Ok, we’ve lived for years with the confusing situation where our “Liberal Party” is very confusing for those in the USA who see calling one a “liberal” is equivalent to suggesting that they are one of Satan’s disciples.
And, well of course, some of you on this wicked site won’t see anything wrong with being one of Satan’s disciples. That’s ok, but just remember when gay marriage is allowed that it certainly wasn’t the Liberals what done it…
Lately it’s become even more confusing in Australia because those claiming to be “conservatives” are those arguing for radical change, while anyone arguing for a conservative “there’s no need to change” position are vilified as extreme left wingers. And yes, the Republic and gay marriage are two obvious exceptions in what I’m saying here, but, like all true conservatives, I’ll ignore what doesn’t suit my argument and just keep going and argue that if one ignores the data that contradicts my position, then my position is backed up by evidence 100%. I mean, one only has to take out all the years where new records were set and one can see that not only is there no global warming this century, but in fact, there have been only a handful of years and I’m at least ten years younger.
Where was I? Oh, that’s right, back in 2003 where it’s still possible to stop Australia from resembling Uganda under Idi Amin. (Ah, Godwin must be pleased with that one!!)
So moving on … or forward… or backward.
Whatever, just so long as we’re moving right, because standing still is not an option… Even in a free country, because you shouldn’t be just standing around when you could be working.
My basic point is that it’s the so-called Conservatives that are arguing for radical change. “We need to change the way universities are funded!” “We need to change penalty rates!” “We need to change the conventions surrounding outgoing governments” “We need to change the way Arts is/are? funded!” “We need to change Christopher Pyne because he’s all red in the face and sulking and that’s a sign that he needs changing”
And so many of their changes seem to be about giving the government more capacity to make decisions without scrutiny.
Of the top of my head:
Let bosses decide who can work for them and get rid of this “unfair dismissal” nonsnese because when a boss wants to remove someone they must have a good reason because most sexual harassment cases are just brought on by feminazis who should realise that they’re lucky to have a job at all and shouldn’t be too fussy.
Let the Military and the Intelligence service decide REDACTED, because if it weren’t for REDACTED we’d never know about REDACTED so George Pell really enjoyed his time in the REDACTED.
Let the Arts Minister determine who deserves funding and stop the silly “peer review” system of the Arts Council because how would peers know what’s good and bad, and surely the Permanent Minister for the Arts, George Brandis – well they’ve spent half the national debt shifting his bookshelf, so clearly he can never be removed – only has to ask the “magnificent” Andrew Bolt about what’s worth funding.
Let the Immigration Minister decide whether or not Tony Abbott (and any other dual national who is threatening our country) the right to stay in Australia. Mm, this explains why they had to move Scott from Immigration to Social Services.
Yep, they may just have a point with that one!