At this point, some may consider anyone voting, or considering voting, for the LNP as TFG; too far gone. These are the ‘rusted ons’, the ‘dyed in the wool’ types who are unreachable. I do not think this is a productive strategy, as pleasant as the dopamine hit might be.

Instead, I will go here: I will meet these voters on their home turf and compare the LNP’s own values to their actions and see how they stack up. Some of you may recall I have taken a similar approach to Mr Morrison and his play-acting Christianity. Some points of comparison between the values that the LNP espouse on their website and their actions require no commentary beyond simple laughter, as we will see.

Values vs Action, Part One: Freedom

The first values statement says

[We believe] in the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples; and we work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative

Inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples, you say? So, Julian Assange should be freed then? Working people should be paid a wage that keeps pace with productivity? Also, a ‘lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives’? Those on the Indue card would tend to disagree with this claim. The Biloela family would tend to disagree with this claim. As for individual and private sector initiative, this means tax cuts and deregulation. The latter refers to health and safety regulations, pay and conditions and all the rest of those pesky, what are they called, laws that get in the way of Holy, Sacred Profit. Next

Values vs Action, Part Two: Tax and Democracy

The second statement reads

[We believe] In government that nurtures and encourages its citizens through incentive, rather than putting limits on people through the punishing disincentives of burdensome taxes and the stifling structures of Labor’s corporate state and bureaucratic red tape.

A government that nurtures and encourages citizens through incentive, you say? By incentives, again they mean perks and privileges for the rich and corporations. When the LNP say they are the party of lower taxes, they are not talking about you! The crack about ‘there are two types of LNP voters: the rich and the manipulated. Check your wallet to see which one you are’ carries a great deal of truth. Second, if you have to define yourself in terms that essentially say ‘we are not the other mob’, that tells me nothing about what you stand for. Also, the tax claim is a lie. Shadow Treasurer Jim Chalmers correctly noted that the two highest taxing governments in the last thirty years were LNP governments. Once again, the party of lower taxes means for the rich and corporations.

The third statement reads

[We believe] In those most basic freedoms of parliamentary democracy – the freedom of thought, worship, speech and association.

Freedom of speech, you say? You crow about this often, but if I might offer a few counterpoints to this claim, here is the first one. Mr Jordan Shanks (friendlyjordies) on the claim that Morrison wants to censor government critics:

Second, every single Labor member who has been confronted with ‘Mr Speaker, I move that the member no longer be heard’ while at the dispatch box would like a word with you. That piece of parliamentary procedure was originally designed to end attempts at filibustering debate. It was never intended to silence debate altogether. But regardless of that, this action of silencing your opposition does not square with any claim to love freeze peach. Lastly, nothing quite says ‘we value freedom of religion’ (which includes non-religion) quite like trying to institute religious privilege into law.

Values vs Action, Part Three: Justice and Equality

The fourth statement reads

[We believe] In a just and humane society in which the importance of the family and the role of law and justice is maintained.

This one is the first of a couple of jokes in the LNP beliefs. Just and humane society where law and justice are maintained? Your government held a Royal Commission into Unions and appointed a man, Dyson Heydon, to preside over it despite his involvement in selecting then Prime Minister Tony Abbott for the Rhodes Scholarship! You have stacked the Fairwork Commission (among many other administrative bodies) with your close associates. Your government refused to simply legislate marriage equality, instead giving a national platform to some of the most ignorant and bigoted clowns in the country. Finally on this point, have you heard of Katherine Deves? Just and humane society indeed. Go away now.

Statement five reads

[We believe] In equal opportunity for all Australians; and the encouragement and facilitation of wealth so that all may enjoy the highest possible standards of living, health, education and social justice.

This one is quite funny too, but I will respond anyway. Equal opportunity? Indue card, anyone? Also, this statement tries (unsuccessfully) to hide the true beliefs of the party. Implied in this statement is the suggestion that ‘the highest possible standards of living, health, education and social justice’ are functions of wealth. In other words, the wealthy ‘deserve’ these things and the peasants do not. This claim partially explains the funding of private schools despite cutting money from public schools. Indeed, a recent edition of NSW Educator Journal suggests that, for every dollar that went to private schools, the federal government gave public schools a mere 27 cents. But equal opportunity, right? Get that garbage outta here.

Values vs Actions, Part Four: Privatisation, Environment and Security

Statement six reads

[We believe] That, wherever possible, government should not compete with an efficient private sector; and that businesses and individuals – not government – are the true creators of wealth and employment.

In a word, this statement could be summed up as Libertarian. This is ra-ra privitisation free market as religion garbage. Government not competing with the private sector (usually because the government provides better services as they are not obligated to turn a profit) is code for privatising everything. These people do not understand that the reason some things are run by government (the military, the police, public schools, public hospitals) is precisely because they should not be profit-driven. Finally, if you truly believe that government is not a true creator of employment, why have you not resigned yet? Oh I see: your cushy government jobs paying hundreds of thousands per year (plus perks) are justified, but anyone down on their luck who needs a little government support is moocher and a parasite. Silly me.

Statement seven says

[We believe] In preserving Australia’s natural beauty and the environment for future generations.

I think this brief clip sums up my reaction to such a claim:

What a total, utter and complete crock. Have you ever heard something so ridiculous? Said it before, say it again: get that garbage outta here.

We end with a statement that, in light of Australia’s declining relations with our pacific neighbours, is also laughable

[We believe] That our nation has a constructive role to play in maintaining world peace and democracy through alliance with other free nations.

First of all, the maintenance of world peace implies that it exists. Presently, it does not. So your claim is nonsensical. Second, Australia is an irrelevancy on the world stage. The idea that Australia, an island in the middle of nowhere, has any role to play other than as a water carrier for the US, is crap. Finally, Australia has trade relations with China, one of the least free nations on earth. No, what this all really means is Australia will continue to play ball with the mafia organisation that is foreign relations.

Conclusion: You are What You Do

Political parties are free to say what they like, but it is their actions that define them. No amount of flowery rhetoric can hide the true nature of a political party, which is defined by its policies. The current Australian government may have flowery rhetoric in its beliefs, but, as I hope I have shown here, their actions and policies tell a different story.