Good on you Lyle. You will be an asset to the Australian Conservatives and to Australia.

So many pages....
So little said.

ateday,

In most cases you can get all you need to know by reading the first paragraph then going straight to the last one. A lot of padding that advances nothing goes into most articles - word requirements.

Menzies was a liberal and a very different pony from conservatives. VERY DIFFERENT!

The conservative element need to know the brand of born to rule/divide and rule politics has had its day! Ditto the religious right! And riding to victory on the coattails of the genuine liberals in the coalition!

It's a very long time since we had progressive conservatives.

J.C. was very strong, I believe, in his condemnation of the other variety. Like those money changers in his father's house.

He seems to be on the public record stating one can't serve both God and mannon. And one doesn't need to look very hard to see most conservatives serving mannon? Negative gearing anyone? Subsidized Super? A granny killling GST?

Being able to quote chapter and verse from some holy book and decide to speak for God or know his mind? Doesn't make one a christian.

But may well make one a hidebound, pulpit pounding hypocrite, which I believe is an apt description of most of the conservative element in today's society?
Alan B.

Pretty true; all of it!

A deeply unimpressive manifesto.

>A nation unsure of its past cannot be confident it has a future.

So there's a single acceptable view of our country's history that we all must subscribe to unquestioningly? That doesn't sound like freedom to me. A mark of a mature and open society is the ability to question and debate the facts and meaning of history.

>They knew that without Christian faith there can be no virtue

What a peculiar notion. So presumably Gandhi, Buddha, Socrates, Spinoza (and for that matter Moses) were without virtue?

>When you are called a hater by the Green Rainbow Left for simply for believing that marriage is between one man and one woman, that is not rational debate.

I'm not calling the author a hater because believes that, I'm calling him a hater because he wishes to impose that view on others who don't share his view.