Should Malcolm call George's Bluff!

[J o h n S m i t h]

Correct and there was no trace of your imaginary "block of swinging voters" waiting to confirm that Australia now has a choice of voting for two ALP parties

Seriously. And you want people to think you have more than a few 3 word slogans and phrases? you're sounding as deluded as Lisa.

It's crap of course,

not even close to crap. On social policies Menzies was very left wing. Here's his ideas on the 'dole bludgers' you and the fkwits in government keep trying to attack.



Menzies would turn in his grave if he saw the crap the libs try now.

the Greens are more so despised by a larger majority of voters..

and that's why they, ON, Bernardi and Christensen will never lead the country ... they're all MINORITIES ... I know you hit the point totally by accident, but I'm surprised you still hit it.

Anyone who advocates for leftist policies, government intervention and regulation that without fail, always fail along with higher taxes and class warfare is a stupid fucking leftist

You fkken idiot, that only covers every liberal party member for the last 50 yrs.

[J o h n S m i t h]

Here you go numbnuts .... found this 2 mins after I replied earlier ... try to remember, this is coming from a rightard



Away from the cut and thrust of the daily partisan political combat, the Liberal Party is in a fight for its soul. What does being a Liberal really mean? What should Liberals stand for? Is the party inherently conservative or liberal, and to what extent should it be an amalgam of the two ideologies?

Who better to quote on his understanding of what the Liberal Party should stand for than its founder, Robert Menzies: “We took the name ‘Liberal’ because we were determined to be a progressive party, willing to make experiments, in no sense reactionary but believing in the individual, his right and his enterprise, and rejecting the socialist panacea.”

Take the opportunity to re-read that quote, reminding yourself how often Menzies is incorrectly referred to as a champion of conservatism: “determined to be a progressive party”. Not a lot of ambiguity in that.

Of course Menzies looks conservative today, rather than progressive, namely on social issues. Funnily enough, Australia and the world have changed just a tad since Menzies was Prime Minister from 1949 to 1966.

Transposing his views on social issues into today’s debates to claim Menzies was conservative in his time is foolish. Such a construct renders everyone in history conservative other than full-blown radicals, including in the mid-20th century when Menzies was PM. Back then Aborigines didn’t have the vote, women in many developed countries didn’t either. The idea of same-sex marriage was virtually unthinkable in the mainstream. Opinion polls wouldn’t have reflected public support for legalising assisted suicides.

Times change. Had Menzies governed today, his well-articulated instinct for progressive politicking would have played out according to the policy scripts relevant now. He is far more likely to have emulated David Cameron in Britain or John Key in New Zealand and pushed for a free vote on SSM, supporting it himself, than sought to block such moves, as Tony Abbott did. And as Malcolm Turnbull is now doing, pandering to his conservative flank.

While Liberal ranks in Menzies time did include personnel who would be classified as conservative today, few were reactionary like so many modern self-styled conservatives now are. Menzies specifically dismissed reactionary politicking as something the Liberal Party did not embrace: “in no sense reactionary”.

How times change.

The definition of a reactionary is someone who opposes political and social reforms. A conservative holds traditional values but, more importantly, supports change only via well-thought-through deliberation and consideration. In other words, they don’t react to progressive thinking by immediately pulling up the drawbridge on reform. They want to ensure, before change is embarked on, that un­intended consequences have been adequately thought through.

This traditional brand of conservatism fits neatly with liberalism. The evolved reactionary version does not. Which helps explain the schisms on the Right of politics both in Australia and abroad. Self-styled conservatives today would do well to read 18th-century philosopher Edmund Burke, the father of conservatism. His numerous treatises on the subject flesh out his thinking.

If self-styled conservative commentators and MPs find plunging into such texts too much to bear, I’m sure there are crib notes that simplify and explain Burke’s reasoning. Philosophy isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, even mainstream philosophy. Here’s a key element of Burke’s case for conservatism to get them started: he advocated governing with an eye to the importance of history as a source of knowledge and wisdom.

Let’s not forget Menzies named his new party the Liberal Party, not the Conservative Party. He didn’t choose the name Liberal because he wanted the party to be defined as conservative, even if his aim was to keep conservatives in the tent.

The things that unite progressives and today’s conservatives, however, are becoming less pronounced than what divides them. This is why One Nation is rising, Cory Bernardi has broken away to form his own conservative party, and internally what’s left of the Liberals is a divided mess.

Getting back to Menzies and the stunning quote that sums up how he saw the Liberal Party, those words were written by him in 1967. After his long prime ministership, reflecting on the party and his time in power. It’s not as though he intended the party to be progressive and on reflection it didn’t turn out that way. On reflection he defined the party as rooted in progressive thinking.

The number of times I have heard Menzies’ name used in vain by poorly read conservatives as some sort of guiding light to their thinking says more about their limited grasp of history than what Menzies espoused.

It really should come as no ­surprise that Menzies was less conservative than modern conservatives would like to think. Apart from his own words and party’s name, the most significant figure in non-Labor politicking who preceded Menzies was Alfred Deakin, Australia’s second prime minister. Deakin was a liberal through and through.

