Warning: This article is even longer than the 2016 Australian federal election campaign was
- and 10 times longer than it needed to be (over 5000 words instead of 500)
- and repeats the same three-word slogans over and over, like ‘Deport all bogans’
- and makes as many gaffes, unrealistic promises and impossible prognostications
- and has made my ‘advisors’ cringe from going so off-script
- but is closer to ‘Paul Keating’ funny than ‘Bill Shorten’ anti-funny funny
Summary: Australia is pretty great so avoid these radical parties:
Put Family First, the Liberal Democrats & the Health Australia Network near or at the bottom unless you want Australia to become more religious, gun-toting and anti-science like the US.
Also, unless you’re a proud white supremacist, put the Liberty Alliance, Australia First and One Nation at the bottom too. Sure, extremist Islam is a problem, as is all extremism, but I’d be more worried about your intimate partner than a suicide bomber. Do we even have a watch-list for known violent misogynists?
But there’s more even to avoid like Jamie Briggs in a Hong Kong bar: Kim Vuga (indep), Rise Up Australia, Shooters, Citizens Electoral Council, Socialist Equality Party, Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group), and Australian Christians
But I don’t loathe the US and everything it stands for and produces. How could I hate a country that gave birth to the famous orator, Kevin Brennan‘s brother, and the greatest podcast, Misery Loves Company?
Do you love Wayne, the Swan, as much as I do?
I realise that you most likely don’t live in my electorate, but we’ve got Wayne Swan! Remember him? The B-story in my movie, Lilley and me, has Wayne, the Swan, living in the park. He has lost his ability to fly after a series of ‘unfortunate events‘. A group of us makes sure someone feeds him every day with some lettuce and silver beet and we erect signs to remind people to not feed him bread. A specialist avian psychologist also does some ground-breaking work with him and he regains his wing confidence and he flies South in the end and even Lilley, the dog, looks both happy and sad to see him leave.
Sorry to crash back to reality…
I’ve still to decide who to vote for, using my 13 simple steps, that are only simple when compared to the political mind of Peta Credlin, our only undemocratically elected female dictator, whom I would call a c*ntator, but am trying to use the C-word less, even when appropriate. I don’t think Peta ever threw a bible at anyone.
The Brisbane, Queensland, electorate of Lilley is a white-wash
We can’t vote for our leaders, and perhaps that’s a good thing, as they can be knifed when necessary. We vote for our local members. I would make a d*ck joke if all my candidates were men, but I can confirm that two out of the five do not appear to have a Y sex chromosome in their DNA, nor do they have a fluid personal gender construct. As for other kinds of diversity in our multi-cultural electorate, well, we’ve been white-washed again. Other elections haven’t always been as bleak as The Planet of Hoth. I look forward to seeing a mix of candidates in the future that are more representative of the diversity in my area that I use as an example of how multi-culturalism works so well that I don’t usually even think about it unless some internet loon bangs on that multi-culturalism can never work. If you take away variables like persecution, poverty, and ideological indoctrination, we’re all just people trying to get by. For the record, I am a swing voter with a centre-left political bias, so all that preamble is exactly what you’d probably expect me to say.
Could my electorate of Lilley be close?
My prediction is no, but I have no polling data to back that up!
Lilley could be decided by as few as 1000 voters, and might be one to watch to see whether Wayne Swan can hold onto power. I hate the spoil the suspense, but he’s got it stitched up, unless my predictive powers have also turned as bad as my ability to walk without ataxia.
Even so, I thought I should spend a little time looking at my local candidates and their parties, then apply my scoring system. I’ve never bothered to go this far before and may never do it again as I have copped some criticism for being too obsessed. Maybe you like your system of voting for the candidate with the highest superficial charm, and possible megalomania, or just the candidate at the top of the ballot box, or the best-looking, or the one you met once and seemed nice enough, but I think my methodology might be just a little better at picking someone who might actually try to improve my electorate and my country? Probably not, but at least I got this far too long blog article out of it to add to the delusions of grandeur pile: ‘I’m awesome, but the world just doesn’t understand my genius yet.’
