file delegates than Unity then, since the Hargreaves faction has no unions, & Unity’s union component is massive. But history shows that Labor factions with no unions don’t last (e.g. the Centre Left). Moreover, its clear from the above post, & also this from a Hargreaves faction member called “kingmaker”, that the Hargreaves faction’s remaining membership is openly attacking each other & likely to suffer further desertions. (Its possible that kingmaker isn’t a member, but given his/her language it would be surprising). These open divisions suggest that Hargreaves faction is on the verge of collapse. I doubt that Stanhope can afford to have ministers preoccupied with trying, & apparently failing, to maintain unity & discipline within their own faction.

Areaman, I too have heard the things blokes from the Hargreaves faction say about MacDonald. They seem motivated by the envious notion that certain blokes who have been staffers for a few years are automatically entitled to a position that MacDonald has already gained by ability & sheer hard work. The things they say are unkind and incredibly unfair. Moreover, MacDonald’s result at elections would seem to prove that they are also simply wrong. I’d urge you to get more balanced sources of information.

Mal2:51 pm 26 Mar 06

Areaman, you’re wrong about the “not being against ministers” bit. When MacDonald got elected in 2001, she was “against” 2 sitting Labor frontbenchers (Hargreaves & Wood). Both the latter were able to gain a profile 1998-2001 by being shadow ministers, & therefore Labor’s face in the media on their respective portfolios. After 2001, Hargreaves was relegated to the backbench because no more than 5 ministers are allowed in the ACT. Notably, most of the increase in Hargreaves’ primary vote occurred between 98 & 2001, not between 2001 & 2004 when he was on the backbench. As a proportion of his pre-existing primary vote, the increase for Hargreaves in 2004 was pretty much the same as that for MacDonald. This would suggest that the largest swings are gained by being on the frontbench, as Gallagher was by 2004. Moreover, MacDonald went from being 5th elected, behind Steve Pratt, to 3rd elected, ahead of Steve Pratt.

That said, Gallagher has done a great job as Minister, while simultaneously enduring a series of personal trials you wouldn’t wish on anyone. I have no doubt she would have increased her vote substantially even if she’d remained on the backbench. But the bulk of the swing to her is clearly due to her increased profile as a minister. Labor’s dream team is obviously to have both MacDonald & Gallagher in the ministry.

BTW Michael Moore didn’t run in the 2001 election.

barking toad9:47 pm 24 Mar 06

But ave you don’t explain why a sheila should get the nod ahead of a bloke – is it the 50% thing?

maria5:45 pm 24 Mar 06

Gallagher was standing in an electorate where Labor has serially underperformed so it shouldn’t be hard for a Minister to get a much greater vote than they got as a virtual unknown. It also helps that in Molonglo the other 2 ministers did next to nothing on their campaigns – relying on their names to get up.

By contrast all the Brindabella candidates worked hard resulting in a much better vote overall and not as much of a gap between the candidates votes (and lets face it that as a smaller electorate the overall votes for each candidates are smaller)..

Absent Diane1:36 pm 24 Mar 06

I make a good chick… maybe I can use that minority to get myself into parliament… which will be one step from being the dude who is the boss of everything (tdwitboe – pronounced every letter is silent)

barking toad1:32 pm 24 Mar 06

This whole push by Karin’s acolytes is becoming tiresome.

Let’s go back to the original proposition – that the mayor’s ministry would “benefit from having a second woman’s perspective in cabinet”.

That’s where the bullshit started – and they’ve continued it.

Shouldn’t these girls be preaching to the various factions and leaving it off this forum?

View more conversations

Featured Businesses

Insurance Brokers

allinsure

Allinsure has been a trusted insurance advisory to thousands of Australian business owners for almost 20 years.

Find out more

Community Club

Canberra Southern Cross Club

We're proud to give you a place where friends and family can come together for good food and great entertainment.

Find out more

Professional Services

RSM

We share skills, insight and resources, as well as a client-centric approach that's based on a deep understanding of your business.

Find out more

Lawyers

BDN Lawyers

BDN has provided legal services to to Canberra, Queanbeyan and the region for over 160 years.

Find out more

Electricians

True Connection Electrical

Since 2014, True Connection Electrical have been servicing residential and small commercial clients with reliable, trustworthy and top-quality electrical work.

Find out more

Lawyers

MV Law

Through a spirit of entrepreneurialism, collaboration, and future-forward thinking, MV Law have earned an industry-leading reputation.

Find out more

Lawyers

Kamy Saeedi Law

When you need a criminal or commercial lawyer, you don’t want to take any chances. You want someone in your corner that you can trust like your life depends on it - because it does.

Find out more