Liberal Democratic Party
Apr. 28th, 2022 08:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
b_auspolLiberal Democratic Party
Website: https://www.ldp.org.au/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/libdemaus
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibDemAus
(My review for the 2021 WA Election)
The Liberal Democratic Party were founded in 2001. They initially contested federal elections as the Liberty & Democracy Party in 2007, due to naming rules before being renamed after an appeal to their current name. At present, the most recent round of party name rules means that they are required to change their name again (likely back to the Liberty & Democracy Party), however due to a number of shenanigans, the Liberals lodging applications a bit late, and the Lib Dems running down the clock on challenges prior to writs being issued, they are contesting one final federal election under their preferred name.
And no, I don’t know why they won’t just call themselves the Libertarian Party and save everyone the headache.
Party Analysis
The Liberal Democratic Party, or Lib Dems, are traditionally libertarians. But largely right wing libertarians. They're for the power of the market and personal responsibility to solve every issue. This is particularly hilarious in Australia, where the market has very infrequently solved any issue, and often causes more.
The Lib Dems have labelled their policy page as "Freedom Manifesto". Let that sink in for a moment. Yes, we are dealing with clowns. Their first policy being labelled "Freedom from COVID Alarmism" should help make that extremely obvious.
The Lib Dems are calling for a return to pre-2020 respiratory virus management strategies, which sounds moderately reasonable on paper, except we know that they were also calling for this prior to VACCINES. I've lived through lockdowns. I have strong views about the unnecessary burden of some interventions (please, discuss helicopters or mandatory mask wearing during intense exercise with me, I would be very happy if I never jumped at the sound of another hovering helicopter again). I cannot just give the Lib Dems the grace of taking them at face value here. Yes, in the future we will need to manage COVID at a community level, because it was not eliminated and long-term (multi-decade) active interventions are going to become ever less popular, but the interventions were not unnecessary when introduced and they saved lives.
Next up the Lib Dems want recall elections. Because they love the free market so much they want to sack politicians early. And not only do they want recall elections based on a petition from "a certain percentage" of the electorate, they want a "citizen's veto" over legislation, because direct democracy is an effective way to run a nation. While I have a soft spot for the idea of getting certain federal politicians out of office sooner (David Leyonhjelm formerly topping that list), direct democracy is bad and easily exploited by bad actors. We elect representatives and pay them to take the time to understand legislation, the issues around it, and do all the research that the general public doesn't have the time to do (as it is a full time job). Also while they're trying to get everyone to sack politicians, they also want voluntary voting. Nobody has yet presented to me an effective reason why changing our compulsory system would improve the situation. I agree some countries with voluntary enrolment and voting also have good electoral systems, but clearly both methods work. Why drop the one that's working for us? Especially given that we have some of the most isolated and lowest density voting communities to reach on the planet, and we have plenty of evidence how other countries with such isolated communities neglect their voting rights.
The debt and deficit policy is a masters in "wow you fail to understand the point of having a government". The Lib Dems are very unhappy about the current government debt, so want to solve it by… cutting every department's budget by 10%, then a further 1% every year. Except Defence. Defence get to keep all their treats, apparently, and don't need to go on a budget with everyone else. While we are at it apparently we are abolishing political advertising, the ABC, SBS, any subsidies for renewable energy (but not for fossil fuels), any funding for political parties and "abolish middle class welfare and replace it with a tax cut". Or, hear me out here, Lib Dems, you are actually bonkers and the point of having a government is to support people and we just had to spend a lot of money to stop even worse things happening in the past two years. We could also raise taxes, if you're that worried about the debt. "Earn more" is always pushed as a way to fix budgets. Look I'm sorry, I cannot take this seriously and treat any of the suggestions with respect.
