2 November 2012

So what do the Liberals need to do to win?

| johnboy
Join the conversation
76

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.

Join the conversation

76
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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-Caruso9:19 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.

I do understand the difference, I was getting sidetracked.

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.

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.

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

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?

switch said :

I can’t bear all these puns.

Could we be polar opposites?

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

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?

Where the libs have let me down of late is the scare campaigns they insist on running at federal and also state level. In some ways I’d have liked a change of government here. However when they run the anti NBN and anti stamp duty/rates campaigns they have without actually using real facts, it makes me wonder how I ever voted for them in the past.

In 4 years time they may regret the vote Labor or Greens = triple your rates campaign. Because it won’t happen in the 4 year term, which is what they effectively implied by the lines used.

If the government doesn’t have to rely on stamp duty to make up the budget then maybe we might start to get some more affordable land released. I’d have liked to hear from the Liberals why they thought stamp duty is actually a good tax to have, because thats what they campaigned for.

Yeah there were many other issues, but seriously a green waste bin? The amount of green waste I generate is minimal week to week, except for when some gardening goes on and a bin won’t suffice. I expect this to be true for many Canberrans.

School funding will always be an issue that will never be resolved. you can either fund private schools more so that those kids get a better education, while those at governmenmt schools, get an adequate education, however many end up costing the taxpayer a lot over their lifetime, or you can fund the government schools more to help raise the standard to have less of a stress on the welfare system. Or you can try and do both. However basic education should be a right and parents do choose to send kids to a non-government school for whatever reason, fully knowing what the funding situation is. They have a right to complain if funding is cut, but not a right to complain because funding isn’t being increased IMO.

I think they also probably need to assist in getting some crossbenchers into the fray. There are not many right now. In a labor-centric city, even Labor has only achieved a majority government here once. Liberals would require a huge swing to achieve the same feat.

I’d like to see five 5 seat electorates myself. I guess three 7 seat electorates would be ok as well, but i think five electorates allows for more region specific issues to be looked at and avoid the molonglo electorate issues of having not a single gungahlin resident in the assembly..

HenryBG said :

stillflying said :

Of course not all liberal voters believe that either, but I digress, that’s how a lot of labour voters view the liberal candidates, and peddling those christian views isn’t helping or actually “pandering” to 60%

…still not clear on exactly what “peddling those christian views” means in relation to the recent ACT election campaign.

You can’t honestly tell me that you don’t think many liberals form some of their policies on the basis of religion.

poetix said :

Also, WMC, I can see you going irrational again as you always do when you discuss religion. I haven’t forgotten that your detailed knowledge of the gospels was such that you said Jesus set bears on children. That was most excellent.

You’re right, that was Yahweh, not Jesus.

Are they the same entity or different entities?

HenryBG said :

1. You must be talking about the Greens here…even their whining about nobody voting for them referred to the electorate’s “ignorance” more than once.

2. Over 60% of Canberrans are Christians of one sort or another. Another 6% are religious in some other way.

Contrast this with those potentially interested in some of the Greens/ALP fringe “Human Rights” issues and then explain to us how “pandering” to 60% of the electorate is a bad thing.

And what is this “pandering”? Are you talking about Zed gong to church every now and then? Will you be equally disrespectful if you catch Simon Sheikh visiting a mosque next year?

according to recent census data, only about 55% of people lsusted themselves as some denomination of christianity – and anecdotely, i know, but i rekkun less than half that would allow their ‘faith’ to in any way direct their political preference. so jb’s contention that the libs should look more broadly than the church [pun intended] is probably good advice.

HenryBG said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

(And speaking of taxes: explain to me again how tax-exempt churches – you know, the ones running your schools – are saving us money again? Imagine what kind of public education facilities we could start providing if we could tap into Rome’s coffers? Not that you should be expected to do that. God no. The Church taketh away from us, and giveth to itself. It’s how Jesus wanted us to act.)

“Rome’s coffers” have been saving us taxpayers loads of money for decades now, by providing education at a minimal cost to the government, saving, as I said before, 83% of the cost of educating each child.

Your bigoted ranting is in fact the precise reason the Canberra community is quitting public schooling in droves in order to obtain a decent education free of idiotic failed leftist ideology.

Very few people I know use an independent school for reason of any “Sky-fairy” motivating them – they do it because public schools are rife with the bigotry and intolerance you are exhibiting here, and are apparently unable to impose any discipline on the riff-raff who rule those schools with their bullying.

You do love to play hyperbole as your trump card dont you? I do like the way youve managed to make the private school debate sound like sending a kid to a private school is a noble act of some sort doing the rest of teh community a giant favour. Its a nonsense of course but well played Sir.

