Martin Pool's blog

Mail me RSS Bazaar distcc Canonical is hiring! flickr

Liberals on "Liberals"

The Economist says:

Mr Howard's policies are doing Australia no good, especially as relations with Indonesia (and elsewhere in Asia) have grown fractious in recent years. The Bali bombing in October 2002, which killed many Australians, heightened the fear of terrorism. Worries about unsustainability surround the buoyant economy. Domestically, Aboriginal grievances have yet to be assuaged. A flawed referendum on republicanism in 1999 produced a result out of step with the wishes of most Australians.

Who is a social and economic liberal supposed to vote for? Not the "Liberals" (more accurately, Conservatives). Not the centrist ALP, with more than 50% of conference votes still controlled by unions. More tax, please from the Greens and Democrats doesn't hold much appeal either.

AJ replied, as I had hoped. To respond:

The article is surprisingly short and opinionated, therefore verges on mere assertion. I'm not sure where it came from in the print magazine; maybe from the short articles at the front. Anyhow.

"X is no good" is an English idiom meaning "X is bad", not "X has absolutely no good aspects whatsoever."

You realise there's more to the economy than just property prices, right?

Right, but [e]conomists seem to believe that a bubble in property prices followed by a sharp decline could cause a more widespread downturn. The larger part of the wealth of a majority(?) of Australians is tied up in real estate.

If the [republic] referendum was flawed, that's a good thing too.

That's a bizarre position. Why spend time and money running a flawed referendum? According to at least some credible surveys, most Australians want to move towards a republic although not on the specific terms offered. Howard's referendum was designed to give the impression of listening, without truly reflecting our wishes.

I agree with AJ that the Liberals may be quite liberal on economic issues — conservative parties often are. But I don't want to choose economic or social liberties; why can't I have both? (I suppose what I'm really asking is: why is there no moderate liberal/libertarian party in Australia?)

I can't believe someone would be merely too timid to say "Sorry" but bold enough to go to war. I think this is what the Economist means when they aim to take part in a severe context between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy timid ignorance obstructing our progress.

Starkoff, Esq is stuck for good candidates.

Kate Lundy seems like a good deal, according to Linux Australia people who've dealt with her. I think she needs a new web design though.

posted Tue 21 Sep 2004 in /issues/politics | link

Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Martin Pool.