Family First hate liberty
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.
In the 2004 federal election the Liberal Democratic Party was not federally registered. Instead, a group of libertarian candidates associated with the Australian Libertarian Society stood as independents in NSW and with the ‘liberals for forests’ ticket in Qld and Victoria. We did this in an attempt to prevent the Greens from getting additional seats in the Senate. And we succeeded. The unintended consequences of our actions was that Barnaby Joyce (Nationals) was elected in Qld and Steve Fielding (Family First) was elected in Victoria. If our preferences were different, these positions could have gone to the Greens or ALP.
At the time Family First didn’t seem too bad. But I later realised that they were just another populist government-loving party. Since then it has only become more clear that Family First is an enemy of liberty.
Like People Power, Family First has come out against poker machines and liberalisation of recreational drugs use laws, and for more money for carers, the mentally handicaped, the aged and all other groups that sounds deserving. They are also actively against abortion, stem cell research and equal rights for homosexuals, and they support internet censorship (citing evidence from left-wing think tank the Australia Institute), and oppose liberalisation of the labour market.
Reading through the Family First policy list gives an impression that the party believes in nothing in particular. They are desperately trying to paint themselves as the new nothing party, like the now nearly-dead Democrats. Like the old Dems, FF argue for more funding towards higher education, schools & health care, and against the privatisation of Medibank Private or the sale of assets to foreigners.
Emphasising their puritanical streek, Family First wants a blood-alcohol level of 0.00% and compulsory advanced driving courses for all people under the age of 25 to go along with their anti-gambling, anti-drugs and generally anti-fun policies.
Amazingly, Family First actually tries to portray themsleves as the anti-Green party, despite the fact that they agree on the vaste majority of Green policies — including health, education, gambling, privatisation, censorship, labour market and gambling. The reality is that Family First, like most other minor parteis, is simply a party of tax, spending, banning and regulation. The only part that actually stands up for freedom and against the socialistm of the Greens and the paternalism of Family First is the LDP.
27 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
Well they seem to disagree with the Greens on drug liberalisation, homosexual marriage and abortion. In essence they do counter the vote of the greens on several issues (if there was ever going to be a vote on these issues). And they even manage to sideline Barnaby on occasion by voting with the government when he doesn’t. So in their current state they are mostly harmless and I prefer having Fielding there than just another candidate from one of the other parties. And if nothing else they do notionally ask the question “how will this government initiative hurt families” which is a reasonable question to pose in the house of review.
P.S. Most people go into politics to wield power not to yield power. So most are anti-liberty.
I think you are giving yourself too much credit. Steve Fielding would have won without the Liberals for Forests preferences.
Check the count here:
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/results/sendVIC.htm
Never at any point is Family First less than 50 thousand votes from being excluded.
I also fail to see how the Greens would have been elected with an extra 50 thousand votes ?
In that case libertarians can shed their guilt and simply claim credit for keeping the Greens from winning a second Senate seat in NSW.
I don’t think there is any doubt that preferences from the Outdoor Recreation Party helped keep Liberals for Forests in the race until near the end, when their preferences went to Labor.
Both ORP and LFF candidates were libertarians and are now members of the LDP.
On the face of it these parties look like special interest parties rather than libertarian parties. However if the candidates have crossed over then perhaps they are open to a broader philosophical assault on big government. If so then full credit to them.
Speaker — in making my claims about influencing the outcome I was basing that on the senate calculator available here. I think Anthony Green probably used the same calculator.
If l4f had sent preferences to the ALP instead of FF then ALP would have been elected — so FF needed our preferences. However, I just re-checked the numbers and it seems that you are right in saying that our preferences couldn’t have helped the Greens in Vic. Consequently, I made a slight edit to the text (adding “or ALP” to the parties we could have elected)
Terje — no other party looks like a libertarian party because no other party is a libertarian party. That doesn’t mean they are necessarily devoid from good people. And on each issue where you cite FF being different to the Greens, then I prefer the Greens. So perhaps the title should be “FF hate liberty even more than the Greens”.
Fielding is a lying cunt.
Lets hope Family First are smashed to death at the next federal election.
Terje:
I borrowed the Outdoor Recreation Party and Glen Druery essentially did the same with LFF. We chose the candidates and funded the campaigns. It’s a long story.
Family First supported :
VSU (pro-freedom)
Media Laws (pro-freedom)
IR Laws if modified ie unfair dismissal for companies with less than 20 employees (freedom-ish)
Opposed:
Telstra Selloff (anti-freedom?)
Assylum Seeker Bill (pro-freedom)
In general Family First is more pro-freedom where economic issues are concerned than the Greens.