HenryBG said :

It’s a very faulty view of the world to see public education funds spent on education via a non-government provider as some kind of “subsidy”.

No, it’s not. Government funding put into both public and private schooling is a subsidy – no parents are directly bearing the true cost of educating their child, except perhaps for homeschoolers (is there any funding for that?).

The reason the government subsidises school education is because it’s been deemed to be in the public interest to ensure that all children are adequately educated (it’s not as some kind of return on tax paid!).

In so far as some parents are willing to choose to bear more of these costs by sending their children to less-subsidised private schools, then that’s great – the goal of ensuring that all children are adequately educated is still being met, and the total subsidy required is less.

Now, it’s clear that changes to the level of that subsidy will affect how many parents make that choice – if we increase private school subsidies then more parents will choose private schooling, and the reverse is also true. Whether this is a net positive or not depends on whether the marginal cost saved in the public system is greater than the additional marginal outlay of an increase to the subsidy – so there could be a case for an increase in that subsidy, but it’s not necessarily the case (and certainly not to the full level of the public subsidy, given the reductions in economies of scale and the selection effect of leaving the public system with only the most expensive-to-educate children).

A couple of days “private school strike” won’t actually show that the current private schools subsidies are too low – that’s just a negotiating tactic. What would really show it is a significant and sustained movement of enrollments from private to public schools.

Chop71 said :

Come up with some massive overspend project that will cost double the projected price. eg GDE, Cotter Dam or Light Rail.

They tried that tactic already with Bruce Stadium.

stillflying said :

Of course not all liberal voters believe that either, but I digress, that’s how a lot of labour voters view the liberal candidates, and peddling those christian views isn’t helping or actually “pandering” to 60%

…still not clear on exactly what “peddling those christian views” means in relation to the recent ACT election campaign.

HenryBG said :

2. Over 60% of Canberrans are Christians of one sort or another. Another 6% are religious in some other way. Contrast this with those potentially interested in some of the Greens/ALP fringe “Human Rights” issues and then explain to us how “pandering” to 60% of the electorate is a bad thing.

Can you please provide a link to that? I find it hard to believe that’s true. Even if it is accurate, just because somebody is christian does not mean that they are rigid when it comes to those stereotypical beliefs. My partner is christian but he thinks quite a few of the liberal members federal and local are backwards century nutjobs. Not all Christians are anti-gay marriage anti-abortion or believe that “God destined for X candidate to win the election.”

Of course not all liberal voters believe that either, but I digress, that’s how a lot of labour voters view the liberal candidates, and peddling those christian views isn’t helping or actually “pandering” to 60%

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

(And speaking of taxes: explain to me again how tax-exempt churches – you know, the ones running your schools – are saving us money again? Imagine what kind of public education facilities we could start providing if we could tap into Rome’s coffers? Not that you should be expected to do that. God no. The Church taketh away from us, and giveth to itself. It’s how Jesus wanted us to act.)

“Rome’s coffers” have been saving us taxpayers loads of money for decades now, by providing education at a minimal cost to the government, saving, as I said before, 83% of the cost of educating each child.

Your bigoted ranting is in fact the precise reason the Canberra community is quitting public schooling in droves in order to obtain a decent education free of idiotic failed leftist ideology.

Very few people I know use an independent school for reason of any “Sky-fairy” motivating them – they do it because public schools are rife with the bigotry and intolerance you are exhibiting here, and are apparently unable to impose any discipline on the riff-raff who rule those schools with their bullying.

Come up with some massive overspend project that will cost double the projected price. eg GDE, Cotter Dam or Light Rail.

I can’t bear all these puns.

poetix said :

I find it peculiar that the Liberals seem to assume that Christian equals conservative. That would have Jesus spinning in his cave (not that he’s still in it).

Also, WMC, I can see you going irrational again as you always do when you discuss religion. I haven’t forgotten that your detailed knowledge of the gospels was such that you said Jesus set bears on children. That was most excellent.

Just stick to tax.

Now that would be a grizzly sight!

I find it peculiar that the Liberals seem to assume that Christian equals conservative. That would have Jesus spinning in his cave (not that he’s still in it).

Also, WMC, I can see you going irrational again as you always do when you discuss religion. I haven’t forgotten that your detailed knowledge of the gospels was such that you said Jesus set bears on children. That was most excellent.

Just stick to tax.

Mr Evil said :

So what do the Liberals need to do to win?

Kill everyone in Canberra.

Or the other way around – a concerted campaign of reproduction by Liberal-leaning families in 2012 would position them well for a good run at 2032.

