Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Excellence in Public Sector consulting

So what do the Liberals need to do to win?

By johnboy 3 November 2012 78

Now that the result is known in the ACT election we must either consign ourselves to one party rule for all time, or think about what the Liberals have to do to win.

Running quiet for another four years might replicate the same result (don’t expect to see Labor caught out in Tuggeranong two elections running though) but to go one better is going to take some changes.

So this is for you Liberals:

    1. Stop bagging out the electorate. If your policies are not popular with voters that is your problem not the voters’ problem.

    2. Step away from the crucifix. Pandering to the religious devout might work in some voluntary voting situations but it’s not going to work here and even less so with compulsory voting nullifying “get out the vote” campaigning. This is not to ridicule the religious faith of any MLA, it’s to say the party ticket needs to be more closely aligned with the community.

    3. Give us something to believe in. Sure if you do propose something good the Government will nick it. But you still get many good media cycles before your policy gets sheepishly co-opted. Back yourselves to keep coming up with good ideas.

    4. Go after the patronage machine. I realise the party and its backers are hoping to capture the machine intact and turn it to their ends. But would you prefer to be in government with less grace and favour to pass around? Or out of Government trying to win friends with an Assembly staffer’s salary?

There you go. You won’t like doing it. But I don’t think you’ll like another election loss any more.

You’ve taken the protest vote as far as it will go. You’ll need to give us something to vote for to get any further.

Congratulations on a well executed campaign though.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
78 Responses to
So what do the Liberals need to do to win?
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
JC 7:35 pm 06 Nov 12

mr_spoon said :

A late observation: the Libs won the vote, but lost the negotiation afterwards. It’s easy to knee-jerk and condemn the Greens as never, ever wanting to support the Liberals, but I think there would have been some definite strategic interest for them joining a Liberal government and leaving the Labor brand. T

Actually the Libs didn’t win the vote. Both Labor and Liberal got 38.9% of the vote (although yes Liberal got a whopping 41 votes more). However more people voted against the Libs than voted for them, of course the same is true for Labor too.

But if you look at the Libs election campaign they quite clearly stated a vote for the Greens was a vote for Labor, and the fact the greens supported Labor in the end kinda proves they were right. So I guess you can say Labor/Greens won with 49.6 of the vote.

Besides it is really academic, largest vote doesn’t equate to power. Power comes from having the largest number of seats and hence votes on the floor.

Stevian 10:46 am 06 Nov 12

HenryBG said :

mr_spoon said :

… I think there would have been some definite strategic interest for them joining a Liberal government and leaving the Labor brand. The vote showed it: they are being seen more as the hippy Labor Left than as a force in themselves. They need to reclaim their independence, and an alliance with the Liberals would have done that.

I agree with your observations up to but not including the point about making a Liberal alliance.

If being an ALP stooge lost them the conservative middle-class vote, being a Lib stooge would lose them the progressive middle-class vote, which would be just as bad.

They need to ditch the watermelons and give up the Radical nonsense, and rebuild a recognisable brand acceptable to the mainstream.

That’s what the other parties are for, if you don’t like them don’t vote for them. That’s democracy, however much you hate it

HenryBG 9:12 am 06 Nov 12

mr_spoon said :

… I think there would have been some definite strategic interest for them joining a Liberal government and leaving the Labor brand. The vote showed it: they are being seen more as the hippy Labor Left than as a force in themselves. They need to reclaim their independence, and an alliance with the Liberals would have done that.

I agree with your observations up to but not including the point about making a Liberal alliance.

If being an ALP stooge lost them the conservative middle-class vote, being a Lib stooge would lose them the progressive middle-class vote, which would be just as bad.

They need to ditch the watermelons and give up the Radical nonsense, and rebuild a recognisable brand acceptable to the mainstream.

Thumper 9:09 am 06 Nov 12

A late observation: the Libs won the vote, but lost the negotiation afterwards.

Except the Greens, or should that be Green singular, were never going to throw their weight behind the tories, and fair enough as well as Greens voters most certainly wouldn’t have wanted their vote going to them either.

Rattenbury did what he had to do and stayed true to his voters, simple as that.

As for what the libs can do to win? I have no idea. Even if they do what JB mentioned, I can’t see them ever holding power. After all, their best result ever was still not enough to get them into power.

mr_spoon 8:31 am 06 Nov 12

A late observation: the Libs won the vote, but lost the negotiation afterwards. It’s easy to knee-jerk and condemn the Greens as never, ever wanting to support the Liberals, but I think there would have been some definite strategic interest for them joining a Liberal government and leaving the Labor brand. The vote showed it: they are being seen more as the hippy Labor Left than as a force in themselves. They need to reclaim their independence, and an alliance with the Liberals would have done that.

For the Libs, an alliance with the Greens would have wedged Labor something fierce, particularly if they could demonstrate a viable working relationship down the track. The risk of losing the further right would be small, since they have no where else to go except the Pococks or possibly Henrys. No loss.

By not compromising, the Liberal team failed their own supporters. A ministry for Rattenbury seemed like a reasonable price for the extra 10% of the primary vote that would give them a clear majority. As Labor showed, it didn’t need to be a big ministry.

HenryBG 7:38 am 06 Nov 12

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Speaking of imagination, would you like to have another go at explaining how not paying squillions in taxes while also receiving a partial subsidy for your junior cultists to eat godflesh is saving us money?