13 steps up the ladder to political nirvana
I won’t even be following my steps in order, but the outcome is the same. That’s the kind of politically-correct nanny-state I like: reasonable guidelines with enough freedom for self-expression. That’s basically the system we have now, unless you believe David Leyonhjelm, LDP leader and co-owner of the Wicked Vans. (one of these isn’t true and the other is questionable)
(yeast-like parasitic fungi that can cause thrush)
Who are these five young candidates that have likely been driving some people crazy? I’m a misanthropic humanist, essentially meaning that I have a love/hate relationship with everyone. Perhaps this means that I can analyse people a little better than average? Perhaps not, but here goes probably nothing useful to anyone.
As well as Googling, I emailed all the candidates, asking if their own personal views differed from that of their parties’. Claire and Simon replied (thank you!). See below for excerpts of their replies. I will assume that the others tow the party line and couldn’t escape it anyway just the tractor beam sucking the Millennium Falcon into the Death Star.
I have not, to my knowledge ever met any of the candidates, though my wife claims to have served Sharan when my wife worked at Kmart. But I’m trying to accept them as human beings, rather than untouchable political monoliths.
Wayne Swan, Labor, Still the World’s Greatest Treasurer?
I had to double-check that current sitting member Wayne Swan was treasurer long, long ago, before the dark times, before the Abbott Empire, because I’d forgotten. It’s probably the toughest job in politics, because if you actually ‘budget emergency’ up the economy, nothing else matters. Wayne did not destroy the economy, just like the LNP will not destroy Medicare. One does tire of the extremist language used that we know is absurd. But both sides of the duopoly do it as part of their entertaining farce that has nothing to do with their actual jobs. Besides agreeing with Swan’s criticism of trickle-down economics and his assertion that your postcode determines so much about your future, I’ll just take Christopher Pyne’s word for it. I have never received responses to my questions on Twitter and email (less than 10, in case you think I spammed him for fun troll times), but why would one of his 14 yo ‘volunteer’ social media executives want to talk to me?
- By the time question time came around, passions were high and everyone forgot to use their inside voices.
- Christopher Pyne spied former Labor treasurer Wayne Swan shouting in a most unparliamentary way.
- “During the Prime Minister’s answer, the Member for Lilley was swearing disgracefully at the Prime Minister,” Pyne told the Speaker Tony Smith.
- Swear Bear Swan denied using unparliamentary language, so Pyne was asked to tell the chamber what it was that assaulted his shell-like ears.
- Pyne couldn’t bring himself to repeat the profanity because “that’s exactly what he wants me to do”.
- Instead he wrote down the swear word and gave it to the teacher, sorry, Speaker.
- What on earth did the former Treasurer say? Did he tell Turnbull to buck up or consider taking a punt?
- No, it was much more shocking.
- “Crap,” said the Member for Lilley.
Claire Ogden, Greens, Circus Performer and Teacher
Claire spent some time out of her busy schedule to email me back with replies to a few questions I had. I want to believe so hard that the Greens policies are evidence-based rather than ideological that my bias might be showing when I claim to agree that the Greens are a political force to be reckoned with. I do hope that people can lose their old conceptions of this party and look at them with a fresh set of eyes as I have. And I am also sick and tired of the clear bullying that goes on from the two-party duopoly. If they didn’t feel threatened that their toss a coin to see who wins system might come to an end, they wouldn’t feel the need to resort to such schoolyard tactics. It would also be nice to get some more non-career politicians in the lower house who aren’t lawyers. But let’s not pretend that our 3rd great political party can win. The Greens preferences will flow to Labor, and Swanny will be back as a backbench-warmer this time.
Who knows, if I keep drinking the Green Cool-Aid, the Greens might get me onboard in the future and then who knows what we’ll be able to achieve? Maybe a few extra votes!
“I can’t think of a single policy that I disagree with the Greens on. This is largely because Greens policies are evidence-based rather than ideological… to make life better for people and the environment.” Claire Ogden
I asked a follow-up question regarding economic credentials: “many economists have publicly endorsed our policies including well-known economics professor, John Quiggin, from the University of Queensland.” Claire Ogden
Full emails below
David Kingston, LNP, Environmental Engineering Consultant
The LNP don’t need Lilley and won’t win, so sorry, David, I won’t open the pod bay doors for you. I haven’t found anything special about David that would change my scoring from any cookie-cutter LNP candidate. Is this the kind of hatred and bigotry that causes Scott Morrison to cry himself to sleep every night? There’s the standard chauvinism stuff from right-wingers with weak theories of mind, but that’s not unusual. It’s on the spectrum of attitudes that leads to Eddie McGuire and Alan Jones drowning women/gays fantasies and our worship of Peter Brock, with near perfect amnesia that he was possibly a more successful wife-beater than driver, but it’s unfair to blame David for this deeply encultured problem that to be fair to the LNP, the are trying to do something about.