Woody Mann-Caruso9:51 pm 04 Nov 12

(And speaking of taxes: explain to me again how tax-exempt churches – you know, the ones running your schools – are saving us money again? Imagine what kind of public education facilities we could start providing if we could tap into Rome’s coffers? Not that you should be expected to do that. God no. The Church taketh away from us, and giveth to itself. It’s how Jesus wanted us to act.)

Woody Mann-Caruso9:48 pm 04 Nov 12

For every child that goes to a non-government school, we ratepayers save 83% of the cost of their education compared to what it would cost us if that child went to a government school.

I hear you bro. We should also start subsidising Audi drivers, because they save us ACTION bus seats. And Amazon customers, because they save us library resources. And people who buy bottled water, because they use less of our flouridation infrastructure. And people who watch Foxtel instead of the ABC. And people who drink expensive wine and use more petrol, because they pay more excise. Those people all save us money and/or make us money, and so they deserve a hand out and a hand up. They’re more productive taxpayers.

And the role of the government isn’t to tax people according to their means and to distribute it according to their needs. It’s to give back every cent you pay, to you, personally, to do whatever you like with it, whether you need it or not, and then some. Like a kiddy’s savings account at Which Bank. Because you pay taxes. You’re entitled.

and partly due to the inherently more efficient delivery in non-government schools.

Sure it is. That’s why you so desperately need government handouts. But seriously – have you tried praying to your Sky Fairy for some extra cash? I mean, it didn’t work when you asked for the Greens to be booted out of government, but maybe you didn’t burn the right kind of offering? Try lamb. The fat flares up nicely.

*Especially* when you consider the public education system would be completely unable to cope, were all those non-government children to rock up to public schools

So would private schools if everybody turned up at once because there was a public teacher strike. By your ‘logic’, private schools are therefore hopeless. I’m glad we agree.

just an extension of the crap he heard being spouted in uni Arts tutorials.

Arts? I wish! That side of the campus had all the good-looking private school girls with their perfect teeth. (I hope they were subsidised braces. They were doing us all a favour, so it’s only fair that we all pay.)

(PS – enjoy waiting for Gonski! It’s the policy position of the democratically elected government! Sorry your little mail outs to parents didn’t work out. Maybe something Psalms will soothe you!)

So what do the Liberals need to do to win?

Kill everyone in Canberra.

HenryBG said :

Eby said :

I have a (genuine) question for those Liberal-voters who are now outraged that Shane didn’t support a Lib-minority Government – the ones who keep saying ‘Now we’re stuck with more of the same crap etc etc’:

What do you think the Labor Government has done/does to make you suffer (beyond the health data ‘scandal’, please); and what would a Liberal Government have done to make this better?

A change in government means the dodgy mates-of-somebody-in-the-ALP bureaucrats currently running things are no longer protected by their mates and start having to look over their shoulders. As time goes by, they are of course replaced by dodgy mates-of-somebody-in-the-ALP bureaucrats, hence the need for regular a change in government.

Interesting that you consider a serious fraud on the Commonwealth by ACT bureaucrats, with no charges laid (ACT run by Labor, Commonwealth run by Labor, dodgy bureaucrats mates-of-the-ALP…….no surprises no action was taken), as an “aside” – some people would consider that a warning sign of a seriously corrupt government.

What else would the Libs be good for? Nothing really. Maybe slightly less spending on rubbish public “art” trucked in from Vaucluse (or wherever it’s from). Not much prospect of them shrinking the machinery of government to any reasonable degree, which is what this town so desperately needs.

It’s probably quite naive, but I don’t consider the data-tampering to be symptomatic of a seriously corrupt government, just a seriously corrupt individual.

I suppose I find it strange that many of the people that have been telling me about the damage to their lives due to the previous decade of Labor Government and most recent Labor/Green Government are then unable to articulate what this damage is… Let alone what the opposition planned to introduce to ‘make it all better’. Other than bins.

HenryBG said :

Eby said :

I have a (genuine) question for those Liberal-voters who are now outraged that Shane didn’t support a Lib-minority Government – the ones who keep saying ‘Now we’re stuck with more of the same crap etc etc’:

What do you think the Labor Government has done/does to make you suffer (beyond the health data ‘scandal’, please); and what would a Liberal Government have done to make this better?

A change in government means the dodgy mates-of-somebody-in-the-ALP bureaucrats currently running things are no longer protected by their mates and start having to look over their shoulders. As time goes by, they are of course replaced by dodgy mates-of-somebody-in-the-ALP bureaucrats, hence the need for regular a change in government.

Interesting that you consider a serious fraud on the Commonwealth by ACT bureaucrats, with no charges laid (ACT run by Labor, Commonwealth run by Labor, dodgy bureaucrats mates-of-the-ALP…….no surprises no action was taken), as an “aside” – some people would consider that a warning sign of a seriously corrupt government.