You have two problems:
Firstly, you seem blissfully unaware that the vast majority of people who send their children to independent schools do so for reasons other than religion.
So, in an argument about how much of the education budget should be used to fund non-government provided education, your religious insults are not only logically fallacious, they are also completely inapt. Puerile and offensive are two further possible characterisations of your nonsense.

Secondly, you seem unaware of the “Catholic Schools strike”. Google it. Your side lost. Try to learn from that.

The bottom line is, 44% of Canberra’s schoolchildren go to non-government schools. Their parents are therefore interested in seeing those schools funded a bit better than the 17% they currently get per child, as compared with a child in a public school. These people pay taxes, they have opinions about how their tax $$ get spent, they’ve chosen to avoid government schools because they care about their children, and they vote.

poetix 10:44 pm 05 Nov 12

Thumper said :

bundah said :

switch said :

I can’t bear all these puns.

Could we be polar opposites?

Okay, that’s a winner…

U R sine-ing out now?

poetix 10:41 pm 05 Nov 12

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Also, WMC, I can see you going irrational again as you always do when you discuss religion.

Yes, let’s all have a rational discussion about which imaginary person did what to who using which imaginary magical powers from which imaginary magical deities. I choose Gandalf. Or is he a metaphor, so I can pick and choose whether I have to do what he says or not?

they do it because public schools are rife with the bigotry and intolerance you are exhibiting here

I’d say ‘better bigotry than buggery, eh?’, except telling people who believe imaginary things they’re imagining things isn’t bigotry.

Speaking of imagination, would you like to have another go at explaining how not paying squillions in taxes while also receiving a partial subsidy for your junior cultists to eat godflesh is saving us money? Because the first time was almost as hilarious as when you said you believe in a water-walking zombie wizard who created the universe and then sat around for almost fourteen billion years so he could tell some sheep herders to not eat prawns and to cut the ends off their penises.

1. Gandalf is a literary character.
2. Learn to use the quote function so that people know who you are quoting. One quote is from me, and one from Henry BG, whose point of view is quite different from mine. The way you run quotes without attribution might make people think that his comments are mine, or vice versa. It’s sloppy and distracting.
3. I think you must drink Thai Red Bull, even on the Sabbath.

Woody Mann-Caruso 9:19 pm 05 Nov 12

Also, WMC, I can see you going irrational again as you always do when you discuss religion.

Yes, let’s all have a rational discussion about which imaginary person did what to who using which imaginary magical powers from which imaginary magical deities. I choose Gandalf. Or is he a metaphor, so I can pick and choose whether I have to do what he says or not?

they do it because public schools are rife with the bigotry and intolerance you are exhibiting here

I’d say ‘better bigotry than buggery, eh?’, except telling people who believe imaginary things they’re imagining things isn’t bigotry.

Speaking of imagination, would you like to have another go at explaining how not paying squillions in taxes while also receiving a partial subsidy for your junior cultists to eat godflesh is saving us money? Because the first time was almost as hilarious as when you said you believe in a water-walking zombie wizard who created the universe and then sat around for almost fourteen billion years so he could tell some sheep herders to not eat prawns and to cut the ends off their penises.

stillflying 9:01 pm 05 Nov 12

I do understand the difference, I was getting sidetracked.

Thumper 8:45 pm 05 Nov 12

bundah said :

switch said :

I can’t bear all these puns.

Could we be polar opposites?

Okay, that’s a winner…

HenryBG 6:23 pm 05 Nov 12

housebound said :

This thread is getting really strange. Do people here really not understand the difference between the local and federal levels of government?

It has nothing to do with rational decision-making: it’s tribalism.

We would be better served were political parties outlawed altogether. Then people would have to vote for policies.
Anybody who thinks elections are decided on policies are kidding themselves.
Political parties are antithetical to genuine democracy.

JC 5:47 pm 05 Nov 12

housebound said :

This thread is getting really weird. The local government, ALP of Libs, will never dictate interest rates or affect the NBN.

Do people understand the difference between the local and Federal levels of government?

I think they do. However the person that brought up the NBN quite clearly stated the reasons why he was disliking the Liberals at both ACT and Federal levels. Additionally whilst it is easy to say ‘state’ and federal governments are different it is quite clear over the years that like or dislike of a party at the federal level does have an impact at state level and vice versa.

Indeed a cousin of mine was a Liberal candidate for the Federal election in a Sydney seat a few elections ago and his main reason for doing so was 100% a state issue. Needless to say he lost.

rosscoact 5:39 pm 05 Nov 12

I think perhaps they were throw-away lines regarding interest rates and NBN. Just like your calling the Territory government a local government.

housebound 5:20 pm 05 Nov 12

This thread is getting really weird. The local government, ALP of Libs, will never dictate interest rates or affect the NBN.

Do people understand the difference between the local and Federal levels of government?

bundah 5:16 pm 05 Nov 12

switch said :

I can’t bear all these puns.

Could we be polar opposites?

housebound 5:15 pm 05 Nov 12

This thread is getting really strange. Do people here really not understand the difference between the local and federal levels of government?

stillflying 3:55 pm 05 Nov 12

What had the liberals said about the NBN? I never saw that, it seems like it’d be such a waste to halt the NBN project at this point, so that wouldn’t have been something the liberals would consider doing would it?

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site