Thanks for that. Some interesting points to ponder.
I suppose I’m of the opinion that even though the odds dictate a particular profile for PM, there have been enough exceptions from various parliaments to show that there is always the chance that an individual not fitting the profile can still make it (e.g. Margaret Thatcher).
(Before anyone thinks it - I’m not an idealistic dreamer. I grew up in Darwin, where there is a relatively high Aboriginal population, and at the time, the 1970s, there was a fair amount of racial tension. I’ve also been involved in politics to a very minor extent.)
Yes, the conservative-leaning parties have had a number of notable “firsts” which may seem counter-intuitive. As I said earlier, the first Aboriginal member of the Australian Federal Parliament was a Liberal.
I believe (but I could be wrong) that the first “out” gay member of the Australian Federal Parliament is Senator Bob Brown from the Greens. There are persistant rumours that at least one PM was gay, but I don’t think it is known for sure. That was the late Billy McMahon, Liberal PM from 1971 to 1972. He was married and had children, so the rumours didn’t originate from his single status.
From my experience of Australian politics the PMs have generally been dark horses. Those who inherited the leadership like Keating were of course known before they became PM, but aside form that there has been a trend stretching back decades of Australian PMs being essentially unknowns or outside chances. Who would have seriously predicted Howard having yet another run 20 years ago? Or even Hawke or Fraser? That always seems to be in part because of the volatile nature of Australian politics. Whatever young bloods may be being groomed for leadership now will be irrelevant by the time they are genuine contenders 20 years or even 10 years down the track. Meanwhile others thought to be serious contenders like John Hewson or Gareth Evans have a history of self-destructing, often at the starting gate, that’s unparalleled elsewhere in the world.
So with that in mind it really becomes impossible to say who will be PM in 10 years time much less 20. I can’t say I’ve ever received any real impression that Australian people would care too much about a serious female contender either way. If she was up to the job I don’t think anyone would care.
The same I suspect is true of Aboriginal contenders. Despite the claims made so far Aboriginals a higher rate of successful political careers than their social status predict. By and large I doubt that most people would actually care provided, and this is the big caveat, the candidate was viewed as having made it on merit. And there is, or at least was, a big perception in Australia that most successful Aboriginals got there through affirmative action rather than merit. Whatever the truth of that it would probably be tough to overcome, particularly given how few up and coming Aborigines there are available.
It’s really hard to judge Australian reactions to homosexuals. Australia made “Don’t ask, don’t tell” a social policy decades before the term was even thought of. By and large Australians seem uncomfortable with the notion, but then they’ve inherited the British idea of being uncomfortable or at least reserved about public sexuality at all. But for all that provided it’s not made a major issue I don’t think it would impede a serious candidate. After all this is the country that had a gay TV celebrity in Molly for decades and nobody gave a hoot. Similarly there are gay sports stars and as others have mentioned a gay leader of a minor political party. It’s tough to call how the public would respond to a homosexual Treasurer but I;m inclined to think nobody would acre.
I though for sure you were going to say Keating. There were persistent rumours of his being gay in the early nineties. Then of course there was that whole surreal thing with Bill Hayden punishing the rumours just so he could ostensibly deny them. And a couple of years ago I was in Sydney it seemed to be pretty much an open secret that he was currently living with a young man. Of course I have no actual proof of this but I got the distinct impression that it wasn’t even so much gossip as of passing interest. Nobody seemed scandalised or even surprised by the idea, it was just presented as information.
Oh I’d forgotten about Clare Martin, the NT Premier - I’ve read a few interviews with her, and given that she seems to be doing a good job in a difficult state to manage, if she went Federal then she might garner some support. And Julia Gillard was quietly suggested but not pushed when they were going to boot Latham - that could be taken as a testing of the waters for a future leadership bid.
I also know a lot of people who complain about “those bloody Abbos”, who are in all other ways really nice people. But when they’re actually introduced to an Aboriginal holding down a job and living a life a lot like theirs, they make an exception for them, and mentally separate them from the others. Given an Aboriginal candidate who toed the Liberal or National party line, it could happen. I don’t see it happening anytime soon, but it’s hardly as impossible as some people are making out.
**Blake[/b/ is right: Aussie PMs are never the ones groomed for the job. It’s almost always someone taking an advantage of an opportunity as it arises. And anyway,
So I take it that all tha tmeans that you can’t provide one single reference to support your claim?
On a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, in GD of all places, you claimed that something was fact. Then when we called you on it you prevaricate and weasel around but no reference is forthcoming.
IOW that was apiece of ignorant tripe with no basis whatsoever?
Correct?
You can’t actual provide one reference to support your claim that “The nationals as part of a co-alition would never tolerate an Aboriginal PM.” No policy document? No speech?
Last chance Sevastopol. Can you support that so-called fact or do we just conclude that anytime you say something’s a fact you just mean baseless opinion.
I think an Aboriginal governor-general is more likely than a prime minister. All that would take is some future PM deciding to make a statement and appoint one, the public has no role in the process. Of course Australia could become a republic before that ever happens.
These factors are why I think there is room for debate. For various reasons, some of which are indeed cultural and instilled from birth, Australia has never yet had anyone but white male PMs. Will this ever change within a humanly concievable time-frame? That’s what I was trying to pose. (the 500 years figure was somewhat frivolously plucked from the air. Really, political climate-change, if it is going to occur, could occur within as little as 50 years).
That’s all I will add at this point - I just had eyelid-surgery so I shouldn’t really be looking at a computer screen for very long. :smack:
I’ll ask for a reference for that claim as well, or else a retraction.
This is GD Imasquare. Your ‘observations’ are exactly the same as ‘observations’ that most Niggers are lazy crackheads or that most Poofters are sleazy and disease ridden are not appropriate.
All those comments are exactly the same. All you’ve done is change the target group and the type of slur. They are ignorant, bigoted staments with no basis in fact. These boards are about fighting ignorance, not perpetuating ignorant stereotypes and bigoted opinion by calling it ‘observation’.