What else would the Libs be good for? Nothing really. Maybe slightly less spending on rubbish public “art” trucked in from Vaucluse (or wherever it’s from). Not much prospect of them shrinking the machinery of government to any reasonable degree, which is what this town so desperately needs.

Maybe the local Libs would have more “mates” if they didn’t keep trashing the people who would work for them if they were elected?

Stop listening to Catherine Carter and her buddies!

The other thing to note is that the Carnell government, when it reigned, was made up of moderate liberals (and often deliberately differentiated itself from the Federal Liberal government in power by, OMG, taking an interest in social policy matters like Euthanasia and Injecting rooms).

I know the social policy stuff is meant to be fluffy stuff that doesn’t matter, but somehow in the voting room, if you’re looking to get over 50% of the votes, it’s the kind of stuff you do need.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

what would a Liberal Government have done to make this better?

They would have preserved the reign of the almighty invisible hand of the free market, upheld the meritocracy and ended middle class socialism.

You know, by telling banks what interest rates they can charge, f*cking around with land prices and subsidising private schools.

‘Surely that’s hypocritical nest-lining thinly veiled as public policy’ you say. And so you would, you filthy hippy.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to burn ‘Bundah College to the ground. It’s lending weight to the ‘rich kids just do better at school’ theory, and that’s inconvenient.

It’s a very faulty view of the world to see public education funds spent on education via a non-government provider as some kind of “subsidy”.

For every child that goes to a non-government school, we ratepayers save 83% of the cost of their education compared to what it would cost us if that child went to a government school.
This is partly due to parents of those children paying extra, above and beyond their tax contributions, towards producing more productive future taxpayers, and partly due to the inherently more efficient delivery in non-government schools.

Mindless ideology is truly mindless. *Especially* when you consider the public education system would be completely unable to cope, were all those non-government children to rock up to public schools, as indeed happened once in our recent history, resulting in the non-government schools getting what they asked for.

Personally, I’m all for another catholic schools strike, to shut up dippy lefties like WMC who think real world government is just an extension of the crap he heard being spouted in uni Arts tutorials.

Eby said :

I have a (genuine) question for those Liberal-voters who are now outraged that Shane didn’t support a Lib-minority Government – the ones who keep saying ‘Now we’re stuck with more of the same crap etc etc’:

What do you think the Labor Government has done/does to make you suffer (beyond the health data ‘scandal’, please); and what would a Liberal Government have done to make this better?

* Solar Feed-In Tariff that adds about $200 per year to my electricity bill, and the proposed scheme to make me pay for appliance upgrades in other people’s homes so that Labor/Green types with 50 year old homes in Ainslie can renovate.

* Pointless climate change, zero waste, sustainability etc targets, with no accompanying policy designed to actually deliver them, but which I still pay for.

* Dodgy accounting and zero fiscal restraint that means I pay higher taxes.

* Mad green schemes and an obsession with energy efficiency that makes housing ridiculously expensive, but which deliver negligible benefits.

* Monopoly pricing land supply to maximise the dividends from the LDA to the ACT, while screwing me further.

* Atrocious service delivery and public administration.

* Massive cost overruns on any capital works program ever attempted (run for your lives, they’re building light rail).

* The Territory’s (mine and yours) money stolen by Labor mates at Rhodium Asset Solutions.

* Rampant bullying and harassment in the ACT PS.

* A Human Rights Industry (which Helen got a business award for) that does not actually provide any improvement in anyone’s human rights (I’m not opposed to human rights; they are just basically entirely unenforceable under the ACT scheme).

* The fundamental attack—which is undoubtable contrary to customary international law—on my inalienable right as a free born Englishman to obtain a free plastic bag whenever I go to the shop.

Does that answer your question?

Woody Mann-Caruso5:40 pm 04 Nov 12

what would a Liberal Government have done to make this better?

They would have preserved the reign of the almighty invisible hand of the free market, upheld the meritocracy and ended middle class socialism.

You know, by telling banks what interest rates they can charge, f*cking around with land prices and subsidising private schools.

‘Surely that’s hypocritical nest-lining thinly veiled as public policy’ you say. And so you would, you filthy hippy.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to burn ‘Bundah College to the ground. It’s lending weight to the ‘rich kids just do better at school’ theory, and that’s inconvenient.

Although Labour did not execute every program on time and budget I have zero confidence that the libs could do any better. So, evidence of ordinary stuff ups can’t influence my vote. The libs will have to inspire me with liberal policies, not just bribes and finger pointing.

