To be fair, Australia didn't go into recession and our banking system didn't go kaput during the gfc. Furthermore our government had no debt before the recessions and will be out of it within a few years thanks to the huge revenues that our mining industry is generating (we're going through a mining boom atm).

Though our economy is a two speed one, with the rest of our industries not doing anywhere nearly as well as mining and other natural resource based industries. But then again most countries have significant ecenomic issues at this point in time.

Hey i'm not judging Australia.  Well outside the ridiciulious overcensorship.

A lot of what it actually does may be beneficial and partly why.  Though a lot of people just do see conservative = bad.

A government not having debt is also a Conservative position though.  One that American conservatives had forgotten in the past... oh 2 decades.

It's like the difference between companies like Sony and Nintendo. 

Also considering a large part of the financial crisis in the US was caused specifically because of the wish for more people to be equal in the american dream.... (home ownership).

Oh I know you're not, criticism when valid is a good thing and in many areas you're criticisms are valid. The Australian government has moved more to the right in recent decades and it was a trend that was started by the traditionally left leaning Labor governments during the 80's and 90's. Where they began privatising many industries, they floated the dollar, lots of things really.

The thing is, in practice Australia is a very open society,thats democratic, seperates the powers of goverments and is secular. You can look at specific issues of legislation and say thats bad, and I'll probably agree with you and many of the issues you've raised I agree with. But that doesn't change the fact that we certainly aren't an authoratarian country. In fact we rate very well in almost all the scales that judges democracy, ecenomic freedom, quality of living, life expectancy etc.

BTW consertavism doesn't make sense to me. But this is more an issue of semantics on my behalf. What does conservative really mean? Does it mean resistence to change? Or right wing government? or a mix of both? I don't think a call to tradition is an adequate reason to keep anything to way it is. If something is worthy of staying the way it is, you should be able to make the case without such a call to traditon.

As for me... I consider conservative, right wing policies, laws and instutionalized attitude.   Because it's not like rightwingers don't want to change anything, they want to change alot... and not all of it is stuff that used to exist.  Like people in the US who are for a straight flat tax.  Not sure that ever existed.

Also, might I add... Rupert Murdoch came from Australia.  Which means Fox News is really all Australia's fault!

At least he doesn't live here anymore. You can have him...

EDIT I guess thats why its called neo-conservatism. But I've never understood why someone would want a less regulated economy whilst also pushing to maintain gay marriage bans. I have no issue with capitalism and having a free market, but I also want social freedom. But hey, thats just me...

Yeah... I... don't get it.  I believe the explination goes, that economic freedoms generally lead to a bettering of the world, since the best products and buisnesses will always win out, regulations protecting inferior products, ways of buisness and treatment of customers.   While too much personal freedoms will lead to crime, immorality and drug use that will influence culture as a whole hurting the advancment of society economically making everybody worse off due to former productive happy people become burnt out, unhappy people trapped in a life of debauchery.  Basically, the same excuses drugs are banned.

Though I don't get the democrats either... who are for some social freedoms and not other social freedoms.

But then again I never saw what was wrong with the general policy of "People can do whatever they want so long as they don't physically or financially hurt someone else."

It's not like the USA IS perfect  either.  What with Obama extending the patriot act with no changes.

It seems like a pretty good rule that one could use to run a society. Thats why victimless crimes, blasphemy laws or anything in that regard really piss me off.

Yeah, i couldn't agree more.  Though Me... i'd legalize every drug,(regulating some) and suicide... though suicide only after consulting a psychologist or psychiatrist to diagnose sanity.

As for Blasphemy laws.  Luckily they are illegal via constitution.   Looking at it, looks like some states in Australia have blasphemy laws and procedures for people who are offended just by things other people say classifying it as hate speech?

Also there is apparently a Blasphemy law on the books federally, it's just nobody bothers to enforce it... what with the no state religion.

Those laws may exist, but I can't remember any cases that I've heard of where people have been prosecuted over it, though I'm sure its happened. I don't know. I do know that most Australians are pretty irreligious and blasphemy doesn't seem to piss people off that much.

Last federal case looked to be 1919.  So not for a while, couldn't find state refrences though, other then it could be brought up.