I’m assuming he’s not another Cory Bernardi, in which case it would affect my preferences. Cory does not have a sufficiently high IQ and EQ to be in politics, but that’s democracy I guess. David’s an environmental engineer, so besides having an amazing skill at producing reports so long that they are weighed rather than read to confirm completion, let’s assume he cares about the environment, and is more like me than ‘Finding Cory’s Humanity’, while strictly towing the party line on policies that won’t meet the international targets we’ve agreed on. These policies will have to change; especially if Turnbull can shed his Abbot skin, and come out to play and be the centre-right evidence-based Prime Minister I want to believe he can be. He might even listen to the Greens once or twice and steal some of their evidence-based policies.
Sharan Hall, My Family Last, Thermomix Consultant burning us with hell-fire soup
I’m not going to even pretend to be nice about the Family First party. I’m reasonably sure that Sharan isn’t the devil incarnate, but when it comes to evidence-based policies, FF are strictly ideological. I have a line in the political sand, and FF cross it. I can’t believe they are sill climate change deniers! At this point, you have to be $%&*^$%ed or ideologically brainwashed or just lying to deny climate change. It is the greatest challenge that humanity currently faces and to deny this is to be so divorced from reality, I wonder how they can tie their shoelaces and feed themselves. If this sounds mean, it is. If you don’t believe me, then how about mamamia.com.au ?
Simon Holmick, Not the Liberal Party / Not the Democrats / Not Party Animals, Doctor
Simon was the other candidate to respond to my email. I’m having real trouble understanding where the LDP are coming from. My vision of them is a mischaracterisation, but gun-toting, swearing, anti-government American hicks, except that they aren’t American and they definitely aren’t hicks. They are more likely to be your doctor or accountant than the angry slack-jawed yokel in your street you know to steer clear of. Why are they so convinced that regulation is bad? Regulation is an inconvenience, it’s annoying, much of it is over-the-top, but I see no reason for a drastic change with what we’re doing now. My skin doesn’t love a sun-burnt country, but I kind of do love our mildly politically correct ninny nanny state that mostly gets it right unless your ideology means that you have a confirmation bias to all the political correctness and regulation gone mad over-hype.
“I whole-heartedly agree with the policies of the Liberal Democrats… The solution to most problems is not more government or regulation but less.” Simon Holmick
Full response below
Smart-dumbs in politics who lack self-reflective and empathic critical thinking skills
There’s a kind of smart person I call smart-dumb, who can perform very well academically, but has little insight into their own terribly flawed brains subject to the same irrationality as the rest of us sheep. I have a perfect case study in my family of a smart-dumb. I’m dumb enough to not believe I just ‘know’ what is best for me, because I’m I think I’m a perfectly rational omniscient genius with unlimited free will. I’m smart enough to understand what political correctness is and what it isn’t. I’m not classically politically correct; nobody complains because I know how to cross the line and why. I have made misogynistic jokes worse than wicked vans, that do not offend, because of context and intent. But why am I talking about myself when this is supposed to be about Simon Holmick? I have libertarian friends who aren’t just smart-dumb, so I know that in practise, the LDP’s bark is all they have. There’s no real bite and the LDP have as much chance of gaining any real power as I have of buying a gun because I believe I need to carry a concealed weapon for personal protection.
Did interacting with individual candidates affect my preferences?
Probably not, but it’s important to remember that these are real human beings. I did take another look at LDP to make sure I wasn’t being unfair and whether I was completely mis-characterising them with straw-man arguments. Then I saw the big bullies from The Chaser showcase their glorious leader’s familiarity with the term f*ck-off and I swung the other way. But they don’t scare me like Family First and I’d be more than happy to try to learn more about why they tick.
We absolutely need minor parties! We get so lost in the giant Labor Liberal National Party Glorious Omni-Benevolent Duopoly (LLNP-GOD; aka the Coles & Woollies of Australian politics; aka The Bullshort Artists) with their members who can seem more like cartoon characters. When I watch the two major parties bickering on Q&A, I usually just switch off and play the wabbit season, duck season bit between Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck in my head. But individual politicians are so much more than their party memberships. You might dislike Kitchen Cabinet as I do, but at least Annabel tries to show that maybe some politicians are two and a quarter dimensional rather than just 2D caricatures on our screens.
