C'mon up to NSW Danny boy. There is no limit to the profligacy of our state government. We fund the usual totems of left wing wisdom with the latest being the heroin injecting room. But why no official 'petrol sniffing room'? Isn't that discrimination?

Overlooking all the more important factors giving rise to social conservatism in Australia, and confusing what drives social conservatism at the State and National levels, Daniel Donahoo offers an inadequate analysis of the increasing conservatism of the Victorian ALP.

Daniel asserts that "So powerful has the pull of neo-capitalism been, Labor runs the economy more conservatively than the conservatives" but provides no evidence or supporting argument for this imporatnat claim. Besides, he goes on to claim that "Labor’s shift is a result of chasing the Liberal’s tail, but that is more at a federal level. At a state level, particularly in Victoria it is driven by Labor’s fear of the Greens."

But what exactly is the nature of that fear? Certainly it is a not a fear of Green social policy or ideology so much as a fear of losing specific seats. Peter Garrett was wheeled in specifically to the seat of Melbourne in the last few days because the ALP believed Minister Bronwyn Pike was in trouble.

In both instances, in the recent Federal and Victorian elections, the how-to-vote cards preferencing Family First and the DLP over the Greens were driven not by conscious preference for one ideology over another but by feeble-minded miscalculation of the ultimate impact of their above-the-line instructions to voters. It had nothing to do with liking Family First or DLP ideology better than Green ideology - or fearing the Greens policy platform more than the arch-conservatives.

Talking of miscalulations, Daniel twice makes the false claim that the DLP won two seats in the Victorian Legislative Council. This basic factual errors hardly inspires confidence in his public policy think tank, OzProspect.

The more greedy and selfish you are the more likely you are to vote conservative. That explains the shift.

Kim Beasley senior once said, the ALP used to be filled with the cream of the working class, but then it became filled with the dregs of the middle class.

The ALP will not suffer a shift towards economic rationalism on account of preferencing the DLP.

I would like to challenge the judgement that goes "those who defend the family and the unborn are neo capitalists, comfortable, consumer-driven middle Australia."

My evidence?

Significant involvement in the DLP campaign that got Peter Kavanagh MLC elected. I played my part while unemployed and networked almost totally with working class people.

While the ALP had scrutineers in suits, and probably paid, we had up to a hundred people, probably less than three in suits, none paid and most having a full day's work to go to the next day, despite some scrutineering from 1pm till 6am.

I don't know what effect it will have on the ALP to be appealing to Family First voters, but I can tell you that if the ALP do not work harder for the Battlers, the DLP voters will be furious. We may have our hierarchy of values, and rate the right to life as underpinning all other rights, but the only reason we would have neo conservatism on our agenda is because we look forward to its defeat.

Steel can you point me at the research backing "The more greedy and selfish you are the more likely you are to vote conservative."

Or is it just a symptom of a tendancy to assume that those who think differently about an issue than you do are ethically inferior/evil to your own position?

Look a bit more closely and you might find that many on both sides of the political fence care about similar issues and share many values, their voting choices are a reflection on the direction they believe is most likely to lead to a solution.

There will be plenty of exceptions on both sides but don't assume that all those who don't see things the way you do are necessarily greedy or selfish.

R0bert

NEWHOUSE...good on you mate ! That networking is wonderful.

STEEL.. can you explain how Builders Laborers can get around $27/hour for "picking this up, and putting it there.. digging that hole, moving those bricks" etc.. when some one who has trained for 4 yrs is lucky to even scrape that kind of money in ?

GREED you betcha.. SELFISH ? in the extreme... this is 'working class' union greed and thuggery. It is intimidation, it is discrimination where unionized workers will down tools if a non union bloke is working on site etc....

I would say that Greed and Selfishness is at least on a par with the CEO's and their bonuses for taking a company into the red etc...or taking its share price lower...

This is why we need National Repentance, on EVERY level of society.

Social conservatism is simply a reaction by people who have said NO to the deterioration and degeneration of our values once held precious. It is those who cringe in disgust as they (me) drive down Canterbury road Kilsyth each day past the 'sexyland' sex supermarket, who want to chuck when the go into the service stations seething with objectifying, degrading pornography... or who drives past the brothel on Mountain Highway on the way to the gym.

Most people who hold that family values such as respect, dignity, faithfulness, love, monogamy and marraige etc are outraged by the descent into hell the left has taken us down since the 60s. Aided and abetted by amoral money hungry business types.
As John the Baptist would cry out if he were here today:

-Unionists. limit your claims to fair pay for a job well done.
-Managers. limit your claims for remuneration to something not perceived as obcene.
-Men, keep away from all things likely to drag you down morally and love your wives.
-Women, love and respect your husbands, and look to being partners rather than competitors.
-TV progammers, don't seek to increase ratings by increasing the sex content.

and many other things.

