I, for one, would love to see the Liberals become more 'small l', however this isn't the issue that I would like to see them focus their attentions on. There are a whole raft of issues which the current 'big' government approach should be challenged (in a small 'l' style):

Marriage - this is a private agreement between two people to which the government shouldn't interfere

Government itself - we have grossly bloated goverment (3 levels no less!) which have enormous overlap and redundnacy. Make it smaller and less invasive

Taxation - Our current tax system is a debacle

Etc.

A closer move to small 'l' policies would be a good move. However, I don't see them doing it, at least, not without a long period of warming up the electorate to it.

A small l Liberal party will see at least 3 terms of Rudd come Gillard goverments, probably 4-5 if Gillard takes over circa 2012. You cannot challange goverment policy from opposition if your own policies are a mirror.

The biggest mistake the Liberal party could make is to believe the 2007 election was any more than change for change's sake. They cannot outleft the left and should not try.

Nice article from Greg Barns, which echoes my own analysis of Howard's cynical manipulation of the electorate's xenophobic underbelly - which I expressed in the last OLO discussion about asylum seekers ( http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8189 ).

However, I doubt that the Libs will able to resist using their tried, true and tawdry tactics again, and it will be interesting to see how long Turnbull can keep a lid on the inevitable pressure to go down that shameful path again. I expect that this article will elicit the same old hateful comments from the same old xenophobes, who are excellent examples of those who responded to the same dog-whistle from Howard.

Anyway, well said Greg Barns - I often disagree with you but you're spot on with respect to this issue.

If the Liberal Party of Australia were truly to put the 'liberal' back into their policies that would place them somewhat to the left of the current ALP and nudging the Greens' position.

We haven't had that sort of political scenario since the 1940s (when of course we hadn't heard of the Greens).

I remember when you were one of the lonely voices of sanity within the Liberal Party Greg. It's a pity they lost you. As usual you are right on the mark.

Why is Labor in power? Hmmm... could it be that the Libs knew that there was a World recession about to happen & didn't want to be in power when it happened? Of course they did. Then they can say, "see what you get with a Labor Government, Recession." And, I'd rather have Chopper Reid as the leader of the Libs than Turnbull.

Now, on to these suppossed Asylum Seekers. There is not one of these people an Asylum Seeker. You cannot pass through several countries that are better suited with their, way of life, customs & religion, board a boat and come to Australia, then claim that they are being pursecuted in their own country so we can't send them back. What was the matter with any of the countries they passed through. Indonesia is good, Malaysia is good. Pakistan, Iran & all the other istans around their own countries would be fine & better suited for them.

Pack them all up & send them to an amenable country.

There are two main problems with the author's approach to illegal immigrants.

The first is that the strongest supporters of Howard's policy on illegal immigrants was the Labor Party's heartland. No wonder that, as the author said, Labor had to run dead on the issue.

The second, and I believe much more important problem, is the profoundly anti-democratic flavour to his approach on this issue. There is no attempt to discover what the people want, just an attempt to have both major parties wedded to his approach.

This attitude is the nub of the problem. Many politicians seem to think that the people should elect politicians to determine issues according to the politicians judgment. The politicians should have the ideas, and the people should trust to their best judgment.

The only problem is that most voters think differently, and they are the ones who fill out the ballot papers. They think that the people should have the ideas, and that it the politicians role to carry out the ideas of the people. If they do not, they will be thrown out of office and replaced with politicians who will.

The inevitable result of me-too policies such as the author is advocating is the rise of parties such as One Nation, who were full of ordinary people disgusted with the antics of the major parties.

Another is the repeated refusal of the people to amend the Constitution. the most memorable quote I remember from the republic referendum was made in 1993 by a Broken Hill Miner (when Keating was PM and Hewson opposition leader).

He said "I would have to vote NO. What an opportunity to stick it up Keating, without having to elect Hewson."

Nice article. It is to be hoped that the liberal party returns to where it once was. In the last few years it became increasingly unrecognizable.

Plerdsus, in case you missed it, the majority of people spoke very loudly and very clearly in the last election. Obviously the liberal party was representing an increasingly smaller number of people.