Speaking of taxes, the Lib Dems want low, flat taxes, despite the fact this shifts the tax burden onto the least wealthy in the community. They are proposing… a $40,000 tax free threshold, followed by a flat 20% tax above it? I thought you wanted to fix the government debt, Lib Dems! This will only make it worse. (Though yes I realise their solution is 'remove all spending by the government and let the free market handle it', famously a great solution to unemployment, disability and retirement incomes). They are also arguing that lower company taxes would have more companies move global businesses to Australia, aside from the fact that such companies generally spend as much time as possible avoiding paying any tax whatsoever.
Super should also be voluntary, with no more rate rises and SMSFs should be simpler (so people can invest their retirement money in even more ridiculous ways, I guess). SMSFs are largely a vehicle for rich people trying to leverage their property portfolios in more tax-advantaged ways, and while I'm sympathetic to the suggestion we should replace superannuation, the Lib Dems are not suggesting we replace it with "universal living wage aged pensions". Oh no, we should be able to spend and waste our own money.
The small business policy essentially can be summed up as "get rid of red tape, get rid of having to pay staff properly". As one of my friends says "if you cannot afford to pay your staff and your suppliers, you have a hobby, not a business". A quiet part of me was actually hoping that the end of JobKeeper offed some more of these zombie businesses that are essentially vanity projects exploiting family members and employees. I could sum up their policies here but essentially it's 'deregulate everything'. The most astonishing policy of the lot, however is this one: "Consumers having the power to opt in or opt out of regulatory regimes. In many cases unregulated products will offer better value and quality as a trade-off for less protection. That risk assessment is one for individuals to make, not bureaucrats." The whole concept of this is blowing my mind. No, it does not offer better value for the product you want to buy to have killed someone in the process of manufacture, or contain listeria, or caused environmental damage due to runoff going into waterways. We live in a SOCIETY. "Fuck you all, I've got mine" is the WORST way to run a business.
Also they're quite upset that cryptocurrency attracts capital gains tax. Despite being a wildly fluctuating asset. Poor crypto bros, having to pay tax. You want it to be treated like normal currency? Start by having it follow the rules and regulations expected of banks.
The energy policy thinks net-zero is "an absurd extension of climate alarmist ideology that will have grave effects on living standards for all Australians if it is pursued", so that's a no on climate action, I see. Therefore, ah yes, cheap and reliable energy requires us to build nuclear power. I knew it. One of the most expensive forms of energy production, even more than coal. They also want more "free market energy", as if energy companies were not already transitioning to renewable energy sources as the cheapest form of energy production. Look, this is ideological nonsense from the Lib Dems, bending their own words back on themselves.
"Decentralised education" – I'm terrified already. Schools should be able to opt out of the national curriculum, apparently, abolish NAPLAN, pay for education with student vouchers not government funding to institutions, more homeschooling co-ops, and reform universities to have less regulations. Astonishingly, every single policy they've listed sounds like it would decrease educational outcomes by removing any way to benchmark education received or expect a minimum level of competency. Also universities are silencing people without enough free speech.
Free speech gets its own topic! Apparently we need a constitutional amendment to protect free speech (because we are apparently need to import the US Constitution wholesale by using the exact text of the US Constitutional First Amendment rather that rewriting in plain English. Says a lot). Also we have to abolish Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, as racial vilification is apparently more important that the rights of people so vilified. We also need to stop internet censorship and blocks, and encourage tech companies not to censor misinformation. I feel the poor Lib Dems are feeling targeted by COVID misinformation being banned on platforms. Look. Free speech not being a right in Australia is a controversial issue, and there are arguments both ways on this, but the Lib Dems are very clear in their policies that they want to blow it right open, without any ways to regulate misinformation, hurting other people, or damaging comments. Their proposals would cause at least as much harm and likely more as the current rules.
Finally, the Liberal Democrats want Freedom from Surveillance. This is both "stop collecting so much internet data and metadata", don't ban cash, less surveillance, wind back surveillance laws. Do I think that some surveillance legislation is a wild overreach? Of course. There are pieces of anti-terror legislation that were written largely to be able to prosecute a single person. On the other hand, in an environment where people and ideas can have an immediate, global reach, protecting the public does become harder and require broader ways to slap problems down. What's the correct balance? I don't know, but I do know I don't trust the Lib Dems to have outlined the best policy here. In a world where surveillance was unable to identify and prevent Christchurch from happening, yet also manages to foil other terror plots without the public becoming aware, judging the balance here is difficult.
