With only a few days to go before the election I would like to open a thread for LDPers to discuss which of the major parties they prefer, and why.
The Liberal party has traditionally been more sympathetic to economic liberalism and they still include some free-market people and some free-market rhetoric. But after 11 years they have increased taxes, increased regulations and maintained social conservativism. In contrast, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) has traditionally been seen as more hostile to economic liberalism and still has an unhealthy amount of faith in the government. But they were also responsible for the liberalisation of our economy in the 1980s, support most of the Liberal economic policies and have a marginally more liberal attitude to social issues. Tough one.
Personally, I will be preferencing the ALP at this election. I don’t think it makes sense for libertarians to reward Howard again for the ASIO Act, 34% higher tax, his social conservativism, increased regulations, ID card, undermining federalism and his disgraceful campaign spending spree. If libertarians can support the Liberals irrespective of what they do — then they will never have to take us seriously. And I do believe that Rudd will run a centrist, fairly conservative government which will be neither inspiring nor overly damaging.
But I know that many LDPers disagree with me. Please tell me your thoughts…
November 20, 2007 at 10:54 pm |
The ALP is best placed to implement libertarian policies because they are less likely to be blocked by the Liberals.
November 21, 2007 at 2:03 am |
And I do believe that Rudd will run a centrist, fairly conservative government which will be neither inspiring nor overly damaging.
I hope you’re right. The problem with the Labor party is that, as Peter Garrett says, “They’ll Just Change Everything”.
Despite their campaigning, the ALP is still overwhelmingly controlled by unionists who are inwardly (if not outwardly) hostile to business, and more than a few completely unreconstructed Communists.
If the ALP right holds onto power within their own party then everything is fine. But if the left gets control then everything could go to hell very quickly.
The fact that they’ve been out of power so long makes the chance that they’ll make drastic changes when they get in all the more likely in my opinion. They’ve been champing at the bit for a while now.
The ALP is a party largely of social democrats, but with a significant proportion of socialists jostling for power.
The Liberals are a party largely of social democrats, but with a (smaller) proportion of classical liberals waiting for their chance.
If a shift in power occurs (e.g. Howard retires or Rudd is voted out) then what party would we be better off with?
November 21, 2007 at 7:52 am |
I’m leaning towards John’s view. Not that I think Labor will be better…but I’m all for punishing the current bunch of nanny-state bastards
November 21, 2007 at 8:21 am |
I have already voted. I preferenced Labor in my local seat, against the sitting member. I voted below the line, but still preferenced the majors according to our group ticket. I’m pretty ambivalent, but I hope that Labor getting in hastens Turnbull leading the Liberal Party.
If it was a presidential election I’d probably prefer Labor, too. Rudd has a lot more charisma than Howard. He presents a better image to the world and is more open-minded. He speaks Mandarin, has a successful wife and doesn’t seem to have conservative Australia ingrained into him like Howard does. He seems more open to discussion and compromise and optimism.
But that is personality politics, which really should only matter in presidential elections. I vote on principles and policies in legislative elections.
November 21, 2007 at 8:57 am |
I can’t decide either way who I’d prefer to lose more. But if Howard can lose his seat, the Liberals lose power and Workchoices remains, I will be happy.
Shem, in a Presidential election, you’d be voting for me anyway.
November 21, 2007 at 9:07 am |
Years past I would have favoured Labor (well, put them second last) because I believed they could put an end to social conservatism. Oh the folly of youth.
But now I’m wondering what will happen to my pay if Work Choices is rolled back. I’ve been a casual for the last two years and I rather like my wpa.
Think I’ll put Howard above Rudd just to support the underdog.
Anyone know if Labor has plans to rollback the GST?
November 21, 2007 at 9:17 am |
I’ll support the party which, on balance, is most socially and economically liberal. Which as you guys know too well, makes choosing between ALP/Lib a tough one. I’d like to vote ALP – Howard’s record on liberalism is poor – as John H said.
