That,s a reasonable question. I second the motion that the statement be decifered.

Mhaze, standard stuff from a Conservative when losing the argument to resort to personal insult. claiming I am adopting "childish means", which I am not. If the people of Eastern Europe were venerating Ronald Reagan, which I very much doubt they are, it would prove nothing as to the superiority of Conservatism over Progressive Liberalism. As for rejecting information based on "the messenger" there could be more truth contained in 'Little Golden Books' than on that ridiculous Bible bashing website.

The greatest claim to fame of Ronald Reagan was a jocular jest to a live microphone that he had just ordered the start of WWIII against the Soviet Union! It showed the mentality of the man. For Margret Thatcher it was the sinking of an old aged "battleship" of no military significance during the Falklands War which resulted in the deaths of hundreds. A nasty woman with blood on her hands!

Toni Lavis "Isn't accepting the same old same old and avoiding change what conservatism is all about?"

Not when, as mhaze confirms, the "same old" for decades has been utopian fantasy.

Progressives are now like termites, destroying the house (change), not building a better one (change).

Conservatives oppose *radical* change, not change per se.
I don't see many conservatives wearing bussle dresses or top hats these days.
I also don't see too many with nose piercings or ripped punk clothes.

The problem with naming it the Conservative Party is that it alienates anyone right-of-centre that doesn't identify with that particular label.

One Nation is a stupid name, but classical liberals and conservatives can support it.

Yet another party is not going to help. It will just split the vote making all right parties weaker.

One Nation is the only right party to make any impact. All should support it, even with a stupid name.

Suggested campaign slogan:
"One Nation: Stupid name, Only hope."

Instead of commenting on 'Conservatives', I thought I'd make a quick comment on 'Progressives'.

Where does all this liberal left 'triggering' and 'safe space' ideology come from? One might ask.
Well an article I saw this morning might point us in the direction of that answer.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/rising-number-of-queensland-teens-face-mental-illness-mission-australia-report-20170418-gvn1t5.html

I could question a few things from this article, whether kids 'living with psychological distress' automatically makes them mentally ill, and whether 'stress, school and study problems, depression and body image issues' automatically defines them as 'living with psychological stress' and are thus considered mentally ill?

Some might argue these problems are valid and need to be addressed but I might counter with 'What happens if you start telling someone they are mentally ill when they are not actually mentally ill?'

Is it not a self fulfilling prophecy?
If they don't already have a mental illness will they not soon get one by telling them they do?
I'm not sure we're doing ourselves any favors telling the kids they're 'mentally ill', I'm not exactly sure where that ideology leads but it could just be leading us as a society to the door of the 'insane asylum'...

The point I actually wanted to make though, is that's going on is that all this kids, whether rightly or not, are being lead to believe they have a mental illness.
This legitimises their problems, but it also means that they can then legitimately argue against anything that that might cause them; 'anxiety' for example.

So now, after legitimately being told they have a mental illness, their response is to then legitimately argue that they need to be protected from anything that might have an adverse affect on said diagnosed mental illness.

Ta-da! - Enter 'Safe Spaces' and 'Triggering'.

What this also means is that our University's have now become breeding grounds for the mentally ill, but that's another discussion.

Food for thought...

Liberal can be left of centre or right of centre. Conservative can be dictatorial and one minded. Take Abbott for example, he completely discarded his mentors like Menzies and Howard, he knew better than all of them.

He based his assumptions of policy on the Singapore govt. Big business is thriving, multi thousands have been dislodged to live along railway tracks and under bridges. They have created the perfect two class society. The extreme rich and the destitute.

A perfect example of conservatism, was Abbotts mentor.

Along with his chalf eating offsider they sidestepped the complete process of govt.

Hi doog, I stand by my assertion that Conservatism is based on greed and fear. Since both are deemed negatives the claim brings a stinging reaction from those who see themselves as such. Conservatism bring nothing to society, the devotees are forced to rely on the absurd claim that the function of Conservatism is to wind back the excesses of Progressives. Undoing bad change and returning to the "good old days, a claim I find ridiculous when looked at in the context of Australia we are in a far better position today through progressive change that we were in the past "good old days".