October 11, 2013
The result of the 2013 federal election is a conservative Senate. Though the Greens retained their Senate numbers, they have been politically marginalized, and are unable to thwart environmental policy rollbacks favoured by the business side of politics. The balance of power has shifted to PUP
A conservative federal government will do what conservative state governments have done--- dismantle environmental policy around the country,such as undo environmental regulations, cut “green tape”, reduce third party planning appeals, not “lock up” any mining regions or forests. An Abbott Government, with the support of the Senate will, in effect, support the old extractive and fossil fuel industries whilst remaining indifferent to the increasing frequency of heat waves across much of the Australian continent.
This is a backward looking conservatism not ordinary conservatism. The latter conservatism:
---in the classical sense — wishes to preserve a stable society. Of course, this includes stable institutions and observing the rule of law. For these reasons (and several more), a conservative prefers evolutionary, more incremental change to revolutionary change: revolutionary change threatens the stability conservatives seek to conserve. Hence, conservatives reluctantly accept change — so long as it isn’t revolutionary. They do so for the sake of stability and order. Moreover, for the sake of order and stability, real conservatives are amenable to political compromise with their opponents.
The backward -looking conservatism, in contrast,i s generally fearful of losing their way of life in a wave of social change. To preserve their group’s social status, they’re willing to undermine long-established norms and institutions — including the law. They see political differences as a war of good versus evil in which their opponents are their enemies. For them, compromise is commensurate with defeat — not political expediency.