But the idea of more of the same popularist, “third way” bullshit that we see in the States coming from the Commonwealth is horrifying. The Labor party no longer has an ideology, and so they seem to be perpetually sniffing the breeze rather than pursuing outcomes that they believe in. Take for example their recent conversion to ‘economic conservatism’.
November 21, 2007 at 10:26 am |
I can’t see how Labour will be any better than Liberal. (Even though I really dislike both parties).
The Labour party have stated that they will ratify the economically poor Kyoto protocol. Turnball would hopefully place more importance on economic impact in his environmental policies compared to Mr “am I dancing or do I have epilepsy” Garett. And the other day I heard Kevin Rudd say (from a recording earlier this year) that he is zero tolerance on drugs. This makes me think that Labour will not be particularly libertarian on personal freedoms. Another eg/ If I remeber correctly, Rudd has handballed the gay marriage issue to the states like a pathetic wuss-bag.
So my assessment is that Labour will be slightly more harmful than Liberal.
And because this is Australia I don’t think we have to worry about Christian fundamentalists hi-jacking conservative politics like in the US.
So if someone pointed a gun at my head and said you must vote for Liberal or Labour, I’d probably go Liberal; just.
November 21, 2007 at 10:42 am |
Labor pretends to be he same as Liberal. Yet the values of the people in there are explicitly PC, and the Left would sell out the centrists in a heartbeat to make a ‘moral’ stand on just about anything.
Being ‘morally right’ has been found with the benefit of hindsight to be for practical purposes wrong, in many issues. Well-meaning meddling in Aboriginal and welfare issues are the best examples. Alcohol and drugs, obesity, Kyoto…
These issues are where a skeptical approach to policy change is really good. And the Liberals are skeptics on these issues.
Union power per se is not an issue; the declining membership allows us to get by with or without industrial action. Rent-seeking (interest group-based corruption) in government policy is an issue though, and in Labor rent-seeking is both from protectionist and from lefty idealist viewpoints, which have open-ended costs to the community.
Thats the risk: Leftist open-ended society-wide rent-seeking, in contrast to Liberal rent-seeking seems to be more covert and restricted to individual and corporate reach.
November 21, 2007 at 10:55 am |
I think libs are lesser of two evils, but they’re getting more socially conservative by the day under Howard – and some time in opposition might do them good. But, I like Costello and Turnbull a lot more than Swan and Gillard, so I’d say Libs have a better team…
That said, I live in a safe Labor seat, so I’d be preferencing Libs regardless.
November 21, 2007 at 11:29 am |
I’m also in a safe Labor seat and the sitting member is a conservative Catholic who led the fight against stem cell research. That makes it easier.
So it’s Terje for the Senate and either informal in the House or I’ll hold my nose and vote Liberal.
November 21, 2007 at 11:37 am |
Everyone, just don’t forget to preference a non-Green minor first. $2 of public funding per vote adds up!
November 21, 2007 at 12:43 pm |
At the risk of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face, one should really vote Labor. Howard simply does deserve to be punished for all the illiberal things done by an alleged liberal who should know better: Increasing government spending by leaps and bounds when we are not at war or in a depression; Doing more than any previous prime minister to violate the federalist structure; Abusing the integrity of his office by using public funds for political campaigning; Abusing the democratic concept by pork-barrelling and selective funding to marginal seats; Doing so little over a decade in diminishing the size or legitimacy of government media (He goes on the ABC practically every week); Disrespecting the integrity and reputation of senior government offices by not forcing a resignation over the Iraq bribes-for-wheat scandal, knowing he would increase interest rates by pork barrel spending yet still claiming his was the party to keep interest rates down, and generally not being ashamed about broken promises because they were non-core promises.
I am not that confidant in a Kevin Rudd government, but as someone has already said, if we don’t chastise those who betray their principles, we are only inviting more of the same.
November 21, 2007 at 3:14 pm |
Yes, the Liberal Party deserves to get the arse for completely selling out these principles:
We believe in the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples; and we work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative.
But I don’t deserve to get governed by Kevin Rudd!
