In politics, a name says everything about how a given party wants to be seen - but obscures what they actually do.
Globally, democracy is sliding as parties parade their democratic bona fides but consolidate their power.
Central and eastern Europe is leading the descent. Poland's Law and Justice Party delivers nothing of the kind. And Viktor Orban's Hungarian Civic Alliance (Fidesz) is an alliance of the favoured few over the disadvantaged many.
Both were elected on pro-democratic platforms. Both quickly set about redrawing the system by stacking the courts, incorporating media, enriching their inner circle with plum posts and contracts, and silencing opponents.
What about the Anglosphere?
Surely the trusty old Tories in the British Conservative Party are solid? Forget it. Ruthlessly pushing Brexit, they ignored the constitution to shut down Parliament, lied constantly about Brussels and the EU, lied about Northern Ireland, traduced the courts and crashed through parliamentary conventions. Some of the party's older burghers were expelled for putting up resistance (including Winston Churchill's grandson and two former chancellors of the exchequer).
Extreme anti-Europe fervour was pursued in the full knowledge it might well cause the break-up of the UK itself.
The ongoing debacle showed the Tory party was many things, but conservative wasn't one of them.
All across the pseudo-democratic world, parties promenade as one thing, deliver something else.
And they extend these marketing tricks to programs as well, like the war on drugs and the war on terror. Operation Enduring Freedom delivered a colossal amount of death, but secured precious little "enduring freedom" for the women of Afghanistan or anyone else.
The marketing name-game follows the law of inverse relevance, which states "the less you intend to do about something, the more you have to keep on talking about it".
In the pilot episode of Yes, Minister, Sir Humphrey pithily explains why a departmental report titled Open Government actually defends secrecy: "Always dispose of the difficult bit in the title, [it] does less harm there than in the text."
The parties shaping the Morrison Coalition's tremulous approach to vaccines and climate adhere to this law also, via virtuous names like One Nation, the United Australia Party, the Nationals, and the Liberal Party of Australia.
Consider what they do in practice.
One Nation divides. It belittles scientific knowledge, attacks consensus, and fans social disharmony. Similarly, the UAP peddles lies and stokes outsider resentment aided by a flood of Clive Palmer's money.
Both parties seek to undermine national purpose, channelling anti-vax sentiment and asserting the rights of the unvaccinated over the more fundamental rights of the majority trying to protect each other.
Then there's the Nationals. Besides the obvious flaw that the party room has no MPs or senators from Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, or the ACT, (i.e. half the country) the dear old Nats seem most passionate about foreign-controlled fossil fuel companies. They could easily be called the Multinationals.
The Liberals pursue illiberalism as often as not, opposing improved accountability and integrity measures which would better protect the individual from government overreach, financial waste, and corruption.
With some honourable exceptions, Liberals reflexively block individual freedoms even when they're supported by mainstream Australians, such as with voluntary assisted dying, private cannabis use, and same-sex marriage.
Their simmering rage at being forced into that latter liberalisation in 2017 can be found in the current pernicious bill fashioned to give religionists special dispensation to keep discriminating against women, LGBTQI+ people, and non-believers. And what a triumph of false nomenclature that bill is, also. Mostly it is short-handed in media as the "religious freedom bill". Genius.
But there is no fetter on religious freedom, nor prohibition on faith - just on the prejudicial treatment of others. As then A-G George Brandis once told the Senate, "people have a right to be bigots". This bill seems to be about legislating that right. Such retrograde law might qualify as right-wing libertarian, but liberal?
The Liberal Party's commitment to the religious discrimination bill underscores the extent to which its priorities match those of the more extreme right-wing parties.
That's concerning enough, given that just weeks back the junior Coalition partner was effectively handed veto powers on the nation's Glasgow climate position.
The outcome was longer on the PM's political self-interest than any national benefit. But Morrison's prime goal was the headline. Marketing. Always marketing.
Whether we are entering the final week of this parliamentary term will depend on Morrison. Does he come out of the summer break and proceed to a March election, or wait to deliver a budget before a May poll?
Either way, female voters will be an interesting dynamic. After the stresses of home-schooling and working and doing everything else, the nation's women are exhausted.
Few felt that the PM every really connected with them through the long dark days of lockdown, even as they carried the economy and held the straining social fabric together. Fewer still will have been convinced by the government's reluctant response to assault allegations, and subsequent revelations of endemic sexism in politics.
Seeing a PM back in hard hat and hi-vis only confirms the suspicion that, to the Coalition, the only jobs that count are those held by men. Men who drive utes.
Still, even hard hats might be a better look than any more parliamentary weeks like the last one.
Despite the government's majority, it turned into a shambles.
It began with five Coalition senators crossing the floor to back a Hanson bill she couldn't even vote for herself. If ever there was an image of a government adrift and forlorn, here it was, with Hanson directing the chaos via Zoom.
It ended with Morrison railing in Parliament against a lawfully constituted anti-corruption commission - after one of his own backbenchers crossed the floor in protest.
"What was done to Gladys Berejiklian ... was an absolute disgrace," he thundered.
"And I'm not going to allow that sort of a process ... the Australian people know that Gladys Berejiklian was done over by a bad process and an abuse."
Viktor Orban would no doubt agree.
Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.