"Most people who hold that family values such as respect, dignity, faithfulness, love, monogamy and marraige etc are outraged by the descent into hell the left has taken us down since the 60s."

yep things have really gone down hill lately.

Here's my plan to fix this living hell we've created

- We need some more public floggings to lift social standards (certainly bring back the stocks).
- We need more pofter bashing, this tollerance business is just horrible.
- We need more little women who highly obey their husbands (as they trek barefooted between the bedroom, kitchen and lounge)
- We need to get sexuality back in a dark corner where it belongs. It's plain awfull that people are educated about that stuff and make informed choices. Gone are the good old days of having to send a teenage daughter away to rellies in the country for six months or get those wedding plans accellerated.
- We need to organise some good old fashioned book and CD burnings and get rid of that devil spawned stuff. Just the good book and biblical pamphlets on those bookshelves and maybe a bible verse of the day at the servo.

Alternatively those who want that kind of world could move somewhere where they might fit in better (Tehran maybe) and let the rest of us get on with life. Some things not right yet - yes, descent into hell - no way.

R0ber

Yeah, I agree that there are more considerations. I was thinking more of people struggling with debt and mortgages simply obsessed with nothing else but their own lives. The only value I see in the shift is if government and policy efficiency and more spending discretion (in some cases) is the focus of the new conservatism. Which I doubt...highly. And that would be balanced by increasing repression of social liberty as suggested by BOAZ_David.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Democratic Labor Party and of the Australian Labor Party in some comments on the Victorian election.

The Greens seem to have a sense of entitlement to ALP preferences which is so hard-wired into their brains that they cannot take in the arguments as to why this is not so.

There is no natural affinity between the ALP and the Greens. There are some policy similarities, just as there are with the DLP, but there are differences too. The DLP has been falsely maligned since its formation so effectively that I guess many of its maligners actually believe what they say. So, when I say the DLP is a moderate social democratic party with a Labor tradition, there are some who are simply unable to believe me because their hard-wired brains believe all mailboxes throughout the world are red.

As for where delegates sat in the French National Assembly of more than 200 years ago, the ALP of today is to the right of the DLP of my day.

The ALP did not want to be dependent on the Greens. It developed a preference strategy to protect itself from that fate. As a consequence it has gained 19 MLCs in its own right and a DLP MLC who will generally support it (70 per cent plus, I reckon), and, when it comes to issues like abortion, it will find its own MLCs not supporting it as well as the DLP one. It will do the same sort of preference deal next time around. It was not a mistake this time. It will not be a mistake next time. But the same voices will call it a mistake in 2010 because their brains are hard-wired to believe that all mailboxes are red.

If both Labor parties vote together, they can block any Opposition move, but they cannot carry any motion without the Greens, the Nationals or the Liberals. Thus, ALP strategists are not disappointed that there is one DLP MLC. They are disappointed that there are not two.

Daniel's article is an illustration par excellence of the incurable malady of the old and new Left, that it's the "pull" of old or new capitalism that drives and determines the economic policies of governments.

The Left utterly bereft of originality and imagination, cannot generate any new seminal theories about the internal robustness and creativity of entrepreneurial freedom that drives globalization in our epoch, are always fated to revive the intellectually bankrupt theories of their founding fathers.

See:"Mount Globalization or Be its Prey"-http://power-politics1.blogspot.com

That the Victorian ALP applied the political blowtorch to the underbelly of the Greens political party in three inner melbourne seats should be no surprise. In Melbourne, Richmond and Northcote the Greens almost won. However, for some reason, as echoed in Daniel's piece, the Greens think that they are immune to political attack. They are sadly deluded if they thought that the ALP was going to roll over and abandon three seats to them.

Daniel also fails to understand that preference deals - are just that. Yes, they are the dirty grubby deals!!. They have nothing to do with ideology of a party in government, or revolve around policy. It is trading preferences. And that is all. These deals never extend to policy.

Every election - the liberals, labor, greens and democrats meet to negotiate preference deals - proportional representation the system itself encourages this. Only a change to first past the post voting would change this pre-election argy-bargy.

Note, that the Greens were part of these deals. Indeed, they negotiated with the ALP and the other parties for several months. To prolong the process they held out on an agreement with the ALP right up till nomination day. Then to railroad the ALP they leaked to the media (which then ran with it) that labor was signing a deal with Family First. This was never in fact the case. Indeed, it never happened. To prolong the process they indicated that their local organisatins had the power to reverse the centrally agreed preference flows. This added confusion, and distrust to the negotiation process. Leaking untrue stories to the media - only served to muddy the process and the other actors lose confidence in the ability of the Greens to come to an agreement.

