A State owned communication monopoly, followed with an internet censorship policy is hardly the hallmark of a liberal organisation.

Also the one size fits all IR policy is far from liberal.

While I am in favour of same sex legislation, in reality, it is a minor issue compared to the attempt by Labor to get the state involved in all aspects of life.

Fascinating that a newly-minted ALP MP who is apparently a very able economist, should write an article about the ALP and liberalism without mentioning economics and the labour movement.

The ALP was formed because the leaders of the union movement saw there were things they would *only* gain if they formed a government for themselves; things that a liberal capitalist government would never grant them. This was in the days when the ALP stood for the right to strike, instead of taking it away like Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard did in the last Parliament, all the while pulling a stage-magician's trick of distracting people by yelling about WorkChoices.

Mr Leigh's article is a reminder of just how far to the right the ALP has moved. Once upon a time ALP MPs used to not boast about how well the party conformed to liberal principles; rather they used to boast about how successful industrial action had bettered the wages and conditions of workers.

As Shadow Minister points out, the ALP has some pretty aggressive illiberal tendencies too. It distrusts people so much it plans to censor the Internet, it cowers before police unions and introduces Tasers when in State Government, and it does nothing meaningful to open up the bureaucratic, authoritarian nature of government in Australia.

Leigh states

"Yet in the process, Howard also placed himself and his party firmly in the conservative tradition. This was reflected in the Howard government's stance on everything from reconciliation to refugees, the monarchy to multiculturalism. Although Brandis and other moderates in the Liberal Party would like to distance themselves from this, the party of Howard and Abbott is very much a party of conservatism: instinctively suspicious of social change.

A century on, it is hard to escape the conclusion that if Deakin were in the federal parliament today, he and his brand of progressive liberalism would find a natural home in the Australian Labor Party."

What rubbish.

Which Labor is the author refering to. There are some conceptual beliefs there that might be part of an intelectual framework but which don't seem to be backed up by the ALP in government. I was especially intrigued by "that freedom of speech applies for unpopular ideas as for popular ones" - not an impression that I've ever had of the ALP or many of it's supporters.

What I do see is that the freedom to express selected unpopular idea's is supported but those who express views which are not within Labor's list of approved unpopular idea's are attacked quite viciously.

Labor seem's to stand for intrusive government trying to regulate every aspect of people's lives in an attempt to fix all the problems (in the process creating a new set of problems).

I'd agree that the coalition has moved a long way from being 'liberal' in it's approach, not all that different to Labor and the Green's in the way they embrace creeping regulation of peoples lives.

R0bert

Maybe Mr Leigh is referring to the all powerful New South Wales Right. This bloke needs a reality check before someone has to send for the men in white coats to take him away.

Any resemblance between the present day Liberal/Howardism party and the stated liberal ideals of Deakin are purely co-incidental. The re-branding of the Australian conservative politics as being represented by the 'Liberal' party was the brain-child of Robert Gordon Menzies - an ultra conservative fanatical roylist who would roll over at the thought of republicanism, gay rights, same sex marriages etc. Mr Menzies was fully aware of the power of labels as, inter alia, his utilization of the communist bogey-man clearly showed.
What's in a name? - in my experience, there are few better manipulative means available to the power hungry ruthless than name calling whether referring to individuals or political organizations.

Gym fish,

In your attack on the liberal party, I don't see any actual instances of discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or gender.

The gay marriage issue (recognition of a de facto situation), given existing family law and the large portion of Australian society that does not get married, is largely a paper chase which the labor party also notably opposes.

The Labor party on the other hand is actively trying to restrict society as per the NBN, Labor laws and Net filter. So the premise that Labor is more liberal than the Liberal party is a joke.

I find it a real challenge at voting time in Federal/State elections. Trying to decipher truth from spin in Policy promises if they are elected to govern. Which ever Party is elected, seldom do they honour their election promises, they each blame the the opposition for blocking in the senate. In my opinion its an organised conspiracy by all the major political parties. Many of the politicians are from a legal back ground and are members of the Law Society, they use legalese language, which many words we think we understand, but often have a totally different meening. The vast majority of the people are from the working class and they are the ones who ultimately are hurt the most by government. My conclusion! NONE ARE WORTHY OF MY VOTE. My next blog will attempt to explain Legalese Language

Understanding Legalese. PERSON! Are you a Person? Answer No. You have a person. A Person is not a Man or a Woman, it is a Legal Entity similar to a Corporation and it is used for all of your Commercial, Government, and 'Financial documents and accounts. Some points to note with reference to the 'PERSON' The PERSON is also known as a 'Legal Entity', a Straw Man, a Fictional Entity and a Trade Name.
The Person requires you, the flesh and blood Man or Woman to represent it in its affairs, furthermore, the Federal and State Governments can only apply legislation to this Person when you agree or consent to represent it. Your Silence is equivolent to acceptence or agreement.

Egalitarianism isn't the same as equality.

Good old labor party traditions of twisting definitions to suit their political ends is an enduring part of the party and continues even while in it's death throes.