November 21, 2007 at 3:40 pm |
I’m not a LDP faithful, but since I follow Yobbo’s blog I may as well opine here.
I’m not happy with the current government’s big spending. Not that I am optimistic that Labor would change things much, but at least they’ve got more experience in doing it.
Until I feel that the ALP has the right attitude towards terrorism and realises that western civilization is a good idea, I can’t support it. Don’t like the Iraq war? Oh well, but don’t oppose it for fear of reprisals from terrorists.
Fighting terrorism and defending civilization requires more than just big armies and new anti-terrorism legislation and citizenship tests, but at least the Liberals recognize there’s a problem and are trying to do something, rather than deciding to do nothing.
I couldn’t find much in the LDP web site about terrorism or foreign policy.
November 21, 2007 at 4:11 pm |
I’ll be voting in Bennelong so clearly it’s that David Leyonhjelm bloke from the LDP at number one. After that it gets kind of tricky because the list is soooo long. What is it about Bennelong?
November 21, 2007 at 5:46 pm |
One of the reasons I’ll be preferencing Labor is that I think the Liberal party will benefit from losing, in the medium to long run. If they can get rid of Howard then whatever small ‘l’s are left in the party might get a better chance to steer it away from this social conservatism and general political opportunism.
November 21, 2007 at 5:50 pm |
So you are going to vote for the ALP to punish the Liberals.
This will have two effects
a, ‘Punishing’ the Liberals rewards the ALP…………oops. If anyone is in Emerson’s seat then you may have a point.
b, the 2007 election was lost by the Liberals because of their ‘extreme’ IR laws, no Party will every try to implement so called ‘radical liberal reforms’ for fear of losing their seats and losing power.
Well it’s just a shame that I have already voted because you almost convinced me to preference the ALP……………..
November 21, 2007 at 5:51 pm |
Sorry that needs clarification, B will be the prevailing analysis of why the Liberals lost.
November 21, 2007 at 6:00 pm |
Some people will certainly blame workchoices, but the polls tell a different story. The ALP has had a consistent 55-45 lead since Rudd became leader. I think people wanted a new (not Beazley) safe (not Latham) alternative… and Rudd gave them that. No issue seems to have changed the polling.
November 21, 2007 at 6:25 pm |
Is Rudd really the leader?
November 21, 2007 at 7:09 pm |
The ALP was ahead before Rudd was leader, and nobody is going to listen to your analysis John. Sorry mate perception sucks sometimes.
November 21, 2007 at 7:11 pm |
Of course not, everyone knows he is a stooge for the 6th International!
November 21, 2007 at 7:23 pm |
Agree with pimpUla. After workchoices, even when Beazley was still leader Labor was ahead.
November 21, 2007 at 7:41 pm |
I’ll be preferencing the ALP ahead of the Liberals but below the Democrats and Greens. Social issues are by far the most important factor for me. I’m in Rankin, so Emerson will win easily. And he’s probably by favorite candidate in the country out of both the major parties.
And I don’t believe the “Costello will be elected unopposed” line. I’d hate for Tony Abbott to put himself up and get the top job.
November 21, 2007 at 8:26 pm |
Pimpula & Shem — I never said that Beazley wasn’t already ahead. But check your facts. The following chart of two-party preferred polls shows that Labor spiked to 53% when workchoices was introduced and then went back down to about 51%. After Rudd became leader they shot up to 58% support and they stayed up around 55% since.
http://jackman.stanford.edu/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/alphatpp.jpg
Of course, workchoices has played a part in the campaign and will undoubtably get some of the blame. But the polls suggest that it is Rudd that has made the difference.
November 21, 2007 at 8:45 pm |
As Amir said in another place, by preferencing ALP we will be sending Libs the wrong message. The message that the public wants a shift to more socialism and good-doing, more government intervention, roll back of workchoices and, yes, troops from Iraq.
Wrong message all round. I wll preference Libs at no 2.
