catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

LDP membership drive

with 52 comments

I just dropped my application to join the Liberal Democratic Party in the mailbox today. According to John Humphreys they are very close to the magic number that would allow them run candidates at the next Federal election so help put them over the line comfortably!

The LDP policy platform is here – there are still a few sections waiting to be filled in but most of it is done. For the record, let me say that though I don’t agree with everything in their platform, I agree with far, far more of it than I do with the policies of the other parties by more than a country mile. While it is in my nature to change my mind on something and then change it back again, I am generally happy to call myself a libertarian. But the LDP isn’t necessarily just for libertarians.

Lefties may find bits of the platform which is just as amenable to their priories as righties. And here is the thing – realistically the LDP may never get into government at least in the near future, but if there are policies which are currently out of the pale for the major parties but which you wish to get on the public agenda and pressure the major parties into doing something about, chances are you might find it on the LDP platform. And therein lies the value of support for it, if you are a heterodox lefty or righty. So vote intelligently and vote strategically.

Advertisements

Written by Admin

October 19, 2006 at 6:52 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

52 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I joined the LDP after spending years swearing I’d never join anything other than a sporting club ever again. I was so resolutely unpolitical for a while there I both refused to vote and dodged the fine.

    I’m glad I joined. I like the idea of a political party that allows me the full range of my harmless but serious eccentricity, rather than just the (always unspoken) real estate between my ears.

    skepticlawyer

    October 19, 2006 at 7:10 pm

  2. While I agree with the basic thrust of your argument regarding the strategy, there’s one or two things in their policy document that really make me hesitate.

    This being probably the biggest one.

    The LDP acknowledges that there is scientific evidence to indicate a trend towards global warming. However, the degree of human influence, likely consequences and what we can effectively do about it are far from certain.

    Indeed, the evidence to support these propositions is weak and there is no scientific consensus. Some of the scientific evidence suggests that global warming is largely (if not entirely) a natural event that has been occurring since the dawn of time.

    The justification for the guns policy also annoyed me a bit (but the policy less so).

    Of course by joining you have the chance to influence policy. Hmm not really sure.

    Steve Edney

    October 19, 2006 at 7:21 pm

  3. I agree the LDP doesn’t need to weigh into the ‘what causes global warming’ debate. It will end up being called astroturf by the usual hacks. It could have just said ‘ we don’t believe on the balance of probabilities that the benefits of tackling emissions now exceed the costs’ and leave it at that.

    Jason Soon

    October 19, 2006 at 7:32 pm

  4. That’s probably the point, Steve. Some of the policies are obviously underdone, but with time and membership they can be properly fleshed out.

    Also love your work with the new resident Marxist over at LP.

    skepticlawyer

    October 19, 2006 at 7:34 pm

  5. Steve… I debated the wording of that policy within the party.

    I wanted us to avoid the scientific debate and simply say that (as Jason suggested) we say that the benefit-cost analysis currently doesn’t support action. I would suggest removing the second para quoted above entirely.

    But I am currently out of the country (which deminishes my influence) and didn’t have enough support. But I will be back soon, and can assure you that such things can be modified.

    John Humphreys

    October 19, 2006 at 8:01 pm

  6. Will they have a senate ticket in Noo South Whales?

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 19, 2006 at 8:19 pm

  7. Yes. The plan will be to have a senate ticket in every state and territory… and as many HoR candidates as we can find.

    John Humphreys

    October 19, 2006 at 8:32 pm

  8. We need to get rid of the Democrats and Greens and replace them with the LDP and a new DLP led by me.

    C.L.

    October 19, 2006 at 8:36 pm

  9. looks like you have one vote then Humpers.

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 19, 2006 at 8:42 pm

  10. CL
    there already is a DLP
    http://www.dlp.org.au/

    Jason Soon

    October 19, 2006 at 8:49 pm

  11. And they need some help with page design…

    skepticlawyer

    October 19, 2006 at 8:57 pm

  12. Edney.

    Explain your fears about global warming.

    The LDP statement is absolutely fair and balanced.

    Although we’ve actually been cooling these last 55 million years.