Australian egalitarianism holds and practises that the hard worker, like the richest person, like the most able academic, like the magistrate, is no better than the fishmongers wife, the unemployed sewer cleaner, the biased labor journalist, the lawyer or the self-promoting labor politician.

It holds that while all have differing abilities all are equally valued and accorded equal respect in any circumstance.

It recognises that each has different capacities and that the best among us are those that fill their true potential by becoming the best that can be. Whether that be cleaning a sewer and governing or intrepreting legislation and writing theses doesn't make one iota of difference with regard to value or respect.

Typically labor politicians cloud this with a need to get everybody to hold the same opinions and thereby to be the same.

I doubt Deakin would find much in common with Gillard, Argib, Shorten, Albanese, Wong, Brown and the rest of the motley socialist crew.

"While liberalism derives from a deep belief in individual freedom, conservatism depends on where one stands. In defending the established order of things..."

Right, so when you remove certain issues what is the difference between Labor and Liberal?

I think the author and those "moderates" in the Liberal party should have a talk about forming a new party.

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

Who is really running interference going up to these next elections and what crap in fencing, no mention of the lack of local competition or the real costs and comparisons or facts on policy for these green labor inflations, which effect today's families now, with the loss of choice and purchasing power? No truth, just empty spinning text to fill a space and maybe meet his obligations to the green labor parties game of more waste, always an unaffordable cost to us lot of private sector producers. When will this green labor mob wake up to today’s costs to the community? It is no longer good enough creating problems only to promise more ambulances to win the next election, mattee...

Well said, but Labor is not far behind.

A fine litmus test is the use of the non-scientific, manifestly false, photo-shopped graph containing, and plagiarized anthropogenic climate change denial-fest book "Heaven and Earth" by Ian Plimer.

It's a favourite of "endorser enforcer" Tony Abbott [now advised to distance self] and Howard's moral dictator, Cardinal Pell. The Australian - I kid you not - the petulant 18th century focused National Farmer's Association, Catter, Ron Boswell, Howard, Browyn Bishop and Pyne.

Documented as misrepresenting sources at least 28 times, scurrilously abusing IPCC reports [15 times], their authorship, the IPCC charter, and outrageous data misrepresentation 10 times it remains Christopher Pynes 2nd bible.

Sound bites constructed from this conspiracy type slur upon science and it's methodology are kept buoyant by the Liberals for the sole purpose of suffocating progressive and liberal climate policy. Only Fielding was transparently more ridiculous.

Howard sabotaged the 1997 heroin on prescription trial on orders from Major Brian Watters - renegade "Salvation Army Officer".

"The Law and The Prophets" [Luke 16:16] would dictate Howards policy on our vulnerable and in need, he boasted. Bowing before the Fatherhood Foundation he amended the marriage act to ensure discrimination. At the ACL's request, he funded the psychological damaging Chaplaincy programme and ensconced ACCESS ministries in our childrens classrooms. "Jesus loves you more than mummy or daddy", they claim. Abbott himself funded Biblical Creationists Drug Free Australia, who advocate jail and removal of children for pot smokers and Bishop designed predetermined senate inquiries to promote this human rights abuse. They are, in effect The Christian Liberal Conservative Party.

This all fell down, of course, when Kevin From Heaven took up the Christian baton increasing and continuing funding. Gillard - our first fully fledged, full on, fornicating, freethinking, female PM has damaged the brand even more discriminating against same sex marriage and euthanasia. All that really keeps them separate is Abbott's throwing of his toys from his pram and his destructive pathology.

Thank logic for The Greens.

Well said Firesnake. The government, banks, corporations and foreign invesers are in reality a cartel. The damage and harm they are doing to our country and the people is a treacherouse crime against us. We the people are enslaved to all the above. The Parliament continues enacting or altering Statutes to steal more money from the people. What does the opposition do? nothing, they could block or at least attempt to block in the senate but they don't, reason being they stand to gain as well. The people have very little if any financial security. Wages are well below the price and fee increases. Now you can see why none of the political parties or politicians are worthy of my vote.

I don't know enough about the 'liberalism of Deakin' to make an informed comment about it. But I do know about the liberalism of J.S. Mill & his ilk, and I know that the freedom-hating conservatives of the Liberal party have about as much love for liberalism as National Socialists did for Judaism. Of course, there are freedom-hating conservatives within Labor's right-wing faction - but the so-called Liberal party is home to more of these nasty little toadies.

Why don't the Liberals just own up to the truth and call themselves the Australian Conservative Party? Nobody will think any less of them for it - some folk might even reward them for their honesty.

There has been little 'liberalism' within the Liberal Party since the day in 1944 that 'Pig Iron' Bob Menzies founded this Australian version of the British Conservative Party. You could not find anyone with more conservative views and values than Menzies, unless ofcourse you looked at his old coalition mates in the Country Party.
The Liberal Party should stop the pretence, they are a conservative party, always have been, always will be. When in government they are in coalition with the ultra conservative National Party, another mob who need a name change!