Log in

No account? Create an account

Sun, Nov. 11th, 2007, 12:01 pm
Politics: Keeping it in the family

I know politics bore most of you, but something this good I just can't let slide. Now, as we all know Family First is above doing petty political deals, which is why it's so amusing that Family First (the political front of the Pentecostal Church in South Australia) are swapping preferences with the Liberty and Democracy Party, whose policies include the legalisation of adult incest. To be fair, some argue there is a biblical basis for incest. But the winner of the best line over this debacle is ? the Platypus's comment: "I suppose this is what they mean by putting your family first."
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)

Sun, Nov. 11th, 2007 11:33 am (UTC)

I just quoted that policy as the most extreme example, and the most amusing for this admittedly predatory sting. Many of LDP's policies seem diametrically opposed to what FF stand for (legalised incest and drug taking, abortion, gay marriage...) and it highlights the hypocrisy on both sides that they're willing to exchange preferences. It is most venal on LDP's side, because the LDP has no prospect of winning a seat but Family First does even though they clearly don't represent the stated goals of that party. If the LDP were being true to their principles they would have preferenced someone else.

I don't care about the contents of that biblical link. I know it's a polemic; I just put it there to illustrate the bible's apparent support for incest.

He's actually just meant to be very happy in that picture but it does look like he's doing something else. ;)

Mon, Nov. 12th, 2007 06:52 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): LDP policy

The LDP does not advocate decriminalisation of adult incest. We merely mention it in our policy preamble on victimless crime as an example. Personally I think it is an unfortunate example and hopefully it will be removed soon. Family First and the LDP negotiated preferences in NSW on the basis of mutual interest and some shared policies. For instance both parties advocate a reduction in petrol taxes. We don't agree with Family First on many issues but they offer a useful counter balance in the senate to the extreme economic views of the Greens. Of course the Greens are closer to us on many issues of personal liberty such as drugs policy, euthanasia and same sex marriage. In preferencing there is no party that much represents what the LDP is on about however the system forces us to choose. Regards, Terje Petersen. LDP senate candidate - NSW.

Mon, Nov. 12th, 2007 02:05 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): Naughty naughty LDP

Hey. I'm John Humphreys from the LDP. We don't have a policy for legalising incest and we never have. But we do have policies for legalising marijuana, gay marriage and voluntary euthanasia. You'd think those were controversial enough so that the media didn't have to make up other issues. Oh well.

I find it strange when people complain about preferences. You have to preference everybody, and not everybody can go last. Should we put Family First behind One Nation, Pauline, Christian Democrats or the other right-wing parties? Should we put them behind the majors?

Most of our members think the Greens & Democrats are more of a problem because they want high tax & spending, and lots of regulation. If we preferenced Greens before FF many people would complain about that too. And we certainly weren't going to preference Socialist Alliance, the Socialist Equality Party or Citizens Electoral Council. So who does that leave? There are no other libertarian partes in Australia.

Mon, Nov. 12th, 2007 03:22 pm (UTC)
marko_the_rat: Re: Naughty naughty LDP

Considering the number of Australian readers I have, I really don't think my blog is worth the trouble of having two representatives from the LDP comment. Terje at least managed to do so without a snide tone but I'm hardly innocent of that myself. I've unscreened both your comments in the interests of fairness of discourse, but I'm really not worth engaging in a debate with.

While I do agree with some libertarian policies, I'm clearly not one myself. As a minor party with, I'm sure you admit, no prospect of winning a seat yourself, I think you have a responsibility to carefully consider the effect of your preferences.

Tue, Nov. 13th, 2007 03:05 am (UTC)
marko_the_rat: Re: Naughty naughty LDP

And I quote a comment by an apparent supporter on the LDP blog which you did not contradict. "Forgive my ignorance, but why will FF preference LDP? Is there ANY area where their policies are not diametrally opposite?" Ah well. I suppose politics makes for strange bedfellows. (Bad rat!) Sorry, I just couldn't resist. ;)

And apologies to Terje, whose name I mistook for a woman's name. In spite of my serious misgivings about the wisdom of this preference deal, he is obviously a very capable politician and an asset to the LDP.
(Deleted comment)

Tue, Nov. 13th, 2007 05:18 am (UTC)
marko_the_rat: Re: Naughty naughty LDP

Feel free, but remember that actions speak louder than words. (A clarification: this rather dubious preference-swapping deal is only in NSW thankfully.) I'm afraid John's nailed me: I agree with many of their social policies, but not their ideas on economic management.

Wed, Nov. 14th, 2007 09:57 am (UTC)
terjepetersen: Re: Naughty naughty LDP

The liberals put 6 parties ahead of the LDP (excluding themselves). The Labor party put only 5 parties ahead of the LDP. And the Australian Democrats put only 4 parties ahead of the LDP. We had discussions with all these parties going into the preference process and they were aware of our policies and could review our policies in detail on our website. All these major established Australian parties put us very early in their preference stack. Clearly they believe our platform is not entirely unreasonable and would be happy enough to see us occupy a senate position.

Yours Sincerely,
Terje Petersen.
LDP senate candidate - NSW.

Wed, Nov. 14th, 2007 09:58 am (UTC)
terjepetersen: Re: Naughty naughty LDP

p.s. The above is in reference to the NSW senate ticket only.