From today’s Crikey email.
Christian Kerr wrote in yesterdayâs Crikey about the gayification of Wentworth. Another big topic for political junkies to discuss has been the selection of a âreal Nationalâ? NSW Senate candidate in place of Sandy Macdonald. A photo taken at the Queensland tally room might provide an unlikely connection between these two stories.
Passes to the tally room are allocated to political parties, as well as the media. Theyâre hot property. It was fascinating, then, that Big Brotherâs gay farmer housemate, David Graham, was an unexpected guest of the Nationals. Graham, a Young National, had quipped to Gretel Killeen on the night of his evictions that his very public coming out had killed his hopes of a political career.
His wooing by the Nationals machine suggests otherwise.
If a gay former reality TV B list celebrity is the future of the Nats, youâd have to overturn a lot of conventional assumptions about Australian politics.
But Graham might be considered a good candidate by some Nationals, or at any rate, the more progressive among them (who do exist â former Queensland leader Lawrence Springborg is one). The Nats can no longer rely on a solid constituency, and many of their regional and coastal seats are increasingly the preserve of formerly urban seachange and treechange voters.
But Graham would have to be preselected first. As a first step, he has nominated for State Secretary of the Young Nationals. His candidacy hasnât been universally well received.
In 2004, the Liberals ran a high profile lesbian doctor, Ingrid Tall, for Arch Bevisâs seat of Brisbane. Brisbane is home to a vibrant gay community.
Unusually, the Nats ran a candidate, former Army officer Nick Withycombe. Withycombeâs campaign material highlighted âfamily valuesâ? and noted that Arch Bevis was a âgood family manâ?. Although the Natsâ how to vote card preferenced Tall, 27% of National voters placed Bevis above her on their ballot.
Withycombe was seen to be part of the Barnaby faction. Barnaby ran heavily during the same election on âsocial issuesâ? such as abortion. Barnaby and his troops also have connections with conservative Catholic groups formerly associated with BA Santamariaâs NCC.
If the Nats want to appeal to the socially liberal voters moving into their electorates, they might be facing a very interesting identity crisis sometime soon.
Didn’t read Christian Kerr’s article in Crikey yesterday – but I’d just like to point out that while Wentworth no doubt has quite a reasonble gay population with its move into postcodes 2010 and 2011, it had a reasonable gay population on its former boundaries.
Here it is:
Cuties like David who hang with National Socialists might want to recall the 1934 ‘ Night of the long knives’. Conservatives are not all stupid but most of them are stupid and I’d hate anything to happen to them.
Re: Kerr’s article. The boundary probably now goes along Oxford St because it’s convenient, everything considered. The boundary changes for Wentworth were probably the ones that most disinterested people would come up with.
I wonder what is going on in the Nationals?
Remember it was only a couple of weeks ago that the Exclusive Brethren were courting Victoria’s Nationals leader, quoted here in the NZ Herald:
The head of the Nationals in Victoria, Peter Ryan, denied his party had been offered funds by the Brethren. But he said National was united with the Brethren in opposition to same-sex marriage.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10403607
But on the other hand- or at least, the other side of the country- the Nats are moving to the left of the Liberal party, at least on this issue:
WA NATIONALS BACK GAY UNIONS by Ian Gould
The Western Australian National Party’s state conference has passed a motion supporting gay and lesbian civil unions – but the party’s leader says he will not be pushing for immediate law reform.
The WA Young Nationals proposed the motion at the annual conference on Saturday, with the majority of delegates supporting the idea.
The move follows the WA National Party’s decision not to support the Liberal Party’s proposed rollback of gay law reform in the lead-up to the state election in 2005.
From:
http://www.ssonet.com.au/display.asp?ArticleID=5628
Progressive major parties will do a more convincing job of appearing progressive on same-sex issues, and will have the clout to get legislation through. Independents with solid local bona fides on other issues will be forgiven by a conservative electorate for taking on an issue like this which doesn’t cost anyone anything.
A few years ago NSW National State MP Russell Turner refused to vote for a measure that would disadvantage gays as he had a gay son. Optimistic progressives have a long wait if they’re hoping for a strategy like that to pay off.
The Nationals won’t succeed in shrugging off the homophobic image. For every one like Springborg or the WA party (how exactly did you divine his attitude, Mark? He hasn’t exactlty been front-and-centre about it) there would be ten Nat candidates who couldn’t resist poofter-bashing. The way for progressives to deal with that is the sheer pathetic nature of resorting to poofter-bashing when all other reasons to vote for them have evaporated.
I still say the Nats are three election cycles from oblivion.
as a matter of prudient interest who are the gay mps in canbera if any besides bob brown, rudd and fielding
Rudd is married, and so is Fielding.
Andrew, you might like to read the gay street press on Springborg and his support for various equity measures. Seeney is a big backward step.
Mark,
I remember a push for recognition for gay relationships in NSW during 1994 or thereabouts. The then Liberal Premier, John Fahey, and the then leader of the Liberals in the upper house, John Hannaford, all made the right noises but they caved before the religious right, and a fat lot of good that did them. Fahey may have been more prepared to die in a ditch but the sheer speed of Hannaford going to water was truly stunning.
I’ll take your word about the Brisbane gay street press, but you must admit nods-n-winks count for (to coin a phrase) bugger-all when the votes are cast.
As to Seeney, he’s a backward step in many regards, except in some quasi-Leninist sense of hastening the demise of the party he’s leading.
Agreed, more or less, Andrew. The other thing I guess is that those who know Lawrence say that he’s genuinely a more progressive guy on these issues than the Seeneys and Joyces of the world.
“I wonder what is going on in the Nationals?”
They’re trying to get votes however they can.
Revelation of the day.