And to be fair, it’s understandable that individual candidates would share their parties’ views. I don’t see as much willful deception as others claim to see. molding one’s views a little into the group think of your party is probably vital for a stable democracy; otherwise parties most likely couldn’t stay glued together like conjoined-multiple-birth-toddlers or human centipedes. Whether we like it or not, we need groups of people to govern us in our democracy; even if it does seem like a giant duopoly dictatorship where we just flip-flop between the two major parties and average out in the centre. Perhaps that is what Australia needs, but as important are all the small evidence-based parties who, to use the old Democrats war-cry, keep the bastards honest, and also really do help to curb their more extremist ambitions. Just think of our bi-partisan offshore detention policy. Regardless of your opinion, we need people who don’t just fall in step with Grandpa Malcolm and Grandma Bill. There has got to be more than one way to skin a refugee, demonised as a possible terrorist, in near-permanent limbo, with no hope for the future.
Steps 2,5,6: Deal-Breaker Extremist Radicals:
(who can’t get offended by being called extremist radicals who could do far more harm to Australia than both ISIS and Gary Marshall holiday movies like Mother’s Day, because both FF and LDP believe in strong freedom of speech)
Family First Party (not individual candidate)
More accurate name: God First; women, gays and the environment last
To repeat from my previous thoughts, I will never vote for Family First unless they somehow become critical thinkers who follow the scientific method.
- Separation of church and state is a must for a prosperous society where we embrace healthy diversity rather than just waiting around for the second coming of Christ
- This video sums up their reasonable sounding facade hiding their destructive ideological extremism. Why not be proud of who you are instead of feeling the need to con the voters? I’ve interacted online with ISIS fanboys and at least they are proud of who they are and are not warm and cuddly, except when they’re fawning over their cats.
- These two statements sum up how duplicitous they are. They want to eat their body of Christ and have it too? They are Christians attempting and failing to wear veils of secularism.
- “Family First is independent of any church or denomination”
- “…our Christian heritage is something we are both proud of and grateful for”
- This vitriolic statement from their website shows just how nasty they are beneath their smiling facade. Not very Christian of them, right?
- “The Greens will always be put last as they are a toxic cancer on our political system and are a clear and present danger to our economy.”
More accurate name: Gun-toting libertarians in bow-ties mowing down all the stupid people who prevent libertarianism from actually working in practice (not individual candidate)
I have a lot more sympathy for the libertarians and have a libertarian friend who is just a little paranoid about a possible uprising of the uneducated masses, where history tells us that the intellectuals are often the first to go. But I can’t vote for them, because I like the moderately politically correct, reasonable ninny-nanny state in Australia. I feel I have plenty of personal freedom and can say what I want. I don’t really want to spray-paint my car.
One of the candidates is from LDP, whose leader is the Wicked David Leyonhjelm. There seems to be an angry elitist streak in the LDP which I find fascinating; essentially we only need big government because of all the stupid people who belong to a different species and if they can’t take care of themselves without the politically correct high-tax nanny state, then let them f*ck off and die. And their ^$##&#&ed kids too. I’m sure they’re not that bad. My local candidate doesn’t seem to be, but I think the party group think is somewhere on the spectrum.
The leader of the LNP has an amazing mastery of the English language and is regarded as the Oscar Wilde of our generation: “Are you familiar with the term ‘f*ck off'”
- This video explains the philosophy that might sound good in principle, and might just work when we can evolve and lose our reptilian brains.
- Regulation is a must to minimise harm to all of us; not just the gun-toting wealthy over-educated paranoid survivalists waiting for a reason to rid Australia completely of bogans.
- These are not the old democrats; though this confusion likely gets them votes.
- They are libertarians: ideologues who place whatever-the-f*ck-personal-freedom-is above real harm to humanity. They don’t accept the science that we are all basically idiots with no common sense. We need regulations and some reductions of personal freedom to make us safer and protect us from ourselves.