Eby said :

I have a (genuine) question for those Liberal-voters who are now outraged that Shane didn’t support a Lib-minority Government – the ones who keep saying ‘Now we’re stuck with more of the same crap etc etc’:

What do you think the Labor Government has done/does to make you suffer (beyond the health data ‘scandal’, please); and what would a Liberal Government have done to make this better?

A change in government means the dodgy mates-of-somebody-in-the-ALP bureaucrats currently running things are no longer protected by their mates and start having to look over their shoulders. As time goes by, they are of course replaced by dodgy mates-of-somebody-in-the-ALP bureaucrats, hence the need for regular a change in government.

Interesting that you consider a serious fraud on the Commonwealth by ACT bureaucrats, with no charges laid (ACT run by Labor, Commonwealth run by Labor, dodgy bureaucrats mates-of-the-ALP…….no surprises no action was taken), as an “aside” – some people would consider that a warning sign of a seriously corrupt government.

What else would the Libs be good for? Nothing really. Maybe slightly less spending on rubbish public “art” trucked in from Vaucluse (or wherever it’s from). Not much prospect of them shrinking the machinery of government to any reasonable degree, which is what this town so desperately needs.

I have a (genuine) question for those Liberal-voters who are now outraged that Shane didn’t support a Lib-minority Government – the ones who keep saying ‘Now we’re stuck with more of the same crap etc etc’:

What do you think the Labor Government has done/does to make you suffer (beyond the health data ‘scandal’, please); and what would a Liberal Government have done to make this better?

Woody Mann-Caruso1:01 pm 04 Nov 12

I’m not sure how Zed being elected would result in cutbacks to the APS, but ok.

It’s a protest vote, designed to send a signal to the Feds. “Oh, you’re with Abbott / Gillard? Take this, and tell him / her where he / she can stick it.”

Tetranitrate12:52 pm 04 Nov 12

kakosi said :

Pretty hard to win in a town where a large chunk of the population will suffer from employment cutbacks the Liberal Party always deals to the public service.

I’m not sure how Zed being elected would result in cutbacks to the APS, but ok.

Tetranitrate12:51 pm 04 Nov 12

This result is the Libs best even result – just much higher a primary vote can they really get?
I wasn’t impressed with the position they took on rates (as I’ve said elsewhere on riotact), but how much better can they really do? 40% primary? 45% primary? 50%?
Without independents or a centrist or right of center party willing to side with the liberals it’s close to impossible for them to form government. This might be more likely if we see a switch to three 7 member electorates, but even then it’s still very difficult in this town because there are tons of people who simply won’t vote for them whatever they do – witness the people here moaning about ‘negativity’ and ‘opposition-ism’. I don’t remember Stanhope having a particularly positive campaign when he was opposition leader, of course that’s DIFFERENT isn’t it? When you have so many people with that sort of party loyalty it simply doesn’t matter what the government does, they’re still going to vote the way they always have.

Buy a ticket in a chook raffle.

JC said :

Primal said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

That’s the problem, the opposition oppose everything, even if its good policy.

I think this is an almost universal problem with oppositions these days – they oppose for its own sake, rather than picking their battles in a way that accurately reflects community sentiment. They struggle with the concept that attacking the government on really pissweak grounds can actually make them look bad rather than simply being ineffective.

I could start a class at CIT! “Strategic Shutting The Hell Up Every Once In A While”.

Very well said.

Agreed. To slip into management speak, don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions. Tell us what you’d do differently rather than just throwing a wobbly.

A couple of months ago I was thinking about voting for the Libs on the basis that the current gov was okay but a bit tired. You do actually need a fresh set of eyes every so often.

So why didnt I?

First pause was the suprise of the gay marriage rejection. While I dont feel strongly one way or the other, I dont think its the role gov to impose religious views on the electorate. This probably wouldnt have been enough to swing me away in the end tho.

The deal breaker for me and a few random people I spoke to was the tax reform. I like to think of Canberra as a reasonably well educated place, and relying on stamp duty as a good revenue stream is just plain dumb. So while I liked other council like things around green bins and parking, they seemed insistant on screwing up by finding an issue I did care about deeply enough to vote against.

So my gut feel is, yes, head to the middle. People in canberra dont care too much about the local politics, so if you dont piss them off they’ll eventually vote for a change – its human nature.

Woody Mann-Caruso10:15 am 04 Nov 12

History would surely indicate that the Liberals will be in next time

You might like to buy my roulette system. And this bridge.

DrKoresh said :

Masquara said :

History would surely indicate that the Liberals will be in next time

This is quite possibly the stupidest political insight I’ve ever seen on the RiotACT, and that’s saying something.

