"Most people who hold that family values such as respect, dignity, faithfulness, love, monogamy and marraige etc are outraged by the descent into hell the left has taken us down since the 60s."

yep things have really gone down hill lately.

Here's my plan to fix this living hell we've created

- We need some more public floggings to lift social standards (certainly bring back the stocks).
- We need more pofter bashing, this tollerance business is just horrible.
- We need more little women who highly obey their husbands (as they trek barefooted between the bedroom, kitchen and lounge)
- We need to get sexuality back in a dark corner where it belongs. It's plain awfull that people are educated about that stuff and make informed choices. Gone are the good old days of having to send a teenage daughter away to rellies in the country for six months or get those wedding plans accellerated.
- We need to organise some good old fashioned book and CD burnings and get rid of that devil spawned stuff. Just the good book and biblical pamphlets on those bookshelves and maybe a bible verse of the day at the servo.

Alternatively those who want that kind of world could move somewhere where they might fit in better (Tehran maybe) and let the rest of us get on with life. Some things not right yet - yes, descent into hell - no way.

R0ber

Yeah, I agree that there are more considerations. I was thinking more of people struggling with debt and mortgages simply obsessed with nothing else but their own lives. The only value I see in the shift is if government and policy efficiency and more spending discretion (in some cases) is the focus of the new conservatism. Which I doubt...highly. And that would be balanced by increasing repression of social liberty as suggested by BOAZ_David.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Democratic Labor Party and of the Australian Labor Party in some comments on the Victorian election.

The Greens seem to have a sense of entitlement to ALP preferences which is so hard-wired into their brains that they cannot take in the arguments as to why this is not so.

There is no natural affinity between the ALP and the Greens. There are some policy similarities, just as there are with the DLP, but there are differences too. The DLP has been falsely maligned since its formation so effectively that I guess many of its maligners actually believe what they say. So, when I say the DLP is a moderate social democratic party with a Labor tradition, there are some who are simply unable to believe me because their hard-wired brains believe all mailboxes throughout the world are red.

As for where delegates sat in the French National Assembly of more than 200 years ago, the ALP of today is to the right of the DLP of my day.

The ALP did not want to be dependent on the Greens. It developed a preference strategy to protect itself from that fate. As a consequence it has gained 19 MLCs in its own right and a DLP MLC who will generally support it (70 per cent plus, I reckon), and, when it comes to issues like abortion, it will find its own MLCs not supporting it as well as the DLP one. It will do the same sort of preference deal next time around. It was not a mistake this time. It will not be a mistake next time. But the same voices will call it a mistake in 2010 because their brains are hard-wired to believe that all mailboxes are red.

If both Labor parties vote together, they can block any Opposition move, but they cannot carry any motion without the Greens, the Nationals or the Liberals. Thus, ALP strategists are not disappointed that there is one DLP MLC. They are disappointed that there are not two.

Daniel's article is an illustration par excellence of the incurable malady of the old and new Left, that it's the "pull" of old or new capitalism that drives and determines the economic policies of governments.

The Left utterly bereft of originality and imagination, cannot generate any new seminal theories about the internal robustness and creativity of entrepreneurial freedom that drives globalization in our epoch, are always fated to revive the intellectually bankrupt theories of their founding fathers.

See:"Mount Globalization or Be its Prey"-http://power-politics1.blogspot.com

That the Victorian ALP applied the political blowtorch to the underbelly of the Greens political party in three inner melbourne seats should be no surprise. In Melbourne, Richmond and Northcote the Greens almost won. However, for some reason, as echoed in Daniel's piece, the Greens think that they are immune to political attack. They are sadly deluded if they thought that the ALP was going to roll over and abandon three seats to them.

Daniel also fails to understand that preference deals - are just that. Yes, they are the dirty grubby deals!!. They have nothing to do with ideology of a party in government, or revolve around policy. It is trading preferences. And that is all. These deals never extend to policy.

Every election - the liberals, labor, greens and democrats meet to negotiate preference deals - proportional representation the system itself encourages this. Only a change to first past the post voting would change this pre-election argy-bargy.

Note, that the Greens were part of these deals. Indeed, they negotiated with the ALP and the other parties for several months. To prolong the process they held out on an agreement with the ALP right up till nomination day. Then to railroad the ALP they leaked to the media (which then ran with it) that labor was signing a deal with Family First. This was never in fact the case. Indeed, it never happened. To prolong the process they indicated that their local organisatins had the power to reverse the centrally agreed preference flows. This added confusion, and distrust to the negotiation process. Leaking untrue stories to the media - only served to muddy the process and the other actors lose confidence in the ability of the Greens to come to an agreement.

It may serve the political interests of the Greens political party to use the indulge in the political "tut-tut". However, it would be completely dishonest to say that the Greens were not deeply involved in grubby preference dealing. To leave this important detail out of Daniel's article is an important one that needs correction

R0bert, a thoughful and well-written post. Everything I could have said but did not think of quickly.

As to David, with an eye to objectivity, I doubt a majority of people are in opposition to adult novelty stores on national or state arterial roads or discreetly placed brothels? As to the business of brothels, they are but one of many avenues resorted to by those seeking a decent income while impoverished. At many times the similar industry has been a "last resort" option for this writer too [not david] as was unable to obtain sustainable reasonably remunerated and appropriate employment.

The rise of social conservatism mirrors a disturbing trend, in which the line between state and religion is becoming increasingly blurred, and more worrying here than in America because we lack a constitutional barrier.

We have almost billions being funnelled into faith-based health, welfare and education organizations while poor kids attend crumbling public schools and those who missed the boat of economic prosperity find that charities that once would have stridently advocated for a fair go for the poor have been muted and corrupted by the largesse spread around from Canberra.....eg the federal employment services network and note the biggest beneficiaries of the commonwealth are also almost mute on advocacy........they know what to say [or not say] if they want to keep the Federal handouts flowing.

Reproductive rights of women are at risk and sexuality rights are too. I noticed David's opinion about women not being competitors does that mean back to "yes sir no sir 3 bags full sir" and the dark days of hidden DV, sexual abuse and mothers not living with husband waiting to be approved as "deserving" before getting parenting benefits.............all added to the religious-rights sponsored shared parenting and new contact rules to make it harder for DV victims to escape.