Oh and there's a "Free Julian Assange" point. BINGO. You know, this is the first party I've looked at this year who have been brave enough to just say that, rather than talk around general whistleblower protections, which is honestly a better policy aim. Pick a better champion. I tend to feel anyone who advocates at this point on a blank "Assange" platform, rather than advocating for reform of the laws he's likely to be tried under, is resistant to the evidence of how poor an exemplar case Assange makes. In law, when we find a loophole or bad law that needs a determination made to clear up the gap, we run test cases. Test cases tend to be highly vetted and sympathetic, so they're not carrying excess baggage obscuring the issue in question. Assange is none of those things.
Is this party trying to kill me?
Well the Lib Dems are against COVID regulations, don't believe in climate change action, and want the ability for businesses to opt out of regulations (with the first thought coming to my head being raw milk). They haven't specifically stated a gun policy this time around, but given their love of removing regulation, I cannot imagine they are into stricter gun laws. That's multiple methods that cross the line, in my view.
Is this party trying to harm me?
Did I mention the bit where they want to allow businesses to choose to opt out of regulations? I work in workers compensation. This is a spectacularly bad decision. Regulations exist to protect people. Do you know why raw milk is bad? Because it used to kill thousands of people every year from diseases in the milk. And that's just one regulation, that's the lowest hanging fruit for appeals to not have to follow "nanny state regulations".
Conclusion:
The Liberal Democrats are libertarians who believe in the power of the free market and that rules shouldn’t be compulsory and apply to everyone. It’s all about individuals, not community. Their previous representatives have been largely loathesome individuals. I cannot spot anything recent on their social media calling for the Convoy to Canberra, so there is at least that, but they’re definitely among the radical right cohort.
Website: https://www.ldp.org.au/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/libdemaus
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibDemAus
(My review for the 2021 WA Election)
The Liberal Democratic Party were founded in 2001. They initially contested federal elections as the Liberty & Democracy Party in 2007, due to naming rules before being renamed after an appeal to their current name. At present, the most recent round of party name rules means that they are required to change their name again (likely back to the Liberty & Democracy Party), however due to a number of shenanigans, the Liberals lodging applications a bit late, and the Lib Dems running down the clock on challenges prior to writs being issued, they are contesting one final federal election under their preferred name.
And no, I don’t know why they won’t just call themselves the Libertarian Party and save everyone the headache.
Party Analysis
The Liberal Democratic Party, or Lib Dems, are traditionally libertarians. But largely right wing libertarians. They're for the power of the market and personal responsibility to solve every issue. This is particularly hilarious in Australia, where the market has very infrequently solved any issue, and often causes more.
The Lib Dems have labelled their policy page as "Freedom Manifesto". Let that sink in for a moment. Yes, we are dealing with clowns. Their first policy being labelled "Freedom from COVID Alarmism" should help make that extremely obvious.
The Lib Dems are calling for a return to pre-2020 respiratory virus management strategies, which sounds moderately reasonable on paper, except we know that they were also calling for this prior to VACCINES. I've lived through lockdowns. I have strong views about the unnecessary burden of some interventions (please, discuss helicopters or mandatory mask wearing during intense exercise with me, I would be very happy if I never jumped at the sound of another hovering helicopter again). I cannot just give the Lib Dems the grace of taking them at face value here. Yes, in the future we will need to manage COVID at a community level, because it was not eliminated and long-term (multi-decade) active interventions are going to become ever less popular, but the interventions were not unnecessary when introduced and they saved lives.