Well, how about rather than moronic flaming (sorry you’re in such a bad mood of a weekend; I hope it picks up for you) looking back through any jurisdiction’s history, and the ACT’s history, and at how many years the Liberals were in power here in the ACT. Then look at the inevitabitility of government change for this government eventually.

Primal said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

That’s the problem, the opposition oppose everything, even if its good policy.

I think this is an almost universal problem with oppositions these days – they oppose for its own sake, rather than picking their battles in a way that accurately reflects community sentiment. They struggle with the concept that attacking the government on really pissweak grounds can actually make them look bad rather than simply being ineffective.

I could start a class at CIT! “Strategic Shutting The Hell Up Every Once In A While”.

Very well said.

I’m actually wondering if this *is* the best that the Canberra Liberals can do. They will never earn a majority of the seats because of the nature of Canberra voters. They won government through Kate Carnell only because of the perfect Keating storm. Given the stuff ups the Stanhope/Gallagher administrations have done, in any other state this would have been enough to put them out of power.

I think the key is as chewie says is for other independent parties to start organising now for the next election. Start building up a profile among the community. I’m thinking of Chic Young and the Motorists. That’s a platform that most people in Canberra (excepting myself, as I catch ACTION) identify with. They need to grab those one or two seats away from the Greens, not from Labor.

Another thing is the lack of diversity in the Canberra media. We have the Canberra Times and the ABC- and neither has been incisive enough to dig into those stuff ups I mentioned earlier. Compared to other states, our politicins have it too easy. They haven’t been under the blowtorch.

Masquara said :

History would surely indicate that the Liberals will be in next time

This is quite possibly the stupidest political insight I’ve ever seen on the RiotACT, and that’s saying something.

What the Libs really need is for people in the ACT to think critically about the Labor Party, for once. It isn’t the party of social justice, or a fair go for all, or any of that touchy-feely stuff. It’s the party of sucking up to unions and political expedience.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

That’s the problem, the opposition oppose everything, even if its good policy.

I think this is an almost universal problem with oppositions these days – they oppose for its own sake, rather than picking their battles in a way that accurately reflects community sentiment. They struggle with the concept that attacking the government on really pissweak grounds can actually make them look bad rather than simply being ineffective.

I could start a class at CIT! “Strategic Shutting The Hell Up Every Once In A While”.

Pretty hard to win in a town where a large chunk of the population will suffer from employment cutbacks the Liberal Party always deals to the public service.

bd84 said :

Gee I really hope they don’t take heed of this.. Most of it doesn’t make sense or appear to relate to anything in ACT politics. It’s just as bad as the airy fairy policies lots of words and lack of saying what the hell you actually mean.

I think the root cause of their loss was the change in campaign half way through and went from the focus on Labors 10 years of fuck ups to a overstatement of the rates campaign. Add in Canberrans are just too stupid and set in their ways to realise they just elected the same clowns who will dish up the same rubbish for the next four years.

They’re probably the same idiots who are complaining about the opposition opposing everything the government does. THEY’RE THE OPPOSITION! THAT’S WHAT THEY’RE THERE FOR! No matter who the opposition is, they will say the government policy is crap. While they can put up alternative policy, it’s never going to be at the same level as government policy because they do not have the full reasources and knowledge of all the dodgy going ons of the government.. Maybe after 15 years we might get to see what has been hidden from us..

After you took a cheap shot at Gungahlin Al in another thread, all I can say is suck it up bitch… 4 more fantastic years of a Labor government.

I think they need a really catchy slogan…….hmmmmm…..something like “jeremy instead” !

bd84 said :

Add in Canberrans are just too stupid and set in their ways to realise they just elected the same clowns who will dish up the same rubbish for the next four years.

Maybe some of have been quite happy with what others consider to be rubbish. I personally reckon Labor have done a good job overall and until such time as I see a Liberal party worth voting for I won’t be voting for a change.

bd84 said :

They’re probably the same idiots who are complaining about the opposition opposing everything the government does. THEY’RE THE OPPOSITION! THAT’S WHAT THEY’RE THERE FOR! No matter who the opposition is, they will say the government policy is crap.

What a load of bullshit. They are called the opposition because they are the opposing party in the assembly. That doesn’t mean they have to oppose, whinge and whine all day every day, which is exactly what Zed and co have done the past 4, 8+ years.

And even if you ludicrous proposition were true opposing can be done in a constructive manner that may well give hope that said opposition could one day be trusted with power. Again Liberals are a big failure on this front.

The Libs need to understand that Canberra is a generally left-leaning electorate and that they need to run to the centre to win here. We have compulsory voting so running to the right is not going to do anything for them as the socially conservative, hyper-religious types will still vote for them.

