Hey Bob, after the 2010 election, you might have a buyer for your oxymoronic party's name: -

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1281658427/18#18

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2010 at 2:51pm:

Equitist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2010 at 2:57pm:

What's oxymoronic about it? Don't tell me you've been Americanised into thinking the term "liberal" refers to left-wing progressivism or something. We are an Australian party, therefore in Australia our name "liberal democrats" makes perfect sense. While "democrat" by itself could refer to a believe in direct democracy, everything up for a vote (including individual rights), democratic ownership etc. Put with the word "liberal" it refers to a completely different ideology of a liberal democracy. That's what we stand for. We're the most liberal political party in Australia.

your platform sounds out of touch with the sector of Australian society that decides elections, Bob.
To me, that says that you (collectively) are not very good politicians.

I don't think they'll be any "buyers", equitist, it's too hard to reinvent a name once the party has taken it in a certain direction. You only get one chance, if you blow it, you're gone.

BobH wrote on Aug 13^th, 2010 at 3:03pm:


I note that your over-simplified example naively suggests that every individual human unit of production is highly-specialised and self-employed (and healthy and well-resourced?) - and that each trades directly with each other, on a 'level playing field' and without fear or favour...and despite not having a semblance of objective and independent regulation of individual income-producing and trading activities...

However, the real world requires a degree of flexibility and an hierarchy of 'middlemen' individuals, who skim off a premium at each step of the indirect transaction...

Even in the ideal alien world according to the LDP, some of those individuals would still be totally unproductive in their own right and will primarily trade an arbitrary means of exchange (capital/money - loaned with an interest premium) and/or in their ability to co-ordinate/enslave/control (i.e. exploit) the activities and resources of other individuals - whilst other individuals would be involved in transport, prostituting themselves for legal and other personal services, etc...

Moreover, some individuals would be involved in Government bureaucracies (with unprecedented opportunities for corruption and incarceration and other abuses of troublesome impoverised and disadvantaged citizens)...

Hence, just as 'Communism' only works on a small and isolated scale, I maintain that LDP policy cannot be self-sustaining on a medium-large scale - and that: at the medium-large scale, both extreme 'systems' eventually come full-circle on the socio-econo-political continuum, at the point of Fascism - which is the inevitable precursor to anarchy and revolution!

"that's all *we* want", is it, Bob. Who? You and the party? That's how you're coming across.
I don't know of one single political party in Australia that has got anywhere by proferring generalities like the ones you have posted:
"freedom, less government and more personal responsibility. They sure as hell want lower taxes.:
*All* of that is subjective, and as a voter you would have to trust that your party would interpret that in the way in which you (the voter) would want. Not good enough, Bob. Most people don't want to vote like that.
We will see what happens to your party, Bob, obviously, in the upcoming election, but I predict that you will be gone with the wind.
If you cannot see that coming, you are truly not a politician.
Presumably, as you are a chief public spokesperson for your party, I have to assume you are one of the best they have, so that, in itself, underscores my perceptions as a voter of your party.
How much would you like to sell the name for?

That's not to suggest there might be a buyer, Bob, there might obviously a big difference between what you think you'd get, and whether or not there'd be any buyer at all.  I'm just wondering how realistic you are, it seems to be a good test, but I think I can predict the answer.

Bob, political leaders need to have a sufficient degree of introspection to see that egotism does not substitute for one's own analysis of what the public want. In my experience, effective "politicians" can do that. Frankly, I don't think you can, and unless I could be convinced that you (and your party) can, no way would it be safe to have that sort of perspective running the country. Sorry, but that's the fact.

Yes, and I would think you would agree with most of that, equitist. Most Australians would regardless of whether they are left or right. It is because it is a middle ground perspective and apolitical.
You are in fact fairly middle ground yourself, but you think you have to be an extreme leftist to validate your views. No; you don't.

I don't think the LDP are a bunch of superior, born to rule types really; I think they are just pretty naive and severely blinkered, but it doesn't matter. They'll be talking about *why* their election annihilation happened at their sombre, inward looking election after-parties, but they'll find a scapegoat, or more likely just rationalise it that it is a long way to the top if you want to rock and roll, and roll on the next election. Then they'll probably sack Bob.

Bob, do you now know what it was like to be the Captain of the Titanic.
You have heard of the Titanic, haven't you.

The question was raised earlier about whether the tax policy had been properly assessed. To give you some background information, our tax policy was formulated by the economist John Humphreys who founded the LDP back in 2001. As an economist I'm sure he personally assessed the 30/30 plan. On a side note, John Humphreys was lined up to be the LNP candidate for Griffith in this federal election. (We allow Liberal Democrats to be members of other parties as well. There are some Liberal members and supporters who are small "l" liberals at heart and have joined or voiced support for the LDP, and some Liberal Democrats who think it would be effective for themselves to join the Liberal Party and make it lean libertarian). But when Kevin Rudd was ousted as Prime Minister, and the seat of Griffith became attainable for the LNP, they suddenly decided John Humphreys was too liberal for the Liberal party and nominated a "safer", more conservative candidate. But back to the 30/30 tax policy which he formulated.

The 30/30 tax policy has been published by the Centre for Independent Studies. As an organisation with a respectable level of credibility, I doubt they'd risk damaging their credibility by publishing a tax policy that hadn't been assessed for its effects on productivity and the budget. Then when the idea was submitted to Henry Tax Review, it was of course assessed it further and Henry ended up recommending a flat tax with a high tax-free threshold. So we're to assume at least that they think that part of our tax policy is good for the economy and at least budget neutral.

The Coalition then announced they were considering it with the adjusted figures of 35% with a tax-free threshold of $25,000. Which I think were Henry's figures. Our figures are 30% with a tax-free threshold of $30000, that's why we call it 30/30. So we can also assume that the Coalition have had those figures assessed and think it would be at least budget neutral. But they have omitted the part of our tax policy which includes welfare reform. We want to replace welfare entitlements with a negative income tax. So if 35% with a tax-free threshold of $25,000 has been assessed to be budget neutral under this economic climate and with the federal government's level of expenditure, then we can make an assumption that with the savings made by cutting welfare entitlements in favour of a negative income tax, 30% with a tax-free threshold of $30,000 could also be budget neutral.