The rise of One Nation on the Liberal Party’s right flank presents problems for conservatives (most of whom are in fact reactionary, so let’s describe them that way) and liberals alike. Reactionaries because One Nation is destined to pursue policies the Liberal Party won’t and shouldn’t. But liberals need to be cautious, because pressure will come to bear internally from reactionaries to steal One Nation’s political oxygen by stealing its policies from time to time.

This is a lesser evil than One Nation’s rise and rise, but it’s unlikely to contain the One Nation phenomenon. The minor party has learned from past mistakes, Pauline Hanson in particular has. So much so that in Western Australia a preference deal has been done that will likely give One Nation control of the state’s upper house irrespective of which major party forms government.

In Queensland the LNP may yet do a preference deal with One Nation such that the parties form a coalition government. Polling federally tells us that One Nation, if it can hold itself together rather than descend into internal divisions, is growing fast enough to overcome the new Senate rules designed to hamper minor parties.

This means the future in modern politics may well see Liberals forced to negotiate with One Nation in the same way Labor has been forced to deal with the Greens: occasionally in alliance, always doing preference deals, occasionally under threat in certain electorates. Inner-city seats are the Greens’ target zones. One Nation’s targets are regional and outer metropolitan electorates.

The mainstreaming of One Nation is the big political story of 2017. It is also the biggest challenge to right-of-centre parties in decades.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion ... 1487477789

[J o h n S m i t h]

[J o h n S m i t h]

For years I've been asking why cane cockies still support the Nats when the Nats let the Libs sell them out at every turn?

I agree with that. And it's not just cane farmers. The nats sold out all the rural sector decades ago. Unless you're a huge set up with millions of dollars behind you, free trade is killing our farmers. It's unbelievable that many of our fruit and veges we don't grow anymore because we keep bringing in cheap crap from china.

[J o h n S m i t h]

and John's wrong about Malcolm losing support for failing to stand up to the rabid right.

the polls prove you wrong. He went from an approval rating of 60%, to a record low in record time. He's polling even lower than Abbott now. You can pretend all you like, Turnbull is fucked because if he goes one way, he loses support the rabid right in his party and loses support of the caucus, if he moves the other way he loses the support of the public. The best thing he can do is stand down and let someone else become the sacrificial cow, but his pride and arrogance won't let him. Unless the libs make some big changes to their policies, and go after corporate tax evaders instead of pensioners and the unemployed, they've almost certainly lost the next election.

[Outlaw Yogi]

On social policies Menzies was very left wing.

Do you actually believe Menzies, the man who created a misnomer by giving a conservative party a left wing name honestly believed a word of that?
Might I remind you Menzies was a die hard Royalist who was quoted as saying he felt physically sick every time he came back to Australia and saw the red roof tiles from the plane window.
Yep, Menzies was so left wing he ran a referendum on outlawing Communism in Australia.
You must live in fucken Fairy Land mate.

Menzies would turn in his grave if he saw the crap the libs try now.

Turnbull's Labor -lite policies? Yes indeed!

[Outlaw Yogi]

the polls prove you wrong.

No, they prove me correct.

He went from an approval rating of 60%, to a record low in record time.

That's right, because he implemented policies the electorate could have got from Labor.

[J o h n S m i t h]

Do you actually believe Menzies, the man who created a misnomer by giving a conservative party a left wing name honestly believed a word of that?

so anything you don't agree with you're going to say is a lie, even direct quotes?

Yep, Menzies was so left wing he ran a referendum on outlawing Communism in Australia.

you're getting confused. No one said he was left wing, only that he was more left than the current mob. Comparing the left to communists is like pretending the right are anarchists.

Turnbull's Labor -lite policies? Yes indeed!

turnbulls policies? how have they changed from Abbotts policies?

No, they prove me correct.

not even close

That's right, because he implemented policies the electorate could have got from Labor.

what policies did Turnbull implement?

[IQS.RLOW]

and John's wrong about Malcolm losing support for failing to stand up to the rabid right.

the polls prove you wrong. He went from an approval rating of 60%, to a record low in record time. He's polling even lower than Abbott now. You can pretend all you like, Turnbull is fucked because if he goes one way, he loses support the rabid right in his party and loses support of the caucus, if he moves the other way he loses the support of the public.

These are both examples of movement in the same leftist direction. If he tries to march to his leftist beat he will lose the support of the right, he will lose support of the cabinet (not caucus) because they have finally woken up that all the bleeding is in one direction and he will lose support of the majority of the public that matters (ie. Not the whinging left). If he goes right and goes hard right, he may have a chance but no one believes Turnbull has it in him to preserve the party and himself by publicly disowning his leftardism.

The best thing he can do is stand down and let someone else become the sacrificial cow, but his pride and arrogance won't let him. Unless the libs make some big changes to their policies, and go after corporate tax evaders instead of pensioners and the unemployed, they've almost certainly lost the next election.

Going after corporate tax increases (not tax evaders- they are not doing anything illegal and most are paying their fair share. This #fakenews #leftist outrage was created in the social Marxist laboratory of the Greens Australia Institute and released turnover figures vs tax paid for a single year. This was lapped up by their partners in slime, Fauxfacts media who love to propagate #fakenews.