Earlier comments about the quality of candidates are also true. Get some seriously high quality candidates doing the heavy lifting. Elizabeth Lee was a perfect example of someone who would have been a fantastic member and a phenomenal Attorney-General if the Libs were to take government. Instead, they keep pre-selecting the likes of Giulia Jones and Steve Doszpot.

If the Libs can work towards taking some of the centre ground back and present policies that focus of delivering superior health, education and transport policies, they may do enough to pick up hinge seats from Labour. The rusted-on Labor voters who are attached to the labour movement are dying off. If the Libs thought about it, they would realise the path to victory is to appeal to Labout voters even if a few on the radical Right need to hold their noses.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd5:43 pm 03 Nov 12

bd84 said :

Gee I really hope they don’t take heed of this.. Most of it doesn’t make sense or appear to relate to anything in ACT politics. It’s just as bad as the airy fairy policies lots of words and lack of saying what the hell you actually mean.

I think the root cause of their loss was the change in campaign half way through and went from the focus on Labors 10 years of fuck ups to a overstatement of the rates campaign. Add in Canberrans are just too stupid and set in their ways to realise they just elected the same clowns who will dish up the same rubbish for the next four years.

They’re probably the same idiots who are complaining about the opposition opposing everything the government does. THEY’RE THE OPPOSITION! THAT’S WHAT THEY’RE THERE FOR! No matter who the opposition is, they will say the government policy is crap. While they can put up alternative policy, it’s never going to be at the same level as government policy because they do not have the full reasources and knowledge of all the dodgy going ons of the government.. Maybe after 15 years we might get to see what has been hidden from us..

That’s the problem, the opposition oppose everything, even if its good policy.

Madam Cholet4:44 pm 03 Nov 12

schmeah said :

Stop running scare campaigns and start developing policy .. and pre-select intelligent, articulate candidates .. *I’m looking at you Giulia* – can’t wait to see an early presso from her ..

I agree with this comment and was just remarking to Mr Cholet this morning the exact same thing. Zed’s a nice guy, but no fight in him, and Guilia….well saw her on the tv last night. Compared to Yvette Berry, she sounded inarticulate and only concerned with maintaining her current level of lifestyle.

The key to their success lies in connecting with an intelligent electorate. Jeremy Hanson has what it takes. He prosecuted a good case against the CM over the health stat, but Zed was lacking. Just need some renewal with regards to the others.

Gee I really hope they don’t take heed of this.. Most of it doesn’t make sense or appear to relate to anything in ACT politics. It’s just as bad as the airy fairy policies lots of words and lack of saying what the hell you actually mean.

I think the root cause of their loss was the change in campaign half way through and went from the focus on Labors 10 years of fuck ups to a overstatement of the rates campaign. Add in Canberrans are just too stupid and set in their ways to realise they just elected the same clowns who will dish up the same rubbish for the next four years.

They’re probably the same idiots who are complaining about the opposition opposing everything the government does. THEY’RE THE OPPOSITION! THAT’S WHAT THEY’RE THERE FOR! No matter who the opposition is, they will say the government policy is crap. While they can put up alternative policy, it’s never going to be at the same level as government policy because they do not have the full reasources and knowledge of all the dodgy going ons of the government.. Maybe after 15 years we might get to see what has been hidden from us..

This post reads as though the Liberals had been outvoted by another party. This hasn’t been so much an “election loss” as a “tied election and the Greens favoured Labor”. Let’s not lose sight of that fact. If Shane Rattenbury insists on operating as though his ousted colleagues should still have a seat at the government table regarding decisionmaking, it may be that he falls next time and the Greens could be out of the equation altogether. History would surely indicate that the Liberals will be in next time – mind you, by then Rattenbury’s superannuation will be a very feathery nest indeed, so he may be happy to go without even a contest.

HenryBG said :

1. You must be talking about the Greens here…even their whining about nobody voting for them referred to the electorate’s “ignorance” more than once.

2. Over 60% of Canberrans are Christians of one sort or another. Another 6% are religious in some other way.

Contrast this with those potentially interested in some of the Greens/ALP fringe “Human Rights” issues and then explain to us how “pandering” to 60% of the electorate is a bad thing.

And what is this “pandering”? Are you talking about Zed gong to church every now and then? Will you be equally disrespectful if you catch Simon Sheikh visiting a mosque next year?

How many of that 60-odd percent of Canberrans are committed practising Christians who attend church regularly, as opposed to those who merely identify themselves as nominal Christians for the purpose of completing their census form? Last I looked, Canberra wasn’t brimming with the number of churches that would be required to service more than half of the population.