It may serve the political interests of the Greens political party to use the indulge in the political "tut-tut". However, it would be completely dishonest to say that the Greens were not deeply involved in grubby preference dealing. To leave this important detail out of Daniel's article is an important one that needs correction

R0bert, a thoughful and well-written post. Everything I could have said but did not think of quickly.

As to David, with an eye to objectivity, I doubt a majority of people are in opposition to adult novelty stores on national or state arterial roads or discreetly placed brothels? As to the business of brothels, they are but one of many avenues resorted to by those seeking a decent income while impoverished. At many times the similar industry has been a "last resort" option for this writer too [not david] as was unable to obtain sustainable reasonably remunerated and appropriate employment.

The rise of social conservatism mirrors a disturbing trend, in which the line between state and religion is becoming increasingly blurred, and more worrying here than in America because we lack a constitutional barrier.

We have almost billions being funnelled into faith-based health, welfare and education organizations while poor kids attend crumbling public schools and those who missed the boat of economic prosperity find that charities that once would have stridently advocated for a fair go for the poor have been muted and corrupted by the largesse spread around from Canberra.....eg the federal employment services network and note the biggest beneficiaries of the commonwealth are also almost mute on advocacy........they know what to say [or not say] if they want to keep the Federal handouts flowing.

Reproductive rights of women are at risk and sexuality rights are too. I noticed David's opinion about women not being competitors does that mean back to "yes sir no sir 3 bags full sir" and the dark days of hidden DV, sexual abuse and mothers not living with husband waiting to be approved as "deserving" before getting parenting benefits.............all added to the religious-rights sponsored shared parenting and new contact rules to make it harder for DV victims to escape.

Most sensible post here was from Chris C... the preference deal was excellent, and helped Labor immensely.

When upper house changes were announced, the predictions were that the Greens could take up to five seats. Of course, the left fringe of society was rather chuffed by the idea, but Labor centre/right technocrats are cleverer than that... if they know anything, they know numbers. The result of 15 libs, 2 nats, 3 greens and 1 dlp was a stunning victory, considering how similar the dlp and much of labor right is.

Victorians, especially of the left, should remember this. Their state was for a very long time the jewel in the Liberal crown. Labor's disparity to the left caused by the dlp split which claim at times 15%+ of the state vote denied it office for ages. The Greens have had their ranks swell by the disposessed left faction's fall out. Labor only returned to power after the split when the centre faction took control, and have enjoyed greater power since the right have taken in much of the return from the diminished DLP. Guess why? Most Australians prefer Labor right to any other Labor.

The Greens should not receive Labor Party preferences except in exceptional circumstances because there are other parties which better represent the majority of labor voters who are not leftists. In most circumstances, supporting minor centre/progressive parties like the DLP, Democrats (no more), or independants should be followed. In rural areas, supporting the Nationals over the Liberals is to their advantage, because of the Nationals' tendency towards protection and the disunity amongst conservatives that can be caused.

The Greens are too extreme to deserve the preferences of a group which tries to represent around 40% of Victoria. In upper house electorates, the remaining seat is most accurately reflected by a centre party.

Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family, thanks for the comment on my post.

BD claims a lack of interest in forcing his faith on others but shows in post after post that he is seeking a nation where the rest of us are forced to live within a framework which he see's as gods plan.

I'll have to part ways with you on the shared parenting thing though, the fundies seem to have very little interest in it, raising kids is womens work and all that.

As a single dad it's a cause I strongly support. I've had to deal with a system with an entrenched bias against single dads and I've experienced the very real harm it does.

As for fleeing DV (and protecting child) have a browse through some of the links being posted on other threads to research on genderisation of DV and substaniated child abuse (The White Ribbon Day thread has some good stuff).

If we want to cut down on post seperation DV then maybe we could start with making sure that one party is not left with his life in tatters and few viable options regardless of guily or innocence.

Start with a presumption of shared care and vary from that when a genuine risk is identified and substantiated.

R0bert

Boaz - just curious about one thing - you mention that TV programmers should limit their sexual content, yet you say nothing about violence. This is one paradox that has always confused me about the church. A large amount of preaching about sex, and less about violence.

I have a question for you... which would be worse for children to witness - a violent decapitation, or a hardcore (non violent) sex scene?

The difference is... decapitations are allowed to be shown on free to air television (even if it is late at night) yet a hardcore sex scene is not. I don't believe this is right, I'd rather the sex was allowed and the violence was not.

I'm rather interested to hear your preferred option (and let's take it as a given that you'd prefer neither... the tough answer which is the least of two evils here)