As to the asylum seekers. It is sloppy and lazy politics to use wedge tactics to garner some votes. It will become increasingly difficult to do so as more and more people become more aware and knowledgable about issues.

it's important to have a strong opposition. but i'd rather do without. all those liberal whores who sat back silent while howard poisoned the waters, they deserve to twist in the wind for many years yet. to hell with the lot of them.

This is a good article, because it does a bit of navel gazing at the problems facing the Liberal Party, when confronted with a New Labor Party, under a leader with ethics and a Christian conscience. The Fascist Concentration Camps erected by the Liberal Party, were rightly immediately emptied by Chris Evans. They only survived under the Liberal Party, because the separation of powers, incorporated into the Constitution, were abolished in 1976, and completely abolished in 1979, and fascist style administrative Courts, established as the High Court and Federal Court of Australia.

We cannot have pagan Courts, and these were never contemplated, by the Founding Fathers. The hallmarks of Hitler, Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, Mao, and Saddam Hussein, were Courts manned by State Officers. They are and remain Pagan Courts, because they refused to observe the separation of powers, which is not achieved by a pay bribe, to a lawyer, but by incorporating twelve lay voters into the process of passing judgment. The Magna Carta and Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp) a copy of which can be found online, at www.community-law.info are the guarantee under the Constitution of the Rule of Law, instead of the Rule of Rules.

All Judges must take an Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, and are bound by Her Oath. Parliamentarians as Judges, also must take that Oath, to sit in the Parliament of the Commonwealth. To get away with fascism, Judges had to be bribed to repudiate their Oath of Office. The proposal to pay Parliamentarians more is simply another bribe, to repudiate their Oath of Allegiance.

S 11 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1986, should be a guarantee of a jury trial in the Federal Court if requested. Section 39 of the same Act should be abolished, because it empowers a fascist Judge to refuse choice. Its like Henry Ford, and his Model T . You could have any colour you liked so long as it was black. It was a black day for democracy, when any Judge was empowered to exclude the common people from a “court”

I will tell you what is wrong with the countries that these people passed through. Jayb is under the mistaken belief that these are democracies. They are only half democracies. Yes they get to vote, but unlike Australia have no written Constitution, that should , even to Muslims, make it clear that Australia is governed in exactly the same way, as the English were governed from 1275.

In 1275, the people were given a choice of mode of trial. In 1297 they incorporated the principles of the Holy Bible into their law, and have never been invaded since. The Magna Carta incorporates the principles of the Holy Gospel into Statute law, from Mathhew 18 Verses 15-20. It was made law in England in 1640, in the Habeas Corpus Act 1640, that Administrative Courts, manned by Priests of any description, without laity as “judges” were Star Chambers, and illegal. The Separation of Powers, is not a recent thing. It was taught by Jesus Christ, in John 5 Verses 22 and 23. The concept of jury trial is also Christian, and does not exist in any of the countries that the refugees passed through. In a way the refugees are voting with their feet. Jury trial was introduced, to comply with the Gospel of Luke 12: verses 10– 12, after Matthew reported the edict from Jesus Christ that we must not judge each other. That is why a Judge or Magistrate who cannot offer a jury trial is a State Appointed pagan.

By the Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp) the English established a Christian Republic, with a hereditary representative of Almighty God. They failed to extend it to their American Colonies, so they revolted, and elect the same representative as President. To avoid that, the English offered Australia an opportunity to vote for independence, instead of fight for it. We took it only after the Roman Catholic Australians were given equality and agreed to support the referendum. If the Liberals and Labor can agree to educate all Australians in their heritage, this country will remain a true democracy

Demonizing those who demonize fake assylum seekers is demonic.

How can a failed defender of convicted terrorists have any credibility on an issue like this?

All we need ask is "who benefits politicaly from supporting so called assylum seekers (but in reality, often country shoppers)?"

Why...surprise surprise..it's GREG BARNS...and his failed demo...who?.. mob.

