Belief in the political principles of liberalism does not necessarily wed one to a particular party. There are and always have been liberals in the Liberal Party fighting to prevent it being taken over by conservatives. There are and always have been liberals in the ALP fighting to prevent it being taken over by socialists and their great rule making enterprise.
I voted for Hawke in 1987 and 1990, partly because the Liberal Party under Howard / Peacock did not offer a credible alternative government, but also because the ALP under Hawke’s leadership had implemented productive policies.
No-one but Hawke had the clout to put together The Accord. It worked: lasting, productive microeconomic reform was achieved, via consensus rather than confrontation. The dollar was floated. Tax rates were lowered. The Superannuation and Medicare levies were introduced.
There will always be a minority who oppose the Medicare system and it could certainly be improved, but the overwhelming majority of Australians want a comprehensive public health system, funded by differential insurance premia which are a proportion of people’s incomes.
The Superannuation Guarantee Levy (SGL) was decried as forced savings, but Australians actually needed to be forced. The alternative solution to the growing, unfunded public pension liability was increased taxes going into general revenue. This would not only have meant trusting that future governments would quarantine it for pensions; there is no way an Australian government could pass a bill which set pension entitlements at a proportion of income earned during working life. Yes, the SGL is a tax of sorts, but at least you get to keep the proceeds and then decide how to spend them when you retire. Just because the rules need improvement does not mean the principle isn’t sound. The consequent increase in national savings has been a major contributor to the low interest rate regime of the past 20 years and the increase in local capital available for investment.
One thing that the Hawke / Keating ALP governments did not do well was listen to finance minister Peter Walsh and cut spending. As a result, we had a needlessly high public debt and needlessly high interest rates. This however, was insufficient to warrant a vote for the alternative until 1993 when the ALP lost its way economically as Keating ousted Hawke as Prime Minister and Peter Walsh was succeeded in the Finance portfolio by a succession of weak performers: Ralph Willis, John Dawkins and Kim Beazley.
I voted for the Liberals under Howard, even though the leadership were conservative and not liberal. The ALP alternative was not credible. They had weak leaders, a poor grasp of economic policy and were by then being taken over by a mixture of slippery careerists and middle class social engineers, as if being beholden to corrupt trade unions was not bad enough.
Apart from the obvious and eternal problem of trade unions believing they should control economic policy, one facet of left wing ideology rejected by liberals and conservatives alike is the fractious identity politics and its associated culture of grievance, entitlement and regulation of social interaction which has found a home in the ALP (and is fundamental to the Greens’ platform). That’s why you’ll find many liberals who have voted Liberal for the past 15 years, despite not liking the conservatives.
What prompted me to write this post was an amusing quote from hopeful ALP candidate for Lord Mayor of Sydney, Cassandra (Cass) Wilkinson:
“Inner Sydney Labor is controlled by elitist lefties intent on spending other people’s tax dollars on pet projects”
How right you are, Cass. Additionally, the outer suburban branches are controlled by greasy careerists and wogs with anti Anglo-Saxon agenda.
I’ve been talking about voting for either the Liberals / Nationals or the ALP because in the vast majority of cases your ultimate (preference) vote either goes to one of them or no-one. Sensible liberals do not vote Green because genuine freedom is anathema to the far left. When liberals vote, their primary choice is often a minor party, but then you need to think about who you will ultimately preference: the Libs / Nats, the ALP or if one exists, a strong independent.
I vote for a lot of minor parties to encourage them: the Marijuana Party when they used to run, the Natural Law Party (lunatics, but brightened the political landscape), any non-religious right wing loonies (not because I agree with them - I just like watching the self righteously indignant responses of the left). Then I preference either the Liberals or the ALP (though not lately - given the corrupt, incompetent circus into which they have descended).
Cass Wilkinson wrote an article in the Australian about 12 months ago which summarises the dearth of choices very well. I particularly like the observations:
“Labor is busy turning itself into what its opponents have long accused it of being, a party of clumsy big government socialism.”
“Progressives support some freedoms that suit their social preferences such as gender equity but they don't support freedom as a goal in itself and most of their policy prescriptions are for more government interference in private transactions, decisions and expression.”
I partly disagree with her claim that
“The Liberals are turning into what Labor has long accused them of being: a Tory party.”
The Liberals are not turning into a Tory party: since its inception, there has always been a battle within the party between liberals and conservatives. The Menzies and Howard eras, in which the conservatives held sway are more the historical norm. Their partners, the Nationals have always been dominated by conservatives. At least conservatives believe in small government, economic liberalism, freedom of speech and social liberalism in a few areas. Liberals often have a better chance of converting them on other social issues, one at a time, than they have of converting the left wing ideologues within the ALP on matters of freedom of speech and economic activity.
She summarises:
“The only group which is comprehensively and philosophically liberal is the Liberal Democratic Party, which has a platform of major tax reform and embraces the free movement of people and capital as well as acceptance of recreational drug taking, extreme sports and sex work, taking the policy position ‘if we prohibited everything we disapproved of, nobody would be free.’"
True, and I agree with most of their policies. However in practice, they are a disorganized rabble, with an historic tendency toward equivocation on many practical issues. It’s difficult for a party which covers a broad, centrist spectrum not to be, since some members will hold mostly left of centre views, for example support the left on Aboriginals and asylum seekers, whereas other members will hold views which are mostly slightly to the right of centre.
Although their policy positions are clearly enunciated, their practical application to particular issues often causes divisions within the party membership. It’s very hard for such a party to formulate coherent policy positions via consensus and then stick to them without public bickering by some members, although it seems the party has in recent times moved to the right of centre on many issues, which would cause a lot of middle class do gooders to abandon it. This may ultimately be a good thing in terms of the presentation of coherent, consistent policy.
I’ll vote 1 for the LDP if I see them running, but as discussed above, if you believe in liberalism, it’s pointless voting this way unless you then preference either the Liberals, Nationals or the ALP.
I never would have voted for the Australian Democrats. Despite being created by former Liberal government minister Don Chipp, they quickly attracted the left of centre, namby-pamby middle class do gooders, many of whom have now drifted to the Greens. Some of these people are genuinely unperturbed by (or unaware of) being in bed with socialist extremists in green clothing.
So, in summary, what can believers in liberalism achieve with their vote?
Firstly, be familiar with the positions of any strong independents on the ticket. Many of these people are independent because they are liberals in most respects. Give them your primary vote if you believe they have consistent positions across a wide range of areas. Then make the effort to allocate preferences, below the line if necessary. Remember that the downside of electing independents is that their seat is never safe. Unless their agenda are made absolutely clear, they may well end up being pulled in all directions as they try to please the majority and retain their job.
Vote for the single issue parties if you like that sort of thing. Vote for the LDP if you agree with them - they need the encouragement, or at least need to get their bond back. Don’t vote Unity: they are an ethnic front.
Then preference the Liberals, Nationals or ALP. Put the Greens and the Christian Democrats last. They are extremists and as far from liberalism as they come.
No comments:
Post a Comment