November 21, 2007 at 9:01 pm |
That’s absurd. The Liberals have increased tax more than Labor, given us more regulation than Labor and had more do-gooding than Labor. It simply defies logic to keep repeating the discredited mantra of “Liberals capitalist, Labor socailist”. It just isn’t true.
The Hawke/Keating governments were more capitalist than the Howard/Costello government. Everything Howard says indicates he’s only going to get worse. Everything that Rudd says indicates he’s going to follow in the steps of Hawke.
There is effectively no difference between the Liberals and Labor on industrial relations. The “fairness test” has killed Workchoices… and that was done by the Liberals. All they have achieved now is greater centralisation and another attack on federalism.
A vote for the Liberals is a vote for more socialism. And that’s exactly the message you will send if you support them.
November 21, 2007 at 9:40 pm |
They killed Work Choices…and to get Work Choices, they destroyed Federalism, see the case of NSW & Others v The Commonwealth, or the Work Choices case.
Howard has shattered Federalism.
But on the other hand, if a new Labor Government or any future Prime Minister does not face a hostile Senate, it appears tey can virtually ignore States and treat them as administrative regions of the Commonwealth.
November 21, 2007 at 9:43 pm |
I judge them what they’ve done, not what they say. My conclusions are the same as John Humphreys.
Workchoices is not worth a pinch since the Fairness Test came in. Labor might slacken the leash on the unions a bit, but it won’t be much.
Hawke and Keating were the great market liberalisers of recent times, far more than Howard has been in the whole 11 years. Labor is also usually less subject to business special pleading, so there’s fewer market distortions eg ethanol, sugar
As a practicing capitalist, I have few concerns about a Rudd government compared to more of Howard.
November 21, 2007 at 11:27 pm |
I respectfully disagree. Howard has beean a corageous leader (sorry I know I will upset many) who was prepared to do what he thought was right even if it was unpopular. GST, Workchoice, Iraq, regardless whether you like it or not. Workchoices was a huge step in the right direction which was known to be unpopular. Fairness test? Well it was clearly introduced because of the assault of the Unions and Labor. It was not something Libs like, they were forced. If you vote them out, you will tell them they were wrong to introduce Workchoices in the first place, not that they haven’t gone far enough.
I agree with others however that Rudd is not dangerous, apart from stupidity of Kyoto and all that. Ironically he may be more successful in any economically liberal reform he chooses to pursue since Libs are unlikey to oppose. However I do not see any inclination in him to do so. Neither an inclination to introduce more socialism. One thing I am sure about: he will abandon’s Howard’s stance and will join with Europeans in the UN bashing of Israel and in general will pursue politically correct if shortsighted foreign policy. Nobody seems to care about that aspect.
November 22, 2007 at 1:04 am |
It’s always a hard decision who to put 2nd last.
In the lower house, Labor (only just). The senate is easy, Labor to quote “save our senate”.
Re: Don’t put the Greens first (or Labor/Liberal) to save $4.
Don’t forget family first too.
Re: No-one will introduce Industrial Relations like this again.
True, but the fact is, until we convince people the freedom works, and will lead to prosperity, the politicians will reflect the views of the people against various social and economic freedoms.
This is a new party. In the next 3 years a focus on building the “how” and “why” in our policies along with studies/examples to back them up, will be a big help for doing this.
November 22, 2007 at 1:11 am |
Fair enough Boris. Despite my anger at the Liberals I was undecided untill the election campaign started. When Beazley was ALP leader and before the fairness test was introduced, I was leaning towards Howard. Rudd brought things back to even in my mind… and Howard’s disgraceful campaign spending tipped me into the Labor camp.
November 22, 2007 at 1:18 am |
John, one question. How Rudd is better than Beazeley? I thought Kim was pretty cool (if unelectable:). If anything, Rudd seems to be more socially conservative.