How many of that 60-odd percent of claimed Christians like to partake of strong drink from time to time; would consider procuring an abortion if the situation arose; like to view (legal) pornography from time to time; are happy to work for penalty rates on the sabbath instead of resting and keeping it holy; or would sooner go shopping on the sabbath than go to church?

The problem with religion is not belief privately held by legislators. The problem is that some such legislators assume a right to impose religiously-motivated limitations on the rest of the community whose values are secular in origin.

In the federal sphere, we have seen Catholic Senator Steve Conroy, acting also to appease former Family First Senator Steve Fielding, seek to censor the Internet not just of illegal child pornography, but also of other unspecified Christian-disapproved material that is legal to view and possess, with no option for adults to opt-out of the latter limitation.

In Victoria, after shop trading hours had been almost completely deregulated, Christian former Premier Steve Bracks reimposed a ban on shops opening for trading on Easter Sunday. Operators of shops in tourist areas weren’t thrilled that they could no longer open for business on what had been one of their best trading days of the year.

This is why parties and candidates that make a point of airing their religious credentials repel my vote big time.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd3:40 pm 03 Nov 12

Great points John.

Also stop whining and muck raking. Make good policies and tell us. No more scare campaigns.

I think this term will be a bit like NSW Labor’s last. Does anyone really think that ACT Labor and the ACT Government can hurriedly design and commence building a light rail system in the ACT without massive cost blowouts? Or with Shane running the show?

• They need to be forensic with the destruction of the Government and bureaucracy. I’ve given them tips for estimates questions on statutory non-compliance, dodgy things in in annual reports etc., and while they’ve taken a swing, there was just no follow-up. Sort of: “We asked the question, they gave no answer, so it probably doesn’t matter.”

• A bit of a social media presence would not go astray. They should establish an anonymous email portal so that people can report things to them online, without having to send a (evidentiary) email.

• And I think that Zed should probably fall on his sword at some point. Nice guy, but a bit lazy and no mongrel in him. Would be interesting to see who would be backfilled if Zed and Brendan decided ‘their work here was done’ two years out from the next election.

Really, Team Katy should really have fallen at this election. I mean, strangely the only thing that has kept these dudes in power is the fact that the most educated and politically engaged city in the country just plainly does not know or care about how badly their city is run. The health stats scandal would have rolled the Minister in almost any other jurisdiction in Australia, and that’s just the one we know about!

There’s no way that the Libs can win unless a high profile independent or two that will support them win seats.

The Labor party simply have too many rusted on supporters for the Libs to ever win a majority.

Either that or completly change their ideology to fit the left leaning nature of the electorate but that would sort of defeat the purpose.

Stop running scare campaigns and start developing policy .. and pre-select intelligent, articulate candidates .. *I’m looking at you Giulia* – can’t wait to see an early presso from her ..

Perhaps the question should be what do Labor have to do to *lose*?!
Apparently hospital data tempering scandals, vast dam cost underestimates, and other earlier issues like the GDE and public school closure debacles, etc etc weren’t enough!
The libs may never get in! Hahahaha! 🙂

Become pagans and frolic naked through the brindies chanting Barr the Abbott and you’ll get my vote!

1. You must be talking about the Greens here…even their whining about nobody voting for them referred to the electorate’s “ignorance” more than once.

2. Over 60% of Canberrans are Christians of one sort or another. Another 6% are religious in some other way.

Contrast this with those potentially interested in some of the Greens/ALP fringe “Human Rights” issues and then explain to us how “pandering” to 60% of the electorate is a bad thing.

And what is this “pandering”? Are you talking about Zed gong to church every now and then? Will you be equally disrespectful if you catch Simon Sheikh visiting a mosque next year?

Three suggestions:
1. Start working now – bypass the Canberra Times (who, like the Greens, will never support them) and get out there amongst voters. (This would include returning phone calls and letters). Who knows, maybe develop some policies and, dare I say it, some so-called policy papers
2. Sack some highly useless staff
3. Try campaigning in Ginninderra next time as well as Molonglo and Brindabella.

I’ve got one. How about rather than being an opposition party for 4 years you show us how you could be an alternative government for 4 years. This means that you don’t whinge and whine about all and sundry and if you feel the need to please tell us how you will do any different.

Also if one someone contacts one of your party to ask a sensible question at least have the courtosey to answer. And yes Mr Coe I am talking to you.

I see that Zed is off to a bad start with the Greens announcement, somehow claiming the right to govern because the party got 41 more votes than Labor. Never mind the majority in the ACT didn’t vote for the Liberals and of course we all know that having the larger number of primary votes does not actually equate to seats in the assembly/parliament. If I recall one of Howards election victories was won with less votes than Labor, but clearly more seats/support in the parliament.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.