The Null Device

Fuck. Fuck fuck fuck fuck. There go the last vestiges of a fair, pluralistic society. (Ever wonder what would have happened if the "Joh For PM" campaign in the 80s had been successful? Well, you're looking at it. How much do you want to bet that they'll be talking about economic sanctions against Australia in a few years' time? (Or at least progressive-leaning Australian emigrés in London and New York will.)

Howard's about to claim victory on the ABC. Must resist urge to put heavy object through TV...

One piece of good news: the Greens have doubled their vote, and have done extraordinarily well. This was partly at the expense of the ALP (who didn't present enough of an alternative), and partly at the expense of the Democrats (who showed themselves to be too driven by expediency, something that not even Buffy Stott-Despoja's glowing charisma could gloss over). Given that they're probably the only party with both integrity and sanity, I hope that they'll keep up the good showings.

(Whom did I vote for? In my seat, I voted for the Greens, with preferences to the Democrats and Labor, and the Liberals last. Interesting to note that the Greens got 15% there, taking a big chunk out of the (ultra-safe) Labor member's margin.)

Another thing I noticed was that, in their Senate how-to-vote card, the Liberals gave their first and second preferences to the two Religious Right parties, the Democratic Labor Party (conservative Catholic anti-Communist crusaders turned "family-values" stalwarts) and the Christian Party. Goes to show how much they have left the idea of "liberalism" behind.

There are 11 comments on "":

Posted by: Ben http://leviathan.weblogs.com Sat Nov 10 13:08:42 2001

What did you expect?

I thought the DLP was going to be deregistered because they wouldn't let those reds at the AEC see their list of 10,000 party members. That was what has been stopping new parties from registering for the last year, because they might be using members who were also part of the DLP's mighty ranks. In fact I suspect they make the CPA (M/L) look numerous.

Posted by: Toby http://adbusters.org Sun Nov 11 08:54:16 2001

I can't get too excited about it. Neither party is going to do the right thing on the big issues. Always had a hunch it might take civil war to get rid of the conservatives in this country... (Good news re: the Greens.)

Posted by: Richard http:// Sun Nov 11 10:53:21 2001

As for the Liberal party being liberal. It was probably the best move the party ever made when it formed to call itself (a strictly conservative party) the Liberals.

Posted by: Graham http://grudnuk.com Sun Nov 11 12:09:38 2001

Dunno. Ironically enough, it was the Liberal party that killed off sectarianism in Australia, by allocating some funding to Catholic and other private schools in the 1960s. (You know, the piss-poor ones like your average Christian Brothers College) Which of course pulled the rug from underneath the anti-communist DLP which had a lot of clout amongst conservative Catholics, and all that.

Posted by: Graham http://grudnuk.com Sun Nov 11 12:19:36 2001

BTW, I didn't know you got a TV.

Posted by: acb http://dev.null.org Sun Nov 11 14:11:23 2001

I had the TV for a while, but it didn't work properly (then again, I got it for free, from someone who got it for 20c some time earlier); I got it fixed a few weeks ago, so that I could watch video tapes and the Election Chaser.

Posted by: Ben http://leviathan.weblogs.com Mon Nov 12 09:27:38 2001

Welcome to the 20th century....err.

Posted by: mihumpy http:// Tue Nov 13 12:35:19 2001

Not that I agree with it, but it needs saying that liberalism is not always associated with the liberals - much the same as "labour" is not the same as Labor. having said that it shouldnt always (also) be associated with religious proclivity, nor religious observance, one may "religiously" vote for a party without neccesarily holding similar religious ideologies (as you almost certainly must agree with) yet to be "tarred" with that brush is almost the same. so where are we left? (a rhetorical question)

Posted by: mihaly http:// Tue Nov 13 12:44:53 2001

having "Family Values" isnt that bad, really. especially at Christmas Time. and I know you all probably think I am being residivist, but it's true. or is that revisionist? anyway... it's important to respect the family, no matter what, because at the end of the day, that's pretty much all you've got. ask your uncle or aunt. ask your grandparents if you are fortunate enough to have them still just ask them.

Posted by: acb http://dev.null.org Tue Nov 13 13:07:33 2001

Mihaly: true; however, everybody's values are different and personal to them, and having a central set of values enshrined in legislation (i.e., tax breaks for leading a particular lifestyle, religiously-motivated censorship, or laws saying that gay relationships cannot be as valid as some heterosexual relationships, for example) is in my book wrong. In a free, pluralistic society, there should be no laws to coerce people into falling in line with a specific set of values.

Posted by: TOBY http://www.telegraphics.com.au Wed Nov 14 13:50:59 2001

I'd put it even more strongly. The "family values" ticket is a Trojan horse, in which dwells the conservative agenda: a catalogue of progressive inhumanity which, if unchecked, leads to the excesses so thoroughly explored in the 20th century. Sadly, the conservatives have a stranglehold in the First World at least, as we are marched into the 21st. Family be damned. What good is family if they're all locked up? Or dead? Our ancestors might have something to say about totalitarianism - if we weren't too busy VOTING IT IN to listen.

Want to say something? Do so here.

Post pseudonymously

Display name:
URL:(optional)
To prove that you are not a bot, please enter the text in the image into the field below it.

Your Comment:

Please keep comments on topic and to the point. Inappropriate comments may be deleted.

Note that markup is stripped from comments; URLs will be automatically converted into links.