Seems like the horse has long bolted on Demowho relevance Greg...
dragging up issues like this when there is an upsurge in boat arrivals now that the deterrence is less..is just a feeble political grasping at straws by a near dead but already irrelevant party.

In short.. a failed defender of convicted terrorists, supporter of dodgy artists who photograph naked children...

Greg Barns writes: (from Crikey)
<Politicians really are the most appalling of opportunists, and over the weekend they excelled themselves. Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Malcolm Turnbull, John Brumby and the federal Minister for Sport, Kate Ellis, all spent their weekend beating up on one of Australia’s finest artists, photographer Bill Henson.>

and now back on the support for country shoppers.... dare I say being 'opportunistic'?

I suppose Greg also regards Donald Friend as an 'inspiring and enlightened artist' rather than a paedophile?

But hey..that's just a wild guess.

Barns also berates the ABC for broadcasting an interview where Jack Thomas discussed taking money from Al Qaeda!

Could Barns dig a bigger hole for himself?

I would agree with Barnes on one thing…the thirty day rule…

If those who attempt to enter Australia by deceitfully avoiding migration control cannot prove their bona-fides as genuine refugees, they should be shipped back to wherever they came from after 30 days, or remain in detention until they do.

Their choice to come here with fraudulent intent, their right to suffer the consequences of such fraud.

As for Barnes commenting on the structure of the Liberal party, who is he to pretend he is anything other than an opinion without an audience, a lobbyist flunky and political turncoat, hardly characteristics which qualify him for anything, except what he is doing, which is shooting the breeze and pretending he is making a difference.

Polycarp, I obviously concur with your post… merry Xmas, by the way

As I predicted, same old, same old..

Porkycrap: << fake assylum (sic) seekers >>

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true Porky. As Barns points out, the vast majority of asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat prove to be genuine, and are accepted as such by our Immigration authorities.

Troll Rouge: << those who attempt to enter Australia by deceitfully avoiding migration control >>

Ditto. As you well know, it is not unlawful for bons fide refugees to seek asylum in Australian territory, as long as they present themselves to the appropriate authorities promptly on arrival, as those who arrive here by boat almost invariably do.

As usual, the deceitfulness of our resident xenophobes and racists is projected on to those hapless souls who are desperate enough to seek asylum in Australia via dangerous voyages in unsafe boats.

Oh, CJ, I acknowlege that these people are Asylum Seekers. But once they have crossed a number of suitable countrys, that have the same life values of religion & customs as they have, they ceased to be Asylum Seekers for the purpose of this country.

As for being Xenophobic. You are wrong. I'm sure nobody hates these people. I don't. I'm sure there are a lot of nice people amoung them. The point is they have jumped the line to immigrate & crossed many borders with people of the same religion & culture as they to get here. Countrys they could have settled in & made a nice life for them selves amoung like minded people.

As for being Racist. I don't think so. Just because a person expresses an opinion on any matter it doesn't make them xxxist if it differs that opinion differs from yours. An old ploy that is becoming increasingly inefective.

The reason they come here. In 1975 the Aotolla Kemlaine (I know I spelt that wrong) made a speach in either Derby of Geralton to the resident Muslim population. In that speach the said that Australia was a religious desert. As such it was right for conversion to Islam. If Australians refused to accept Allah then they should be forced to accept Muslim values. Therefore they should encourage as many of their relation & friends to get to Australia. They should take up positions of power in the Government & institute Sharia Law.

There was a mentally legal Iraqi who killed two men recently in New Zealand. This is a legal one imagine what potential for psychos we have if we opened the border to illegals.

i find the sheer heartless of people like boaz-carp and jayb astonishing and deeply depressing. does it bother you guys at all that some of those sent back were subsequently killed?

and even assuming these guys are illegal, even assuming these guys had no immediate violence to fear in their home countries. who are they? they're simply people trying to find a better life for themselves and their families. oh, what monsters they are! the total lack of empathy from some posters here is appalling.

i don't know what jayb's agenda is, though his post smells exactly of everything he denies. and poly-boaz? he who pretends to beam the love of god? i can't find the words for my contempt for him.