November 22, 2007 at 1:26 am |
I also disagree Yobbo’s analysis that Lib MPs are social democrats. As individuals most of them are moderate conservatives. But I agree they largely pursue social democratic policies (I agree with an earlier comment by Yobbo, you are free to vote for a social democratic party of your choice:). Why? Because IN THE AUS preferential voting system in order to win elections you need to win over the centre, and can all but ignore the base. It is real politik that brought Libs to where they are, not ideology. For Labor, it is different, social democracy is their (current) ideology. Nothing wrong with that, I recpect this, but I do not share it.
This does not necessarily lead to any policy differences. But I think it is still an important distinction.
November 22, 2007 at 1:31 am |
My impression was that Beazley was more sympathetic to government intervention and government solutions to every problem.
I remember being told my an ALP friend back in 1996 that I would like this new Labor backbencher called Rudd because he was one of the more free-market Labor guys. I find Rudd’s claims of being an economic conservative easy to believe. I think he will be a big disapointment to the Labor “true believers”.
Beazley was also too pro-war for my liking.
November 22, 2007 at 1:37 am |
I think he will be a big disapointment to the Labor “true believers”.
If he is, they’ll sack him. And when they replace him, it won’t be with a free market-loving person, of that you can be sure.
Whereas the most likely person to take over from Howard are Costello or Turnbull. Both far better options than anyone in the Labor party.
November 22, 2007 at 1:38 am |
OK, I do not know enough about Kim. But he is from WA:) I do not know why Rudd is so annoying to me. Maybe it has something to do with this:
http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=3292#comment-66654
November 22, 2007 at 1:40 am |
Yobbo, I agree, but why didn’t they sack Keating or Hawke?
November 22, 2007 at 7:53 am |
Yobbo. I think a Liberal defeat will hasten Costello’s lifecycle as leader of the Libs. Which means Turnbull will be up sooner.
November 22, 2007 at 8:11 am |
Rudds speech (on becoming leader) about why he is not like Hayek suggests to me that Rudd is more pro-market than his party. Otherwise he would not need to politically distance himself from an economist that rarely registers on the political radar. And unlike Kim Beazley he can say “tax cuts” without choking. Also in todays paper Rudd is quoted as wanting to take a “meat axe” to the public service, not something he would be saying for votes amoungst the “true believers”.
Personally I don’t much like what is on offer from either of the majors. If I was content I wouldn’t be standing for the LDP.
November 22, 2007 at 8:56 am |
I had already decided to vote Liberal, but I can’t see much difference between them. It helps that the incumbent in my seat is Labor.
I also read an article yesterday about Rudd’s first five steps as PM, and nothing there resonated with me.
That said, I feel like donating money to Maxine McKew.
November 22, 2007 at 9:33 am |
John it’s not reality it is perception. Mark my words I will be here in six months.
November 22, 2007 at 11:28 am |
Someone reading this would think that libertarians are simply all over the place. And they are. Unfortunately that doesn’t make them a targetable political force.
As for Howard needing to be taught a lesson, the libertarians can’t remove their votes from the Liberal Party if the Liberal Party doesn’t believe they have their votes anyway. They simply don’t think they are appealing to this crowd or that this crowd is that important compared to the other ones. Furthermore, the Libs are going to lose regardless. As Amir has correctly identified, sending an even stronger message that Australians want more socialism is what you will be doing if you vote Labour.
November 22, 2007 at 11:33 am |
Do you fall asleep with your MP3 player repeating “Labor are more socialist than Liberals”… because subliminal messages are the only possible explaination for people continuing to believe this patently untrue mantra.
I agree that the Liberals don’t care about the libertarian vote. The reasons are (1) it is a relatively small vote, especially compared to the christian right or the populists; and (2) they already assume we vote for them and we will never change, even if they spend $4 million per second and increase tax by 34%.
I agree libertarians are all over the place with regards to the major parties. I think that’s a good thing.
November 22, 2007 at 4:54 pm |
The reason libertarians are all over the place with respect to the major parties are two fold
1) There is very little difference between the two (smaller than the the range of opinion in each).
2) Libertarians are a broad movement and includes people who are mostly economic liberals and those who care most about social issues.