The Greens are stuck in the protectionist regulatory 60s.
Oh no — FF cannot be defended from a freedom perspective.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day (or once if it’s a 24 hour digital) so I’m not surprised that you could find one or two issues they accidently got right (though VSU* & refugees is ambiguous).
But nearly everything they have said or have stood for has been anti-liberty. They are economically left (oppose IR reform, oppose privatisation, opposing foreign ownership) and socially right (prohibition, censorship, anti-choice). The worst of all worlds. Check their latest press releases to see the anti-freedom party in action.
* The VSU legislation is a mixed bag. While I support VSU, I also support a university’s right to make it’s own rules. Australia’s pre-eminent free-market education researcher (Andrew Norton) opposed the legislation.
The idea of a family impact statement is absurd.
Your family remains in existence as long as you remain in the memory of your descendents, otherwise a “family” (i.e a nuclear family) lasts up to 30 years generally. As families grow and the children grow up and the parents grow old, die or remarry, the actual wants and needs of families, and indeed family members as individuals changes. So what affects a family may not last any longer than a short election cycle.
Assessing Government policy over an infinite or 2-3 year period is a half baked idea. Not everyone is in a “family”, or is family focused so you are forcing everyone with a 60-90 year expected lifetime to have decisions to be made for them depending on how it affects the financially dominant family member for 2-3 years or forever.
Given any one of these potential “assessments” and its conclusion, the resulting policy would be relevant to young professional couples in Docklands who want a family in 5-10 years time how? University students who are self supporting? Retirees with no or little family connections? Very large traditional ethnic families?
Applying a generic template to everyone except as individuals will see poor policies be made as such a model will miss important information and preferences. Most people who want to keep themselves or their underage children away from vice etc can do so already by personal choice and good parenting. Why should everyone else suffer?
“opposing foreign ownership”
Why? This is merely ill thought out nationalism. There is absolutely no benefit in exlcuding foreign capital. FDI makes 25% of Australian gross fixed capital formation. FDI probably then makes up 25% of the wages bill. Some “family centred” policy, driving down wages and employment!
I didn’t say I liked them, I just think that on some issues they can validate their claim to being the anti-greens party.
However I do like the fact that they are in parliament openly disagreeing with the greens even if it is on issues where I might support the greens (drug liberalisation). Strategically I don’t want the Greens gaining any form of asendancy or momentum.
The distribution of preferences in the upper house of the Victorian state election may be relevant to this discussion.
Except in the region of Northern Victoria this is how it went:
People Power and the DLP preferenced Labor, Family First preferenced the Liberals, the Democrats preferenced the Greens and Labor preferenced the DLP ahead of the Greens.
In Northern Victoria the Coalition, DLP and Christian Democrats all preferenced the Greens ahead of Labor, while Family First and Country Alliance preferenced Labor. Labor will probably win the fifth seat anyway and may retain control of the upper house.
Details here: http://www.pollbludger.com/431#comment-5467
How things have changed. I remember when the DLP and ALP hated each other. DLP preferences kept the Liberals in power for years.
Humphreys
FFP is bad, but don’t pretend they are anywhere near the green nutballs for economic stupidity.
You aren’t thinking straight on this issue. No matter how flawed workchoice is, it is better than what we had and it would not have got through with the FFP support in the senate. Play it straight instead of spinning. FFP is better to the libertarin cause than the hateful greens.
Greens hate people. FFP doesn’t.
Good points, ABL.
Policies tailored to familes at the expense of others such as taxes etc. is discriminatory and should be looked at in the same way that people look at racism.
You should be PM, ABL.
FFP has no value to the libertarian cause at all. Read their press releases — the only thing they want to talk about is how workchoices hurts families and how we shouldn’t privitise anything.
The argument about whether they are better than the greens (they don’t want to increase tax too much) or worse than the greens (they support prohibition, censorhip, 0 alcohol limit for driving, anti-choice on euthenasia, abortion, lifestyle choice, prostitution, pornography etc) misses the point.
This is like arguing whether Stalin, Hitler or Mao was the worst leader in history… the point is they all suck and none of them are even related to anybody with a pet dog who once ran over the front lawn of a neighbour of anything resembling a supporter of liberty. They hate liberty. They’re scared of it.
I think you are forgetting some Greens voters JC. Some of them vote Green because of the protest value and a concern for the environment.
Convincing these people, and indeed some Greens members that free enterprise has better economic outcomes would see more libertarians and more libertarian voting electors.
I think we will have a harder time convincing Family First or CDP voters that free enterprise and free social choice has better outcomes for families and is the moral policy choice. We’re getting into explaining the benefits of whole of Government policy and philosophical arguments about free will predicating moral action. The first one is hard to comprehend for non-experts and the second will not appeal to those who think they are morally bound to save our souls by threats of coercion.