- The US is way more Libertarian that Australia, and it doesn’t work to keep the people happy and safe. Australia is way higher on the global happiness indices, so I’d prefer our nanny state, thanks, with no radical change, just continual improvement towards harm minimisation
- There is still probably some scope to be more libertarian than any of the top three parties if one reviews all the evidence.
- These delusionists of freedom, that I would likely get along with, get second bottom because they are clearly less harmful than the Transubstantiation-formers, God botherers in disguise.
- However, I’m always open to evidence that the liberal democrats have it right and I have it wrong. Show me the evidence!
Greens: still a deal-breaker for many but not for me any more (not individual candidate)
They are for many, including Paul Keating, who still see The Greens as “a bunch of opportunists and trots hiding behind a gum tree trying to pretend they’re the Labor Party” I pretty much agree that they used to be more environmental radicals, but now that their ideology lines up with the science for the most part, they can lose their fixed beliefs and just follow the evidence, as my local candidate summed up perfectly in her email response to me. They are possibly the only reasonably sized party who can be evidence-based and who don’t appear to have union/business overlords. They have also done a lot of work to demonstrate their economic chops; which is still seen as a weakness for many. I’m starting to like the Greens more and more so fear I may be losing my critical thinking edge. Could I have actually found a party that lines up with my near-term vision for Australia? It sounds too good to be true, so it probably is, but they might be the best choice for me. Unless, as I keep saying, you can provide me with evidence that I’ve got it wrong. I’m not talking about using extremist tactics and three word slogans; you’ll need to go a little deeper inside me.
Other deal-breaker parties standing in other seats: see top of article and links
Steps 3,7,8,9: Scoring
Issue 1: Climate Change
Anthropogenic climate change is real. Only reality deniers disagree. It’s just a question of how bad it’s going to be. We obviously need to transition away from our carbon economy more quickly than will be comfortable, unless we just don’t give a f*ck about future generations. I know a few baby-boomers who hold this opinion and vote for a certain party who were deniers for far too long. All three parties agree now that doing something is a good idea; the difference is how much they plan to do about it.
- ++ greatly exceeding global directives
- possibly over-optimistic
- ++ huge focus on renewables
- + price on carbon
- + exceeding global directives
- + greater spending on renewables
- + price on carbon
- generally following global directives
- – not spending enough on renewables
- – no price on carbon but incentivise biggest polluters to slow down
- + no killing moths or putting boiling water on the ants
- + fond but not in love
- – current policy will not achieve targets
Issue 2: Diversity
I thrive on diversity, within a healthy range, where everyone respects basic harm-minimisation principles for all people, even ‘wretched’ boat people! Beyond this, extremist ideologies should be marginalised as best we can using science and critical thinking. There are many more extremist ideologies in Australia that do more harm than extremist Islam. Should we start with misogyny? The regressive left has a blind spot of post-modernism and moral relativism that is not evidence-based, but this really hasn’t taken hold in Australia like in the US.
- + no plebiscite for SSM
- + end offshore detention but risk that alternative plan may have unforseen negative consequences
- + supporters of safe-schools programs
- + no fear-mongering of minorities and poor people
- ++ Richard Di Natali isn’t a hippie chained to a tree with his head in the clouds
- + no plebiscite for SSM
- — boat people less demonised but still same policy of offshore detention as LNP
- ++ champions of safe-schools program
- + much less fear mongering of minorities
- +++ Penny Wong is one of my political heroes and Labor works towards gender balance in party
- + Penny Wong is in my ears and in my eyes
- — devisive plebiscite for same-sex marriage
- — demonising boat people in offshore detention
- — safe-schools program vilification
- — fear-mongering that harms minorities and encourages diversity haters
- — ghost of Tony Abbot
- — Corine Bernadetti, Erica Betsy & Georgina Makechristcum
Issue 3: Economic stability & prosperity for all Australians
Without a good economy, all the kings horses and all the kings men can’t put Humpty back together again. But it’s also inequality. The middle class in Australia does a lot better than they realise and they don’t even appreciate it. But those who really struggle are not being trickled down on. Some of the elites don’t care about this, but some fortunately do. I do. Why the f*ck did I deserve as a child to go to private school and have private health insurance? I was a kid who had done nothing! I have been lucky because of my family, the mining boom and decent property investment, but I don’t believe I deserve it any more than others who have worked just as hard, have the same raw intelligence, but didn’t win in the lottery of birth-right. I’m not suggesting a flat society, but how about CEO’s only get, say, ten times what their minions get? Would that be enough to live off? They don’t work ten times as hard and aren’t ten times smarter.