I think reason 1) is far more important in the current situation, since whatever your position or empahsis it is very difficult to distingush the policies of the two major parties, or to predict it with a margin of error smaller than the miniscule difference between the two. Reason 2) may come into play when the difference becomes bigger. Which may not happen as long as we have compusory voting, so their partis do not need to worry about their core consituency.
November 22, 2007 at 6:27 pm |
… because subliminal messages are the only possible explaination for people continuing to believe this patently untrue mantra.
Precisely. Only the minority care about facts. The majority vote on what their emotions subliminally tell their brain. And it’s an emotional choice between the opportunity to be given a sense of security and not be judged too harshly especially in their jobs, or (the perception of) being given lots of opportunities but having to work hard for them and being judged on your performance. It’s the perception of being part of a fast moving and changing community where your neighbour is often unknown to you and probably doing better than you with a lot less, or one where your neighbour is pretty much like you and isn’t allowed to be too much better than the rest of the street.
Labour delivers the perceptions that middle Australia wants.
November 22, 2007 at 7:35 pm |
On the face of it, pronouncements about judging parties on the basis of what they do rather than say, is very sensible. The problem with this approach is that you can only judge the ruling party in this way. For Labor you can go by state record. For minor parties it is even more difficult.
If we insist on using the real voting record, the JH says Rudd voted against every Lib reform. How about that?
November 22, 2007 at 9:22 pm |
It’s the perception of being part of a fast moving and changing community where your neighbour is often unknown to you and probably doing better than you with a lot less, or one where your neighbour is pretty much like you and isn’t allowed to be too much better than the rest of the street.
Even if that is the perception Mick, and I don’t think it is any more, there’s no need for someone like you to fall for it. It’s not even remotely a reflection of the facts. An objectivist like you should find that a no-brainer.
November 22, 2007 at 10:55 pm |
For me it is a local thing, the local member (this time) is Mal Brough. As a person I think he is head and shoulders above the labor bloke, whose wife is already a State labor member. So one member of a family on the government gravy train is enough.
I like what Brough’s side kick, Noel Pearson has to say on getting native people out of the mire and also his (Noels) ability to highlight the stupidity of land rights instead of property rights. States establishing aborigine communities on the edges of National Parks, (or vice versa), denying them any worthwhile employment / business opportunities instead, condeming them to a life of handouts, and all the rest that goes with it. Ive always said Palm Island is a perfect example of a socialist state.
As for the bigger picture, well I grew up in a place similiar to Rudd. My old man was a cane cutter and carpenter, and ( I think), a labor voter. His mantra was never accept anything from the government and stay away from the cops. A libertarian socialist ?
I have been on the pointy end of labor interference with small business’s. Trust me the QBSA sends out more “junk mail” than Harvey Norman. So I am naturally adverse to labor. I watched Kerry O’Brien interview both of them this week and for some reason I thought Rudd is probably less trustworth than Howard! Bit of a jellyback under pressure I feel. If Rudd wins good luck to him but I will be putting labor below the greens.
November 22, 2007 at 11:21 pm |
Sorry, I meant that Noel Pearson highlights the stupidity of land rights without property rights.
November 23, 2007 at 8:29 am |
My old man was a cane cutter and carpenter, and (I think) labour voter. His mantra was never accept anything from the government and stay away from the cops.
Sweet Jesus, you could be describing my old man. Cane cutter, carpenter, union man. very mistrustful of the government and hated cops!
November 23, 2007 at 8:41 am |
Re: Comments like vote liberal or you are endorsing socialism/anti-workchoices
We aren’t endorsing socialism, because were voting #1 LDP (where possible), and hopefully next election, marginal seats will notice the LDP vote.
Secondly, all that we (people who currently prefer Labor) will be endorsing is that they are better than the liberals.
Hmm.. If I could preferential vote all but the big 2, I probably would, just to send a message.
November 23, 2007 at 8:50 am |
But the Liberals have sunk Work Choices with the fairness test, and have possibly destroyed Federalism. The “reform” is possibly worse than useless.