They're like moths to a flame, aren't they? This latest one's a ripper -

tobysred: << There was a mentally legal Iraqi who killed two men recently in New Zealand. This is a legal one imagine what potential for psychos we have if we opened the border to illegals. >>

While it's fascinating to ponder who might be considered a "mentally legal Iraqi" these days, perhaps dear toby might reflect on the mental health of asylum seekers who were driven nuts by their appalling and inhumane treatment in Howard's Australian gulag.

Refugees who have been forced to leave their homes, communities and familiars behind are already traumatised, and to subject them to any more institutionalised inhumanity than is absolutely necessary is unconscionable.

Many thanks to bushbasher for injecting some humanity into the thread.

You can always predict them :) as CJ says "like moths to a flame"

BUSHBASHER (should be Poly basher) says:

"who are they? they're simply people trying to find a better life for themselves and their families."

Now..that little bit of incisive political (mal)analysis utterly astounds me.

BUSHY.. I'm prepared to spend a couple of hours as your therapist if it helps you overcome this fuzzy (but well intended) thinking of yours.
Seriously.. you must be one of those warm hearted people who simply does not 'get' some of the harsher realities of life.

NO-ONE is 'just' someone looking for a better life. They are political, social, religious and cultural beings. And to use your word "IF" they happen to have certain antagonistic religious views or... if they come from Calabria and are related to an established Mafia don here....in either case you have serious issues to resolve about their suitability.

IF...they happen to be that kind of status "looking for a better life" then they are ABsolutely illegal, unwelcome and should be deported at their own cost poste haste.

You must be an absolute pushover for your kids (if you have any) ... I'm sure that no matter what they do, you will always just see 'warmth and love' in them......

If you actually READ my post.. you would see that I distinguished between genuine and fake assylum seekers.
But hey..don't let a fact or 2 get in the way of a brilliant 'Christian bashing' adventure hey....

COL.. same to you mate.. and glad you pointed out the one redeeming point Barns made (30 day rule.. yep..I can agree with that 2)

Polycarp “You can always predict them”

The unfortunate thing is the resident moron can only accommodate so much in that limited brain if his so he tends to churn the same old ad hominines again and again…

Like you quoted of of bushbasher "who are they? they're simply people trying to find a better life for themselves and their families."

I think you could apply that observation to anyone, including Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and even Queen Elizabeth II… one would presume everyone on earth fell into the category of
‘people trying to find a better life for themselves and their families”

but I don’t see Bill Gates, Warren Buffet or even QEII rocking up in a sinking boat, demanding to jump the queue ahead of real refugees, trying to survive in refugee camps, whilst their visa applications are being pushed back further and further from this year to next year’s quota.

It remains a strange anomoly, how "real refugees" seem to hold no place in the thoughts of the "let 'em in regardless" lobby.

and only the queue jumpers get sympathy or are considered in the act of balancing the rights and aspirations of "unlawful non-citizens" (Migration Act polotical-speak for those previously known as "illegal aliens") versus the rights and aspirations of the law-abiding, legally registered visa holders and citizens.

Barns’ rant about the ‘conservatism’ of the Howard Government merely underlines how far to the left he is. The Coalition is not conservative by any definition of the word. After a period of detention, most illegal entrants were allowed to stay here. How wet left is that!

We should concern ourselves not with small ‘l’ liberalism, but the big ‘L’ Loony Left which has seen the arrival of a seventh boat of illegals almost reaching the mainland.

However, what Barns and his followers might very well find, as smugglers’ boats filled with illegals continue to come, is that that voters will start demanding conservatism (if that’s what it takes to keep illegals out).

Despite the huff and puff of some on OLO, the majority of Australians do not approve of people trying to enter their country illegally. Anyone who doesn’t believe this lives in a world consisting only of OLO, and his own narrow outlook - not the real world where most people have never heard of OLO.

We should build a luxurious plane and have the best psychologists and security guards on it. Every time we pick up an illegal boat we fill up the plane with them pamper them for the 5 hours or however long it takes and take them straight back where they came from or wherever we can drop them.