Next up the Lib Dems want recall elections. Because they love the free market so much they want to sack politicians early. And not only do they want recall elections based on a petition from "a certain percentage" of the electorate, they want a "citizen's veto" over legislation, because direct democracy is an effective way to run a nation. While I have a soft spot for the idea of getting certain federal politicians out of office sooner (David Leyonhjelm formerly topping that list), direct democracy is bad and easily exploited by bad actors. We elect representatives and pay them to take the time to understand legislation, the issues around it, and do all the research that the general public doesn't have the time to do (as it is a full time job). Also while they're trying to get everyone to sack politicians, they also want voluntary voting. Nobody has yet presented to me an effective reason why changing our compulsory system would improve the situation. I agree some countries with voluntary enrolment and voting also have good electoral systems, but clearly both methods work. Why drop the one that's working for us? Especially given that we have some of the most isolated and lowest density voting communities to reach on the planet, and we have plenty of evidence how other countries with such isolated communities neglect their voting rights.
The debt and deficit policy is a masters in "wow you fail to understand the point of having a government". The Lib Dems are very unhappy about the current government debt, so want to solve it by… cutting every department's budget by 10%, then a further 1% every year. Except Defence. Defence get to keep all their treats, apparently, and don't need to go on a budget with everyone else. While we are at it apparently we are abolishing political advertising, the ABC, SBS, any subsidies for renewable energy (but not for fossil fuels), any funding for political parties and "abolish middle class welfare and replace it with a tax cut". Or, hear me out here, Lib Dems, you are actually bonkers and the point of having a government is to support people and we just had to spend a lot of money to stop even worse things happening in the past two years. We could also raise taxes, if you're that worried about the debt. "Earn more" is always pushed as a way to fix budgets. Look I'm sorry, I cannot take this seriously and treat any of the suggestions with respect.
Speaking of taxes, the Lib Dems want low, flat taxes, despite the fact this shifts the tax burden onto the least wealthy in the community. They are proposing… a $40,000 tax free threshold, followed by a flat 20% tax above it? I thought you wanted to fix the government debt, Lib Dems! This will only make it worse. (Though yes I realise their solution is 'remove all spending by the government and let the free market handle it', famously a great solution to unemployment, disability and retirement incomes). They are also arguing that lower company taxes would have more companies move global businesses to Australia, aside from the fact that such companies generally spend as much time as possible avoiding paying any tax whatsoever.
Super should also be voluntary, with no more rate rises and SMSFs should be simpler (so people can invest their retirement money in even more ridiculous ways, I guess). SMSFs are largely a vehicle for rich people trying to leverage their property portfolios in more tax-advantaged ways, and while I'm sympathetic to the suggestion we should replace superannuation, the Lib Dems are not suggesting we replace it with "universal living wage aged pensions". Oh no, we should be able to spend and waste our own money.
The small business policy essentially can be summed up as "get rid of red tape, get rid of having to pay staff properly". As one of my friends says "if you cannot afford to pay your staff and your suppliers, you have a hobby, not a business". A quiet part of me was actually hoping that the end of JobKeeper offed some more of these zombie businesses that are essentially vanity projects exploiting family members and employees. I could sum up their policies here but essentially it's 'deregulate everything'. The most astonishing policy of the lot, however is this one: "Consumers having the power to opt in or opt out of regulatory regimes. In many cases unregulated products will offer better value and quality as a trade-off for less protection. That risk assessment is one for individuals to make, not bureaucrats." The whole concept of this is blowing my mind. No, it does not offer better value for the product you want to buy to have killed someone in the process of manufacture, or contain listeria, or caused environmental damage due to runoff going into waterways. We live in a SOCIETY. "Fuck you all, I've got mine" is the WORST way to run a business.
Also they're quite upset that cryptocurrency attracts capital gains tax. Despite being a wildly fluctuating asset. Poor crypto bros, having to pay tax. You want it to be treated like normal currency? Start by having it follow the rules and regulations expected of banks.