Greens -5 (check link for economic credentials)
- — completely untested at running the economy
- + done a lot of work show they mean business at demonstrating that they could run the economy
- – policy costing won’t be tested so they can promise the world
- – possible hidden socialist minority within which may upend our ‘class’ system too fast (I doubt this personally, but I’m trying to compensate for my bias)
- ++ lots of good work trying to overcome their historical baggage and old stigma against greenies
- – supposed to be champions of the working class but not a whole lot different to LNP in practise
- + hopefully still think about people first not business
- ++ ghost of Kevin Rudd but Labor didn’t destroy the economy
- — less convincing debt projections
- – after Costello, LNP would have better marks, but not after Hockey and his cigar smoking burn the poor budget
- ++ LNP haven’t destroyed the economy
- — pandering to small business owner narcissist tin-pot dictators
- – debt projections aren’t believable but less unbelievable than Labor
Totals: Green 15, Labor 15, LNP -10
Steps 10,11,12: Decision on a futile vote that will change nothing
Labor and Greens are equal on raw scoring,
but f*ck Wayne Swan for never answering any of my tweets and hail Claire Ogden for responding to my email! Neither party will win overall anyway.
Funnily enough, my preferences agree with the Greens how to vote. My parents will be horrified if they find out I’m thinking like a Green. I’ll be sure to bring it up at my next family event. I’m looking forward to again being told what a great bloke Scott Morrison is.
In fairness to LDP Scott who also responded to my email, I quickly ran the numbers to double-check that I shouldn’t put the LDP ahead of the LNP. It was close too, but LNP just edged them out based on proven economic performance, or at least no history of turning our country into Greece.
So Wayne Swan will still get my 2nd preference and Claire Ogden my first. Unless a miracle occurs, it makes no difference to the outcome whether I put Labor or Greens first, and Wayne will retain. Has he been banished forever from the front bench or might we see a return of The Graceful Swan? How about equality minister or something where he can just swim about and look pretty?
Well played Swanny. You win again! But it won’t be so easy next time…
You can follow The Founder, Dave Chaffey Hippie on Twitter, Facebook, Vine, Tumblr, Pinterest, Instagram and LinkedIn. Or just play make-believe with your imaginary sky-fairy who gets turned on by watching you committing all the seven deadly sins.
Thanks / Notes:
- Thanks to Dean Brennan, Jennifer Wilson and John Johnsonson for motivating me to care about politics. I stole the Bullshort joke from Johnsonson, and berated myself for not coming up with it myself.
- I can’t even face thinking about senate voting and will likely just check a few how-to-vote cards; the senate is a whole different quagmire of kettle-shaped crashed UFOs containing giant alien fish and worms with varying levels of brain damage or ass damage; not sure which end is which. Fortunately they just have to review legislation, so can’t really destroy all humans. Most will just continue to leave it up to Nick Xenophon to actually read all of the bills, then dumb it down to ‘illiterate and innumerate boat toddler‘ level.
Full email responses from my local candidates with salutations omitted. Thanks again for making me feel part of what makes Australia great: a reasonably healthy democracy.
Response excerpt from Claire Ogden, Greens candidate:
“I can’t think of a single policy that I disagree with the Greens on. This is largely because Greens policies are evidence-based rather than ideological so we use evidence to make decisions on the best way to make life better for people and the environment. I’m very proud to be standing for a party that will take climate action seriously, support renewable energy, support our elderly and our young people and protect the Great Barrier Reef among other things.”
“Please have a look at our initiatives involving the economy: http://greens.org.au/economy. We have some great policies and many economists have publicly endorsed our policies including well known economics professor, John Quiggin, from the University of Queensland. We are the only party with a long term vision for Australia.”
Response excerpt from Simon Holmick, LDP candidate:
“I wanted to let you know that as the LDP candidate for Lilley I whole-heartedly agree with the policies of the Liberal Democrats. I have to admit that this surprised me as I used to be a life-long liberal party voter but as I found myself becoming more of a “classical liberal”, the policies of the LDP appealed to me much more. The solution to most problems is not more government or regulation but less. The fact that the two major parties continually advocate for more spending and taxation, rather than less is what has spurred me to join the LDP.”