    You quoted them Edney. Yet you’ve never come up with something to say that that isn’t a pretty honest and balanced statement.

    GMB

    October 19, 2006 at 9:09 pm

  13. Actually. When you think about it. Thats got to be the fairest and most balanced statement on global warming that I’ve ever seen any political outfit put about.

    I want to join the LDP just so I can be proud of my party making such a well-worded and fair statement about something people are always being frantic about.

    GMB

    October 19, 2006 at 9:14 pm

  14. It’s legal/genealogical connection to the actual DLP is questionable, Jason – although its influence continued as a preference vehicle. The Mulholland family runs that “DLP” (and good luck to them) but the Victorian DLP conference of 1978 officially voted to close up shop.

    There was an interesting libertarian angle to its fight for survival in 2004 (Mulholland v Australian Electoral Commission) when the High Court unanimously decided the party’s attempt – via the Lange test – to avoid providing evidence of at least 500 members was invalid.

    That decision aroused sympathy for the party from unlikely quarters.

    C.L.

    October 19, 2006 at 9:17 pm

  15. Comment caught in spaminator?

    C.L.

    October 19, 2006 at 9:18 pm

  16. just released your comments CL. yeah, must’ve had too many links

    Jason Soon

    October 19, 2006 at 9:19 pm

  17. I agree skeptic. That DLP website is the worst designed political site I’ve seen in my life.

    Jason Soon

    October 19, 2006 at 9:25 pm

  18. Bird
    Join up! Here is your chance to run for high office.

    Jason Soon

    October 19, 2006 at 9:28 pm

  19. time to give the guns policy the bullet!

    Make Birdy the Senate candidate!

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 19, 2006 at 9:29 pm

  20. Agreed. The LDP needs to match the Greens in the stakes.

    Graeme Bird for the Australian Senate!

    JohnZ

    October 19, 2006 at 9:56 pm

  21. Bird,

    I’ve no doubt that we have long term been warming, although the relative stable, mild conditions of the last few millenia is what has allowed civilization to flourish. However if the predictions are correct this warming over the next century will be dramatic compared with anything of the last 7000 years and potentially (at least in some areas) catastrophic.
    In short I think its a risk we should insure against it by cutting CO2 via a carbon tax, even if we are only 50% certain. i actually don’t think it will cost anywhere near the sort of numbers that are being projected if it is phased in gradually. I actually think there is a large chunk of savings coulds be made for free if people were to concentrate their minds on making modest efforts at energy conservation. I’d nominate BP’s program with cut both costs and greenhouse emissions as an example.

    Steve Edney

    October 19, 2006 at 10:06 pm

  22. SL,

    With catallaxy down I thought I’d see if I could make any impression on him. For a moment I thought I was, then he bounced back and started talking about organizing soviets to solve issue of consumer choice.

    Steve Edney

    October 19, 2006 at 10:09 pm

  23. Ahhh yes, I saw that. And planners knowing more than markets. I do wish they’d stop using ‘soviet’ as a substitute for ‘cell’ or ‘council’, too.

    It has particular connotations for any Russian-speaker that do not correspond particularly well to Marxism as articulated by Marx, quite apart from anything else.

    skepticlawyer

    October 19, 2006 at 10:17 pm

  24. Hmmm, links don’t seem to work as advertised?

    “stakes” should be “lunatic candidate stakes”.

    Test1
    Test2

    JohnZ

    October 19, 2006 at 10:22 pm

  25. I thought his continuing belief in the labour theory of value was bad enough but ‘organising Soviets”??? FMD. If this guy was in medicine, he’d be talking about leeches.

    Jason Soon

    October 19, 2006 at 10:22 pm

  26. hmm, something tells me John doesn’t like Bird;-)

    Really John, he is a lot smarter and learned in person than he sometimes appears when ranting against Fyodor on the web.