Some idiots on political forums are still using this #fakenews and using it to screech that droning lefty catch-all catchphrase "FAIRNESS"

Like most lefty catchphrases, "FAIRNESS" is trotted out daily and always with #fakenews and enough lacking of any context to make it fucking meaningless, but that's ok because #FAiRNESS! So now the latest talking points from HQ on Sussex Street and Getup is to demand that no one is allowed to touch the spiralling welfare payments. Every single dollar given out whether for unemployment, family tax benefits, child care etc is now an entrenched right that no one should be able to take away a single dollar. Nor should the overall pool of money be allocated differently because "#FAIRNESS". If any changes have to be made, only increases are acceptable and even these should be complained about bitterly as the govt being "#UNCARING"

So today's spin is that the govt is targeting the poor and downtrodden (#UNCARING) while letting this greedy corporate bastards get away with earning a billion dollars and not paying income tax! (#FAIRNESS)
While you are door knocking for union donations from the other poor workers around you, make sure no one says anything about the corporates not doing anything wrong and have been audited by the tax office. If some smart arse points out that corporations aren't taxed on turnover, so why does the AI report compare these two figures, let your training kick in. Blow the little red whistles we gave you. Shout and point at them by telling "YOURE OPRESSING ME" and the declare the arm's length circumference of the imaginary circle you have drawn is now a safe space. Tears at this stage are also appropriate. Place your hands over your ears and say lalallalallalalalalalal until reinforcements arrive. You won't have to worry about being approached on any of these questions by Fauxfacts media or the ABC as they both agreed to "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more" and will be running the ALP/Greens/AI/Union's lines on constant rotation for the next 2 weeks and will increase the use of "#FAIRNESS" on air in line with the ALP propaganda unit agreement.This was signed by our good friend and comrade Алексей Богдан who holds a more equal position that his comrades at the ABC.

What "Going after the corporates" would really mean is a fundamental changing of the tax system and invoking sovereign risk. It's also a stupid idea because it will not solve anything as corporate taxation recovery will be sweet fuck all compared to the welfare bill. The welfare bill in this country is far to high and needs to be curtailed severely. Unfortunately, mooching welfare recipients and their leftist bullhorns now view their overall entitlements as a right to every dollar in every workers pocket to be taxed at 100% using the govt as their personal collection agency and then lobby the govt for a say in how much of the workers money be returned to him while screeching how they are entitled to his money and the government shouldn't be providing the workers with 'subsidies' when those on welfare and the unemployed are so hard done by "#FAIRNESS"

That 60% approval rating consisted of leftists delirious with affection for Turnbull for giving them two leftist parties to vote for. The reality was they would never vote for the coalition under any circumstance. It was a classic example of #fakepoll and #fakenews which always seep from the festering pores of the left. The LNPs own internal leftists have been staging a coup for control of the LNP but like all leftists, they forgot about base. Mark Textor even claimed that the base didn't matter and the siphoning of leftists votes under Turnbull would ensure victory. Again, like most leftists, they are nearly always wrong.

Leftist policies and politicians in the LNP is a toxic mix because most conservatives aren't stupid enough to fall for the childish appeals to emotion and lack of logic inherent in leftist policies and arguments.

There is only one course of action and that would be to correct the mess caused by Turnbull and his 54 bedwetters by having Turnbull stand down (the 54 should also go or at least the major plotters) and apologize to the base for thinking the LNP could attract Leftwing voters without even asking themselves why they should even try and attract leftwing voters.The left throughout Australian history are more often than not on the losing side of history and debates. Why would you even want to tie yourself to those train tracks?

[J o h n S m i t h]

(not tax evaders- they are not doing anything illega

no one said they were . They should however not be allowed to pay back imaginary loans to foreign head offices just so that they can avoid taxes here. Afterall, they use all the infrastructure the taxes build. Apple moved $9B off shore last year, that's $9B they didn't pay any tax on. It's a rort and a scam.
My personal preference is to replace all income and gst taxes with a transaction tax of perhaps 1 or 2% to be collected by the banks. That way there is no more tax avoidance, no more scams or dodgy set ups, no tax deducations. They move money, they pay tax.

Some idiots on political forums are still using this #fakenews

you realise just because you don't like it that doesn't make it fakenews, right? the only thing fake is your pretending to have a clue

Every single dollar given out whether for unemployment, family tax benefits, child care etc is now an entrenched right that no one should be able to take away a single dollar

all things bought in by liberal govts. and no one is saying don't touch them, what they're saying is don't touch them first. They can make plenty of cuts to payments people don't need. We pay more in superannuation subsidies than we do in unemployment benefits and the pension combined. If anyone can afford to chip in more it's those with the money, not those without.

While you are door knocking for union donations from the other poor workers around you

never paid any union fee's, never collected unions fee's, never had anything to do with any union whatsoever so that's another of your fantasies shattered.

That 60% approval rating consisted of leftists delirious with affection for Turnbull for giving them two leftist parties to vote for

you keep your head firmly planted up your arse if you like, meanwhile the real world will continue to move without you.