People Power hate liberty
This weekend Victorians will go to the poll and probably re-elect a Labor government. One interesting thing to come out of this election for political junkies like me is a new minor party, People Power. The party was originally started in 2000 by Steve Mayne (from crikey.com) and Vern Hughes as a small government party. Vern is a moderate libertarian and Steve Mayne insisted at the time that he was a believer low tax. After a poor start the party was suspended in 2001 before being re-started in 2004. What is missing from most recorded histories of the party is that between 2001 and 2004 there was a brief and ultimately failed effort at merger between People Power and the Liberal Democratic Party.
When the party was re-launched in 2004 it had different priorities. Instead of focusing on education vouchers, free-market health reform and tax cuts the party was more interested in higher welfare, banning pokies and protecting the environment. The party is now a clear enemy of liberty.
Looking through the People Power website there is almost nothing that would appeal to a libertarian. The main policy of the party now seems to be their anti-gambling policies, which include heavily regulating and then ultimately banning all gambling in the state by not renewing licences. Pokies would be gone by 2012 and then Crown Casino shut down in 2033. The first four party press releases are dedicated to this issue and many candidates are anti-gambling zealots. The budget revenue shortfall ($1 billion) from no gambling tax would be paid for by asking the federal government for help.
People Power is now also very proud of their environmental policy, with Steve Mayne claiming they are now more green than the Greens. The party wants to subsidise the supply and demand for renewable energy, commit to reducing greenhouse emissions by 60% over 45 years, introduce a carbon levy, are negative in genetic engineering, oppose nuclear power stations and want to ban plastic bags. They also want to make it compulsory to have solar panels on all new north facing buildings in Melbourne. These policies might be explained by the existence of the ex-Greens or ex-ALP members in the party.
But while they are a green anti-gambling party they insist that they are not like the Greens. The reason they give is that they want to remain relatively tough on drugs. While claiming that they are offering a new direction on drug policy what they offer is keeping current laws and penalties for drug supply, not allowing a heroin injecting room and having fines/jail replaced by 6 months compulsory rehabilitation. Yawn. They insist the $200 million cost (2 years) will pay for itself when all the expected benefits come to light.
It gets worse. People Power is an anti-car party and they want to waste further taxpayer money on more public transport subsidies, free travel for selected groups, more train lines, more buses and more trams. The cost is to be partially offset through higher vehicle registration costs for fuel-heavy cars.
For a party that once supported education vouchers their education policy is a sad joke. They again claim they are offering a brave new path, which includes removing the public school levy, publicly funding kindergartens and spending more on pastoral care in schools. They propose to introduce new public schools catering to children in need and various other uninspiring plans and schemes at a cost of at least $340 million. The one bright spot is that they want more information on public schools on the public record.
The party gained most of it’s members for registration by appealing to the disability and carers community and the party unsurprisingly has a range of policies asking for government money and consideration. They want an additional $200 million for family carers and an unspecified increase in the mental health budget which will apparently pay for itself through better mental health in the community.
Just in case banning recreation, bowing to the green loby and spending millions more on health, education and transport isn’t enough, the party also wants to waste money on corporate welfare (subsidising the natural fibre industry at unspecified cost), set up dozens of committees and commissions, introduce bureaucratic campaign reform for elections and abandon public-private partnerships. Sounds like Clive Hamilton.
And after all that they somehow try to insist that they are a small government party. How? Apparently they want to decrease the number of bureaucrats. Fine idea, but given all the extra legislation and spending they want it’s not likely. Unfortunately, People Power has become just another populist left-wing anti-freedom party with a platform of taxing, spending, banning & regulating.
10 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Recent Comments
Catallaxy Files- Evaluating Rudd’s Fiscal Stimulus February 11, 2012I am just giving you a sneak preview of my piece in the Inquirer section of The Australian today. You will all have to run up to the newsagency or go on-line to read it. No doubt, it will make me popular with parts of the blogosphere! Gosh, at least Alesina’s paper was published in [...]Judith Sloan
- Should the RBA intervene to lower the Australian dollar? February 10, 2012I had this piece in The Australian during the week. I became interested in the topic during my visit to Switzerland. I conclude that the RBA will not, and probably should not, intervene but it is an interesting topic. The value of the Australian dollar is putting many of our trade-exposed industries under real pressure. [...]Judith Sloan
- Open Forum: February 11, 2012 February 10, 2012 Sinclair Davidson
- Evaluating Rudd’s Fiscal Stimulus February 11, 2012
- inCISe
- Oliver Hartwich:Greece’s austerity package February 11, 2012 Editor
- Amnesty on truth February 10, 2012I’m ashamed to admit I was a member of Amnesty International in high school. Back then I proudly wore an Amnesty badge on a black beret. Now I cringe at the memory of my naive self lapping up their hyperbole. The Sydney Morning Herald recently reported that Amnesty International is urging a parliamentary human rights watchdog to investigate the federal gover […]Sara Hudson
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012When I wrote in Incise yesterday, ‘Rebate should not be means tested,’ I did not expect events to move quite as quickly as they have. The government seems confident it has the numbers to get the means test through. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rob Oakshott and Andrew Wilkie have indeed swallowed the government’s nonsensical arguments, but it will be interestin […]Robert Carling
- IPA news
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012Australians will be surprised to learn that, apparently, the federal government now has responsibility to help the city of...