    Jason Soon

    October 19, 2006 at 10:24 pm

  27. “Lefties may find bits of the platform which is just as amenable to their priories as righties”

    Give us a break Jason. It’s a compulsory article of faith for Lefties to believe in anthropomorphic global warming and its devastating effect on the Planet.

    whyisitso

    October 19, 2006 at 10:24 pm

  28. At the time (no link, that part of Catallaxy isn’t back yet) I thought GMB was being very hard on Mark over his new resident Marxist. Now I’m not so sure. Surely there must be better lefties out there to choose from for a good site like LP. Why hire this guy?

    skepticlawyer

    October 19, 2006 at 10:26 pm

  29. Jason

    It’s just tiresome when an otherwise interesting thread is derailed by his yelling and abuse.

    I know he’s capable of making an interesting and useful contribution, and it’s clear that he’s pretty smart but without clear rules his monomania gets the better of him and everything heads south. Comparison of his comments on LP to Catallaxy is instructive…

    Maybe I’m just nostalgic for Catallaxy’s younger days 🙂

    JohnZ

    October 19, 2006 at 10:42 pm

  30. johnZ says:
    However if the predictions are correct this warming over the next century will be dramatic compared with anything of the last 7000 years and potentially (at least in some areas) catastrophic.

    Do you have any idea how silly that statement looks. The earth as we know it has been around for about 2 billion years, yet you and the rest of these “caring hoons” thinks 50 years is an awfully long tim.

    Dude, 7 years goes into 2 billion years 285,000 times while the inverse of that is .000004. Moreover one of the ways they attempted to figure out historically how warm we are compared to a few hundred years ago is through bristle cones.

    I don’t deny man made warming, but I would be really friggen careful before I went round and used 7,000 as a sample to figure out if the earth is warmer than before.

    Wake up and grow up.

    jc

    October 19, 2006 at 11:08 pm

  31. JC, that was Edney. Check your eyesight, man …

    Jason Soon

    October 19, 2006 at 11:10 pm

  32. whatever. John deservrs a daily hiding anyway. I’ll stick with John Z on this one. Edney’s phd kind of scares the shit of me.

    Go back to the other system. This one sucks and we deserves better.

    jc

    October 19, 2006 at 11:19 pm

  33. errr ……deserve

    I may not edit, but the font are too small to even do a scan edit.

    jc

    October 19, 2006 at 11:23 pm

  34. you can make the font size whatever you want…

    just go to the view menu of your browser or click ctrl and +

    (said elsewhere as well)

    c8to

    October 19, 2006 at 11:30 pm

  35. JC,

    The 7000 year comparison is about the period when humans have actually been able to form cities etc. The climate has been relatively stable in this period, and I’m suggesting that this has helped us make what we have today, and a case for being wary about it changing rapidly away from this.

    Steve Edney

    October 19, 2006 at 11:30 pm

  36. Edney, this stuff about Soviets councils from Eric Blair is  a laugh a minute. Cozzie bro GMB, you have to tutor this guy, for the love of God:

    http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/10/13/confusing-marx-stalin/#comment-164090

    The difference in a socialist *planned* economy (and I’m not talking about command economies, al-a-USSR etc) is that the basic class interest of those making decisions is not pro-capital, but actually pro-worker and therefore pro-consumer.

    The key decision-making bodies are the soviets (workers’ councils) that are democractically elected in workplaces and aggregate upwards (each layer having the right to appoint and remove delegates to the one above, based on programmatic and political arguments). With effective metrics I see no problem in making good decisions.

    In terms of unexpected demand and new goods/services being innovated. If the collective determines that it’s something worthwhile (ie: a social good) then what’s the problem.

    Kiwi Bird II

    October 19, 2006 at 11:32 pm

  37. Steve
    let me tell you something… if this dry weather is global warming I want more of it especially if we can muster desalination plants with MIT’s new method that cuts the cost by 80%.

    This is great weather and I want to see more of it. Fill the dams with ex-sea water and let roll. Sunny days make everyone feel good.

    Even at it’s worst the predictions are far from troublesome 100 years from now anyway. In fact Bird is right, the net effect would be just an evening out of temps…. night to day and north/south to equator.
    That’s a good thing.