The energy policy thinks net-zero is "an absurd extension of climate alarmist ideology that will have grave effects on living standards for all Australians if it is pursued", so that's a no on climate action, I see. Therefore, ah yes, cheap and reliable energy requires us to build nuclear power. I knew it. One of the most expensive forms of energy production, even more than coal. They also want more "free market energy", as if energy companies were not already transitioning to renewable energy sources as the cheapest form of energy production. Look, this is ideological nonsense from the Lib Dems, bending their own words back on themselves.
"Decentralised education" – I'm terrified already. Schools should be able to opt out of the national curriculum, apparently, abolish NAPLAN, pay for education with student vouchers not government funding to institutions, more homeschooling co-ops, and reform universities to have less regulations. Astonishingly, every single policy they've listed sounds like it would decrease educational outcomes by removing any way to benchmark education received or expect a minimum level of competency. Also universities are silencing people without enough free speech.
Free speech gets its own topic! Apparently we need a constitutional amendment to protect free speech (because we are apparently need to import the US Constitution wholesale by using the exact text of the US Constitutional First Amendment rather that rewriting in plain English. Says a lot). Also we have to abolish Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, as racial vilification is apparently more important that the rights of people so vilified. We also need to stop internet censorship and blocks, and encourage tech companies not to censor misinformation. I feel the poor Lib Dems are feeling targeted by COVID misinformation being banned on platforms. Look. Free speech not being a right in Australia is a controversial issue, and there are arguments both ways on this, but the Lib Dems are very clear in their policies that they want to blow it right open, without any ways to regulate misinformation, hurting other people, or damaging comments. Their proposals would cause at least as much harm and likely more as the current rules.
Finally, the Liberal Democrats want Freedom from Surveillance. This is both "stop collecting so much internet data and metadata", don't ban cash, less surveillance, wind back surveillance laws. Do I think that some surveillance legislation is a wild overreach? Of course. There are pieces of anti-terror legislation that were written largely to be able to prosecute a single person. On the other hand, in an environment where people and ideas can have an immediate, global reach, protecting the public does become harder and require broader ways to slap problems down. What's the correct balance? I don't know, but I do know I don't trust the Lib Dems to have outlined the best policy here. In a world where surveillance was unable to identify and prevent Christchurch from happening, yet also manages to foil other terror plots without the public becoming aware, judging the balance here is difficult.
Oh and there's a "Free Julian Assange" point. BINGO. You know, this is the first party I've looked at this year who have been brave enough to just say that, rather than talk around general whistleblower protections, which is honestly a better policy aim. Pick a better champion. I tend to feel anyone who advocates at this point on a blank "Assange" platform, rather than advocating for reform of the laws he's likely to be tried under, is resistant to the evidence of how poor an exemplar case Assange makes. In law, when we find a loophole or bad law that needs a determination made to clear up the gap, we run test cases. Test cases tend to be highly vetted and sympathetic, so they're not carrying excess baggage obscuring the issue in question. Assange is none of those things.
Is this party trying to kill me?
Well the Lib Dems are against COVID regulations, don't believe in climate change action, and want the ability for businesses to opt out of regulations (with the first thought coming to my head being raw milk). They haven't specifically stated a gun policy this time around, but given their love of removing regulation, I cannot imagine they are into stricter gun laws. That's multiple methods that cross the line, in my view.
Is this party trying to harm me?
Did I mention the bit where they want to allow businesses to choose to opt out of regulations? I work in workers compensation. This is a spectacularly bad decision. Regulations exist to protect people. Do you know why raw milk is bad? Because it used to kill thousands of people every year from diseases in the milk. And that's just one regulation, that's the lowest hanging fruit for appeals to not have to follow "nanny state regulations".
Conclusion:
The Liberal Democrats are libertarians who believe in the power of the free market and that rules shouldn’t be compulsory and apply to everyone. It’s all about individuals, not community. Their previous representatives have been largely loathesome individuals. I cannot spot anything recent on their social media calling for the Convoy to Canberra, so there is at least that, but they’re definitely among the radical right cohort.
