Yesterday you could have counted the people agreeing with me in the media in the tens
Thanks for that s message too, I wanted to post a John Hewson opinion.
He may have been a great leader if not for the boggyman GST he shared his thoughts, they could have been mine.
Generally watch Sky for self amusement.
It informs us the center are? well they do not exist! seems my claim Sir Robert Menzies was a LIBERAL are? untrue!
They damage the Liberal brand, Trump like, Albo,s *in your guts you know he is nuts* could be any one of their trained performers spouting untruths/lies
I think reading the demands the Liberals return to Liberalism, after their impending train wreck, will be fun

The problem with Liberalism according to Patrick Deneen is that it takes its definition of freedom from John Stuart Mill and John Locke (called the father of Liberal Democracy)

Not sure of the integrity of these links
http://www.literary-articles.com/2009/02/john-locke-father-of-modern-democracy.html
http://www.freedomandflourishing.com/2018/03/is-john-locke-responsible-for-failings.html

Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill- On Liberty- "you should be free to do that which doesn't harm others".
At face value this seems reasonable until you realise that everything is related.

Aristotle's tradition of hendonism and freedom was different.

"For Epicurus pleasure was indeed the supreme good, but his interpretation of this maxim was profoundly influenced by the Socratic doctrine of prudence and Aristotle’s conception of the best life. The true hedonist would aim at a life of enduring pleasure, but this would be obtainable only under the guidance of reason. Self-control in the choice and limitation of pleasures with a view to reducing pain to a minimum was indispensable. This view informed the Epicurean maxim “Of all this, the beginning, and the greatest good, is prudence.”"
http://www.britannica.com/topic/hedonism

In Modern times Liberalism has become synonymous with change, multiculturalism, globalism, free trade, free-love, diversity. What of those that value our heritage, our traditions- it seems liberalism will roll over these. Toffler was right that many people will live in a state of "Future Shock". As Hobbes said "Bellum omnium contra omnes"- the state of man is a state of war of everyone against everyone- those that value our culture need to wake up and fight for their future- "the world is what we make it". A world that is erased of our traditions is a world without meaning- a world of death- where we have no place.

Diversity is not equality- possibility is not probability, globalism is tyranny, multiculturalism is genocide- every culture deserves their own nation, novelty is not happiness.

Sadly there is confusion between liberalism and conservatism especially on the "right". Conservatives (big L liberals) don't believe in Liberalism- they believe in "Traditional Family Values"- so it's strange that others refer to Conservatives as big L liberals.
The right is usually dominated by the "Free Trade/ Money Men" though at some levels they have similar views.
The right has been said to be composed of the military industrial complex. In order to understand this it's necessary to understand the history of politics from the medieval age. Loosely speaking the military are the conservative older branch and the industrial is the business/ new money branch.

Conservatism loosely opposes Liberalism on the multidimensional political spectrum. Patrick Deneen believes that although both left and right have elements of Conservatism and Liberalism- Liberal policies have dominated over the past 500 years. Sometimes even Free Traders have been falsely labelled "Conservative".

Many on the right are in fact "Economic Liberals" or in Australia "small l liberals".
Many on the left are "Social Liberals". Progressive is loosely a synonym for Liberal.

Simply- Conservatives believe in Tradition - Liberals don't.

Sadly traditional conservative values haven't been supported by the Australian people in elections despite the fact that many people seem to value them.

As Orwell pointed out in Nineteen Eighty Four if people don't have the language to express a concept they can't take action in support of it.

The people need to learn what conservative is- for it's about survival

Peter Costello had this to say in his book,
"The Costello Memoirs:

"The Liberal Party must enunciate the values that
define them. They must apply these values to
issues that concern wider groups in the community.
By addressing these issues, they can widen their
community.

On these issues (there are many more), the values
of the Liberal Party - individual dignity,
self-reliance, national sovereignty, personal liberty,
a fair go - are highly relevant. These values resonate
with those of the Australian people. There is an
eager audience ready to listen to those who have the
courage to address their concerns.

Talking about values inspires controversy because
people can understand them, they may resonate with them,
or they may disagree with them. But they do become
enfranchised by debates of this kind. This means
communicating the values that motivate a party's
political approach to the issues of the day,
and convincing voters this will improve their lot
and improve the fortunes of those they care about.
Since most Australians care about their country,
it also means showing what this will do for the
nation.

Political organisations must always hold procedures-
fundraising-meetings as subordinate to the vision.
The vision is the rudder. The rest are the oars.
Members of political parties are far more interested
in ideas than procedures. And the parties must give them
a stake in ideas to sustain them through the long
march of modern politics."

Costello is right -

It is only right that the recent state failure in
Victoria should lead to serious critical
reflection. Plainly something has gone wrong. If it is
to win elections the Liberal Party must become hungry for
success. It should not over-react to this defeat in the
state. But it should react. In the wake of this most
recent defeat, the future direction of the party needs
to be examined.

Canem Malum Foxy all true, let me tell you a secrete I fear a true Liberal party
Right now, in my view, such a Liberal party would be near unbeatable
See like the current Liberals, my party, in my view the only one currently worth electing, has its faction anchoring it down
See I would be hung drawn and quartered, for holding the view, welfare must be reformed
That zero fraud, zero sit down money, and a true return to the community must be the very basis of dole payments.
The difference is I know it openly say it demand it, confront the very left, just as lost as the conservative right
This day children marched, the best this government could come up with? insult them!
Liberalism if it exists must return to its true base if it does my party must follow the voters too

Belly "Liberalism" is a different concept than the "Liberal Party". I'm unsure if you are getting the difference. Also Conservatism is not a synonym for the Liberal Party even if it is sometime used that way.

Conservatism (or Conservative Values) means to conserve the traditional social and economic structure.

Classical Liberalism basically means freedom- in the case of the right it means Free Trade, in the case of the left it means free movement of people, free sexuality, diversity, etc.

But the only way to really understand it is by looking at how the different view points see real life policy.

Both Labor and Liberals have majority Liberal values.

Of course the concepts of Liberalism and Conservatism are relative.

You said you consider a true Free Trade party as undesirable- but currently both parties have similar policies- the Labor party is currently more of a danger to Conservatism as at least the Liberal Party has about 40% Conservative members.