    If we receive less rainfall which means less farmers…. fine with me, so we export less fodd stuff around the world or change the mix and they get less subsidies.

    jc

    October 19, 2006 at 11:42 pm

  38. Test.

    fatfingers

    October 20, 2006 at 12:23 am

  39. I’m with Humphreys – ditch the second para on global warming.

    I also looked around the LDP site, and found lots to admire and a little to deride as piffle or downright shite. But overall a good platform. If you get people up in NSW, I’ll give you a sympathy vote 🙂

    fatfingers

    October 20, 2006 at 12:25 am

  40. In other news, PeoplePower is imploding.
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20606556-2702,00.html

    According to Landeryou this is over personality differences which is a poor effort. If the LDP ever imploded it would be over doctrinal differences like whether people had a right to carry only concealed handguns or whether they can also carry rocket launchers 😉

    Jason Soon

    October 20, 2006 at 7:39 am

  41. Dare we open that can of worms here?

    It would be politically stupid for the LDP to advocate no limits on personal firepower, that’s for sure. Guns are dangerous but useful. Rocket launchers are just dangerous, and no conceivable purpose unless robbers start using armoured personnel carriers. Which they might if people start getting rocket launchers. This is one of the arguments in favour of gun control – you prevent an arms race.

    fatfingers

    October 20, 2006 at 10:26 am

  42. I was just joking about the rocket launchers, fatfingers …

    Jason Soon

    October 20, 2006 at 10:28 am

  43. “politically stupid” requires that we were in danger of being elected somewhere. At present this isn’t a real possibility. The point of the LDP is to get the major parties to think about freedom, not to form part of the government ourselves.

    yobbo

    October 20, 2006 at 5:53 pm

  44. Jason, you may have been, but there are plenty of others out there who wouldn’t have been. Sorry for confusing you for those crazies.

    Yobbo, then why have the policy? The Greens get lambasted for their stupid economic policies even though they haven’t a hope in hell of implementing them. You can certainly expect the LDP to be derided for the few policies that appear ill-thought-out or extremist. So why provide ammunition to enemies that needn’t be provided?

    fatfingers

    October 20, 2006 at 6:45 pm

  45. “Yobbo, then why have the policy?”

    Err perhaps because lots of libertarians actually believe in it?

    Look, as Yobbo knows I’m pretty lukewarm about guns. I think I can live with giving sporting shooters their rights but the concealed handguns policy puts me off. But it’s a drop in the ocean compared to the bits of the platform I support. And since there’s no danger of it ever being implemented anyway, the benefits of promoting those policies I support that the LDP also supports far exceeds the cost of there being something in the platform I don’t.

    Jason Soon

    October 20, 2006 at 6:58 pm

  46. Yep, what Jason says.

    At the moment a lot of responsible gun owners around Qld have buried their guns in the ground to avoid the law. A whole lot of other stuff is more important, although if the gummint gets too big for its boots a lot of you are going to need us fierce gun owners from Qld to save your sorry arses.

    skepticlawyer

    October 20, 2006 at 7:34 pm

  47. although if the gummint gets too big for its boots a lot of you are going to need us fierce gun owners from Qld to save your sorry arses.

    I can’t tell you how reassuring that is.

    Zoe

    October 20, 2006 at 8:00 pm

  48. How much do you trust the government, Zoe?

    When I was a tacker, I learnt the three great truths:

    1. The cheque’s in the mail

    2. I’m from the government and I’m here to help you

    3. I ain’t gonna come in your mouth.

    You got proof that it’s any different?

    skepticlawyer

    October 20, 2006 at 8:11 pm

  49. I have no proof that it’s any different, and no faith that you and your neighbour Jim Bob are going to save the day for me either.

    Zoe

    October 20, 2006 at 8:12 pm

  50. Well, we don’t miss, if that’s any consolation. While the government misses all the time.

    And my gun owning neighbour’s name is Gary (down the hill) and Lynn (up the hilll). ‘Jim Bob’ is an Americanism.

    skepticlawyer

    October 20, 2006 at 8:15 pm

  51. Since when is “gummint” an ockerism?

    Zoe

    October 20, 2006 at 9:31 pm

  52. Okay, fair call Zoe. The NQ version tends to be ‘govmint”.

    skepticlawyer

    October 20, 2006 at 9:35 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: