I was recently asked if I would be posting a reflection on the candidates for the coming Federal election. To be honest, I was trying to avoid doing so. Not because there is nothing to say, but because people have become increasingly less able to engage rationally with discussion about politics (or religion, or even Marvel movies...) and I didn't want to become a lightening rod for the latest angry outbursts from irrational keyboard warriors.

In some ways this post will be easy. I looked back at my post before the last federal election, and not much has changed. Most of what I wrote back then is still true. With, perhaps, the following additional comments.

Regarding the 'big two', in spite of being slightly better on social policies,* Labor has become even more aggressively anti-Christian, actively promising legislation that will target Christian beliefs, target children in the womb and the elderly, the vulnerable and venerable in our community. They have not improved their social policies significantly. One significant difference seems to be their attempt to take a poke at negative gearing, which they claim will ... well, apart from some vague promises about affordable housing and removing tax breaks for the wealthy, it isn't clear what they think this will do, nor are economists confident in predicting the outcome.

In spite of being slightly less aggressive towards the vulnerable in terms of actively killing them,* Liberal economic policies are slightly more mean to the economically vulnerable, perhaps they will be in a little less danger from active termination under Labor, only to suffer under economic conditions designed by Liberals to increase the wealth of the wealthy. One significant change is new Liberal leader Scott Morrison seems slightly less likely than his predecessor or the Labor caucus to push legislation actively prosecuting Christians ... for being Christian.

I regret to speak of it, but Clive Palmer is back. Back spamming the electorate with a "best one-liners of Donald Trump" in the hope that there are enough gullible voters to allow him to exploit parliament for his personal gain. Possibly the most cynical vote grabbing stunt in this election. Yes, I considered the Pirate party and Sex Party in making that comment.

Xenaphon has gone back to state parliament, reducing one of the less abhorrent possibilities, and there have been a number of significant political retirees, for good and bad reasons.

Another development since the last federal election is the emergence of the Australian Conservative Party and its merge with Family First and other minor groups. I wrote a summary of their platform in my comments on the NSW state election, the relevant section as follows:

The Australian Conservatives are Cory Bernardi's breakaway group (2017) which was formed to provide a 'more conservative' voice in politics. At first blush the Australian Conservatives seem compatible with Christian ideals, claiming to support families and the "Western values" based on our Judeo-Christian heritage. This includes advocating against "Safe Schools" programme, against same sex marriage, against abortion and for freedom of religion. The claim to support families, however, does not appear to impact on their tax, education or welfare policies, which seem to follow the usual fiscal conservative line. These policies may be conservative, but Christianity is not conservative (or liberal). Their "religious freedom" seems to be only for Christians, with policies mostly aimed at excluding or opposing Islamic influence. Specifically calling for legal, defence, and social policies that guard against such influences. While Christians may have some concerns over reports of bias against Christian immigrants, this party's opposition to helping refugees should be of concern to all Christians. 

"We will withdraw from the UN Refugee Convention, and never resettle those who arrive here illegally"

Christians... read the last half of that sentence again, then look up what the Bible says about refugees.

They also advocate for cutting humanitarian aid to neighbouring countries in favour of an "Australia first" policy. The link to anti-Islamic movement is underlined by Cory Bernardi's connections with the Q Society of Australia, a specifically anti-Islamic group. In fact the Q Society's president joined the Australian Conservatives, along with Kirrilee Smith, who was with the Australian Liberty Alliance and has been suggested as a NSW candidate for the Australian Conservatives. UPDATE: The first candidate on their NSW Legislative Council list is Greg Walsh, who is a Catholic Lawyer, and a good man. Also, I have to acknowledge the Party's response to the recent horrific murders in New Zealand was appropriate.

 TLDR: Possibly good on marriage and life issues, not so good on welfare, dangerous fear-mongering regarding minorities, foreigners and refugees.

One peculiar development has been the introduction of Mark Latham into One Nation. I should make it clear that Latham has been elected to the NSW Legislative Council (NSW state government upper house), but he has also been the party leader in NSW since 2018. It does not make One Nation any less whacky than it was, but his political and media experience have presented different face of One Nation, which may make it slightly more attractive to voters outside of Queensland. Anyone thinking seriously about placing them anywhere near the top half of a preference list should take a look at the string of disqualified candidates.

In relation to the major parties I have used the cautious phrase "...slightly less [bad]" a few times. I do not think that either major party offers much that is good for us. I think that voting for the slightly less bad candidate is a bad idea for the long term. Voting for the less bad candidate will never achieve anything good, just a slower implementation of evil. Voting for minor candidates is a difficult solution because most of them are advocating unwise (if populist) policies and can barely hold enough candidates together to be effective in parliament. What we have seen in Australian politics, however, is that the major parties do react when enough voters choose a minority party. Liberal's move to the right on immigration is almost certainly an attempt to win back disgruntled voters who abandoned them in favour of One Nation. Labor's aggressive shift to active assault on Christian morals is almost certainly a bid to woo disgruntled voters who abandoned them for the Greens. To be clear, both of these are bad developments, but they demonstrate that we are able to send a message by voting for a minority.

We should ask ourselves whether it is better to throw our weight behind a slightly less bad party in the hope of a slower implementation of bad policies, or to refuse to support anyone that does not offer a half decent platform, admittedly at the risk of having to endure the slightly worse of two bad options. A short term with a possibility of a slightly worse outcome, but with a strong message to all candidates that they owe us a better set of options.

A relatively recent change to the way we vote for the upper house (Senate) means that it is easier than ever to vote for specific candidates without having to number every single box below the line. You can now choose a few as 15 candidates below the line for your vote to be valid. This allows voting for a candidate without handing all your preferences over to that candidate. This also makes the flow of preferences much less predictable, meaning that minority parties are slightly more likely to be elected by votes than back room preference deals.

For those who disagree with me, feel free to post a rational rebuttal and counter argument. I welcome it. These are only a layman's opinions. Abuse and irrational rants will likely be ignored, but I may consider leaving them up as a warning to others. :)