I’m pretty sure that the only thing making us play this silly ‘lesser of two evils’ game is the fact of preferential voting in this country. We have to make a choice – especially in the Senate, where it matters – so there are endless debates about which party is worse for whom and why.
For my part, I agree with Mark. I’ve met Greenies I can persuade by pointing out the illogic of opposing government intervention in one area but favoring it in others. I haven’t had the same experience with FFP types. Either they’re standard big-government conservatives, or they assert a moral right to enforce social policy (and sometimes economic policy) according to their views.
Fair enough guys. I get the point.
I’d advocate increasing our influence over Liberal policy by directing preferences in that direction rather than trying to disrupt the political process by diluting the Senate with crackpots like the FFP and Greens. A preferences deal with a major party might deliver us some seats as well.
Actually Brendan, that is nearly exactly the worst possible way to use our preferences if we want to get a seat.
Preferencing strategy 101: You want to do reciprical preference deals with other parties in ascending order of their likely vote. For example, 2nd preference to independents, 3rd preference with micro-parties like Fishing Party etc, 4th preferences with minor parties like Democrats and then pick whichever of the majors is likely to have the lower vote. ALP is probably the better choice because Libs will always deal with FF & CDP first and the Libs are guaranteed to put us before the Greens & ALP even without a deal. There’s not much strategically to be gained by dealing with the Libs. The only party with less strategic preferencing value is the Greens because their preferences are unlikely to be distributed.
But policy-wise I agree that the majors (both parties) are better than FF or the Greens in the Senate. Though I doubt we’ll be able to get any influence over the major parties until we can show them a few scalps of their fallen comrades, and even then it will be difficult. It would be more effective if we can help to change the electorate and allow the poll-driven majors (both of them) to follow their self-interest.
Preferencing strategy 101
That’s all good and well, but then you risk handing the balance of power to the crackpots. By aligning ourselves with the Liberals, people can have a safe protest vote, knowing that their preferences will not be going to their enemies. We are not going to attract fringe Liberal voters (our main target) if we promise to give their vote straight into the hands of someone like Families First. If we believe in what we say, we need to defend the parliament against the fringe enemies of freedom. We’re not in it to gain power remember, but to forward the cause for smaller government.
I explained preferencing strategy because you said preferencing the Libs would help us (meaning LDP) get elected. Not true.
As for a philosophical preferencing strategy, that is of course a different story. I agree that we don’t want to be responsible for getting FF or the Greens elected. However (unlike you) I find it hard to see how the Liberals are any better than Labor. Liberals are better on IR but have been the worst in Australian history on tax. Labor is better on shooters rights & civil liberties. There’s no real difference on most issues, such as trade & education.
Also, if Liberal voters don’t want FF to be elected, then they shouldn’t vote for the Liberals!
Now that Beazley is gone I mostly agree with JH. Labor is no worse than the Liberals except on IR and welfare. I want to see Howard elected one more time however to cement the IR reforms. Although I’ll vote according to who offers the best prospect of tax cuts.
I don’t think it matters that FF are anti liberty. So long as they are anti liberty on different issues to the greens they neutralise the oppressive parliamentary vote (as well as the liberal vote). They are good in the current dynamic. If it was another green in that position the government would be more cozy with the greens.
The family impact statements idea may be discriminatory in so far as they exclude singles. However it is never a bad think to have senators asking how legislative reform will impact a major grouping like families. If we had a senator asking how reform will impact women or gays or farmers I would think these are good questions to have asked. If the greens can ask how will this effect trees then asking how it will effect mothers and fathers and children is at least as valid.
As to how easily greens can be persuaded versus how easily the family first voters can be persuaded I can’t comment too much because I don’t know anybody that gives their primary vote to FF. Although I’m pretty sure I will preference FF over the greens, so long as FF remain on the fringe and they keep the greens away from claiming the balance of power.
John Humphreys’ description of Senate preferencing is right, although he did not fully explain the rationale.
The aim is to collect preferences from parties that are knocked out so that you remain in the count. That means doing reciprocal deals with those you think will attract fewer votes, either primary or plus preferences.
Philosophy does not have a lot to do with it except in the end you have to make a choice between Liberal/Labor/Green because of the possibility that you’ll be knocked out yourself.
The strategy is successful. Steve Fielding did it without realising when he was elected in 2004 in Victoria. Glen Druery came very close in NSW. The LDP will be applying the strategy next year.
Are you saying that Churchill and Roosevelt were wrong to include Stalin in their discussions of military strategy against Hitler?