it always and everywhere a duty and an obligation to criticise both parties policies wherever inclined and wherever possible

I agree. many forget that Abbott is an old fashioned Tory. He will show those colours once elected and will have to be criticised for the same.

Why thankyou Splatocrat. I am honoured. Without what you call “the mentally deficient left wingers of this site” would you all be discussing SATPs bed hopping pub staff, or MK50s lobster catch or Lizzies fabulous dinner recipes?

You love the trolls too, and we know it.

(Note I do not include myself in your description and consider it always and everywhere a duty and an obligation to criticise both parties policies wherever inclined and wherever possible. Trust no-one!)

For Fisky, it is the Fraser years and before.

for John Q., his golden age is the Menzies era. Big Ming appears to be John’s hero.

both recalcitrants look back at a similar period of time and see the opposite.

Fisky sees a pro-business, pro-church, pro-traditional family and wowserist status quo.

John Q. looks at the same era up to 1970 and see his social democratic ideal: a mixed economy, strong unions and the golden age of keynesianism.

I must put John Q. well ahead of Fisky as an economic historian. Hands down.

Your constant intercession for the mentally deficient left wingers of this site is both heart warming and commendable.

“Fisky is the self-appointed guardian of truth, justice and the blogging way, but does not like to answer questions or respond to fact checking of his guest post?”

Nope – he doesnt respond to questions on his great Fisk Doctrine like

a) who’s definition of being “anti liberty” will get people sacked or demoted (or jailed – or worse – come on Fisky you little cretin – fess up what you really mean by anti liberty)

b) define “anti liberty”

c) state clearly the criteria by which someone will be judged “anti liberty” with the deliberate intent of infringing the so named person’s liberty, by another person.

As for being in the company of those logical enough to argue Fisks doctrine with the illogical Fisky my thanks go to….

no not to “The Cheerleader” Gag, or to “The Word Fiddler” himself, Fisky, but to the esteemed “Plagiarist” Jim Rose.
Sorry I missed you “Potato Peeler” Numbers.

They didnt even leave us a cadbury’s chocolate in the fridge on easter sunday and they ate all the Lindors. They took serious liberties.

A generation and a half ago, the political establishment in most Western countries was broadly conservative. The status quo was pro-business, pro-church, pro-traditional family and wowserish on issues like pub opening hours and pornography

Fisky, the Fraser years were not the golden era that you suggest.

It was after 1980 that economic deregulation and privatisation started abroad and came to Australia in the late 1980s. growth in social regulation was unabated.

The decline in the family started in the 1960s. Church going was already terminal.

Wowserism on pornography is stronger now that is the 60s and 70s.

Friedman wrote the tyranny of the status quo in 1984 out of pessimism. He thought that big government was still the face of the future.

Peltzman wrote at the end of the 1980s about how the rapid economic deregulation in the 1980s caught the prevailing public choice theory short.

You are the karaoke machine of commenters.

Instead, we must openly talk about the uselessness of Leftism, and how it wouldn’t be missed at all if it were to disappear

Both parties chase the median voter. Elections are crucial to controlling political parties. Parties that do not connect with the median voter do not get elected.

The Left provides a minimual competent replacement for when the Right gets tired and flabby in government and needs to be spelled, feed and rested.