Keith, hate to say it, (as a conservative myself), but the war is lost.

You see, while the wealthy conservative appointees, (in Turnbulls case, self appointed), fought over who had control of the national pie of good fortune, Huge numbers of the young and the restless, (40% without housing, and renting from wealthy conservatives with multiple properties), were disenfranchised by a liberal government in power, who to this day, continues to ignore the agony this situation is, to too many of the young.

The conservatives attack, beginning with the high success rate of the Howard era, against the workers unions, (which are now reduced to Labors surrogate labor management tools, and worse), has had the obvious effect of reducing conservative influence on voter friendly sentiment for the Liberals, to zero.

Turnbull actually attempted to steer the lumbering ship around by engaging with modernism and youth, but walked off the stage frustrated and defeated by the greedy few, with the wealth and good fortune this country once handed out for free.

The Liberals deserve to die, as a relevant political organisation that now wishes it had engaged on a wider more encompassing scale than it did.

If the liberals had a fraction of care and concern for those disenfranchised in our communities, Labor would now find the going tough.
Left wing attack on conservatives?...go out and get your hands dirty in the community you now control for the moment: Mostly it's not a question of left and right, but one of survival alone out there!

Allowing the abc be overtaken by feminist/Marxist and having weak emasculated conservatives allow it has led to where we are. They repeat lies constantly without ever being challenged. One would never believe that men die younger than women, have far higher suicide rates and nearly always lose custody battles. Still instead of referring to nasty white privileged feminist we are only presented with 'white male privilege. Thankfully in the US Trump and others are standing up to these repeated unchallenged lies.

Politicians, and to a lesser extent people in general, whether progressive or conservative, have for longer than I can remember, used language to demonise their opponents. Attempts to paint this as a Left v Right issue are rather silly, especially as the Right has control of the narrative on many issues.

It's unlikely that the voting public are interested in female quotas and the whining about bullying from over-privileged women who shouldn't have gone into politics in the first place. As one Liberal senator said, if they can't handle themselves in parliament and stick up for themselves, they cannot represent an electorate. Another Liberal senator told the snowflakes, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. In fact, I don't recall other women in either party rushing to the aid of women better suited to nannying or kindergarten work.

This 'bullying’ nonsense is a recent whinge by women who are probably there only via the quota system; they have found out that they are just no damn good at the job, and want to blame men for it. There have been women in both parties for some time who have NOT had to resort to weeping and whining to sit on the front bench and give as good as they get.

As for language, well, Labor, rot their socks, have a what-ever-it-takes policy, whereas the Liberals think being nice and gentlemanly about everything will overcome thuggery. I'm not sure that Liberals since John Howard actually want to be in government, given their mamby-pamby reluctance to put the boot in instead of their now usual style of not wanting to upset people who are never going to vote for them anyway.

Julie Bishop has taken aim at the behaviour of her parliamentary colleagues saying she has witnessed "appalling" behaviour she never would have accepted while running a major law firm 20 years ago.

Citing Julia Banks' departure over bullying, Julie Bishop says behaviour in federal politics would not be tolerated in any other workplace
Ms Bishop says all parties have a problem attracting and retaining women. Turning away from the camera she began shaking and sobbing , her shoes dropping off as she clung despairingly to the curtains which collapsed in a heap.

Labor uses emotive language to demonise the right?

I sure the right doesn't need any help from Labor in this area, given how well they're succeeding without any input from Labor. As they change horses in midstream with another knifed PM. Or rail against SSM? Albeit, obliquely?

Turnbull removed because he supported SSM? Even though it would seem, under Turnbull they were in with a chance!?

How many more young folk will get themselves on the role? To prevent a coalition win and the reintroduction of the former religious discrimination on gender issues?

Now, however, with the reintroduction non-issue religious freedom and special privilege deals cut solely for political purposes? They're succeeding beyond labor's wildest dreams!?

So much so, some small L liberals might see their own political survival tied to changing sides and thereby forcing an early election?
Alan B.

I just hope Morrison doesn't do an Abbott.

Meanwhile this essay describes how the popular media systematically and deliberately misinform the public on almost every issue. It is of course highly applicable to the Murdoch "news"-papers.
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/popdisgu.html

This reference describes the highly proscribed choices that now exist in the political, economic and cultural spheres;
http://www.coteda.com/fundamentals/index.html

Seriously, you say only the Left use emotional language? Have you listened to Trump lately?!

For example: 'The Democrats are playing a high level CON GAME in their vicious effort to destroy a fine person. It is called the politics of destruction. Behind the scene the Dems are laughing. Pray for Brett Kavanaugh and his family!'

Do you think this is a sober statement of the material facts?

The left have nothing to teach the right when it comes to demonising people. The right have historically specialised in whipping up resentment and fear against outsiders (e.g. those lawless refugees who are coming to steal our jobs and plot terrorist attacks).

This is all just polemical thinking. Don't obsess about the evils of the other side. Try independent thinking.

http://youtu.be/tlIjMJBSnRE

Try this for an inversion trap !

I thought this was an excellent article, and I can't find any fault with it. 10/10.
The author should be commended for taking the time to read Saul Alinsky: Rules for Radicals.
This is the book that forms the basis to Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic Party's ideology.
- It also covers the lefts ideology and tactics generally.

I also commend him for doing what more journalists and reporters should be doing, which is to seek out the truth and learn all the facts.
- To essentially earn the right to express a informed opinion.

Finally, I'd just like to also thank him for standing up for my country, for what's fair and decent.
Good on ya Keith, thanks for your efforts.

I absolutely agree with everything which Keith Bonholm has written in this article.

The default position of the Left on any topic is to portray themselves as the champions of high moral virtue, while denouncing the actions of the Right as always promoting the interests selfish rich people. Almost any political subject can be made to conform to this formulae. The moral grandstanding is almost comedic. Perhaps some readers can remember the always outraged Natasha Stott Depoya? While the utterances of Green leader Di Natale are so morally superior that you can visualize him standing before a chorus of singing angels as he speaks.

Of course, such moral grandstanding does appeal to those who have a compulsive need to think that they are superior people, morally and intellectually better than the hoi polloi.

Fortunately, the times, they are, a changin', and western white people are beginning to see through the moral grandstanding for what it really is, the ranting of a new breed of evangelical moral puritans. These puritans conform exactly to past manifestations of these personality types, from evangelical religious inquisitors to communist commissars. The utter conviction that they, and only they, are the guardians of morality. The absolute belief that they are the righteous ones and that their opponents are unspeakably evil. The knowledge that their cause is so just that no blow is too low.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall, most people thought that Socialism had been thrown on the scrap heap of history. Surely nobody could be stupid enough to resurrect a system that had failed in every society it had been tried, with 100 million casualties?

But there seems to be a significant demographic character type within western societies that needs to think that their government should be their Big Brother, who should look after them from cradle to the grave. And no amount of displaying that such a government has never worked in practice will ever convince them that their quixotic, utopian dream is an illusion.