- It's time to bring back the thrift February 9, 2012Ted Baillieu plans to shave 3600 jobs from Victoria's bloated public service. The state of Wisconsin in the US, with a...
- We'll huff, we'll puff, we'll blow the budget into surplus February 8, 2012Bill Clinton famously said, "It's the economy, stupid". So it is. Unsuccessful politicians might be inclined to argue,...
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012
Ah the good old days! I remember all that, John, I was still in on the inner dealings with you, remember? I remember where I half-jokingly sent around that email to Vern Hughes, you, etc that the slogan of our merged party should be ‘Sex, drugs and capitalism’ and you could almost hear old Vern having a coronary across the ether.
They really a muddled up populist party, nothing more to it than that.
I’m all for pushing our “sex, drugs & gambling” policies at the next election. Hopefully the LDP can become known as the evil party. Through in speeding, guns, smoking & drinking and we’re pretty much the devil incarnate.
From my more recent observations of Stephen Mayne he appears more opposed to big business than big government.
The sex, drugs and gambling position needs to include “at your own expense”. We might be the devil, but we are complete angels when it comes to taxpayers money.
Populist sounds about right, John. They obviously think there’s a magical money tree at the bottom of the garden that will fund all their grand schemes.
Now, once again I’ll have to go and fish this out of the spaminator.
In politic it helps to be popular with at least a few people. If the LDP gets called the devil by opponents of liberty thats all good and fine, however I’d be a bit worried if that was the core campaign message.
I spoke at leangth last night with somebody about the idea of promoting the concept of “freedom” through a political movement. The conclusion I came to is that in a 60 second grab it is a hard thing to define properly and defend. On the campaign trail I think that the verbal communication needs to focus on what we would change and where we would take society. If it comes to pass it is not because of the LDP but because these things resonate with the voters.
eg.
Journo: what does the LDP want to do.
poly: we want to ensure that there are real choices at this election. The LDP stands for slashing taxes, reducing governments prohibitionist tendancies and getting Australia back to small government liberalism. If this is what people want they should vote LDP.
Journo: but won’t this mean an end to public hospitals.
poly: we want to ensure there are real choices at this election. The LDP wants to restore small government liberalism. We want to cut taxes. Hospitals are very important but we don’t believe that hospitals should be run by the government. We would seek to reduce the role of government within the hospital system. We would seek to increase the role of civil society and the private sector. This is what a vote for the LDP represents.
etc
~
The deep philosophical underpinnings of the LDP should mostly dominate the print media and internet presence.
p.s. How much web traffic can the LDP servers handle?
Terje,
I’ve had similar conversations, mostly with business colleagues who at least believe in making money.
I’ve phrased it as: we want individuals to choose for themselves, not have choices made for them by the government. If you then address questions like schools and hospitals, they get the point.
I even got a devout Catholic (latin mass, home schooling etc) and a journalist to acknowledge the legitimacy of our position on gay marriages – you don’t have to approve, but it’s not a matter for the government.
But I agree it’s not easy to put into 60 seconds.
I suspect the LDP server can’t handle a lot of traffic.
I think Freidman summed it up the best – we should be free to choose.
As for devoutly religious types, ask them how can we have morality if we have no free will.
When the party was re-launched in 2004 it had different priorities. Instead of focusing on education vouchers, free-market health reform and tax cuts the party was more interested in higher welfare, banning pokies and protecting the environment. The party is now a clear enemy of liberty.
Sounds like the modern day Liberal party too. And the ALP. And the Greens.
The only thing the Liberal Party have going or them is that they will relax the road laws somewhat, and that they aren’t as bad as the rest of them.
I spoke at leangth last night with somebody about the idea of promoting the concept of “freedom” through a political movement. The conclusion I came to is that in a 60 second grab
I think you could fit that into 60 seconds.
[...] In my post on People Power I admitted the embarassing fact that libertarians had briefly flirted with a party that now proposes only tax, spending, banning & regulation. I have another admission to make regarding another populist and anti-liberty minor party. Family First Senator Steve Fielding would not be in power now except for the preferences of libertarian candidates. Unfortunately, it now turns out that Family First hates liberty. Let me explain. [...]
Pingback by Family First hate liberty « Thoughts on Freedom | December 4, 2006