A State owned communication monopoly, followed with an internet censorship policy is hardly the hallmark of a liberal organisation.

Also the one size fits all IR policy is far from liberal.

While I am in favour of same sex legislation, in reality, it is a minor issue compared to the attempt by Labor to get the state involved in all aspects of life.

Fascinating that a newly-minted ALP MP who is apparently a very able economist, should write an article about the ALP and liberalism without mentioning economics and the labour movement.

The ALP was formed because the leaders of the union movement saw there were things they would *only* gain if they formed a government for themselves; things that a liberal capitalist government would never grant them. This was in the days when the ALP stood for the right to strike, instead of taking it away like Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard did in the last Parliament, all the while pulling a stage-magician's trick of distracting people by yelling about WorkChoices.

Mr Leigh's article is a reminder of just how far to the right the ALP has moved. Once upon a time ALP MPs used to not boast about how well the party conformed to liberal principles; rather they used to boast about how successful industrial action had bettered the wages and conditions of workers.

As Shadow Minister points out, the ALP has some pretty aggressive illiberal tendencies too. It distrusts people so much it plans to censor the Internet, it cowers before police unions and introduces Tasers when in State Government, and it does nothing meaningful to open up the bureaucratic, authoritarian nature of government in Australia.

Leigh states

"Yet in the process, Howard also placed himself and his party firmly in the conservative tradition. This was reflected in the Howard government's stance on everything from reconciliation to refugees, the monarchy to multiculturalism. Although Brandis and other moderates in the Liberal Party would like to distance themselves from this, the party of Howard and Abbott is very much a party of conservatism: instinctively suspicious of social change.

A century on, it is hard to escape the conclusion that if Deakin were in the federal parliament today, he and his brand of progressive liberalism would find a natural home in the Australian Labor Party."

What rubbish.

Which Labor is the author refering to. There are some conceptual beliefs there that might be part of an intelectual framework but which don't seem to be backed up by the ALP in government. I was especially intrigued by "that freedom of speech applies for unpopular ideas as for popular ones" - not an impression that I've ever had of the ALP or many of it's supporters.

What I do see is that the freedom to express selected unpopular idea's is supported but those who express views which are not within Labor's list of approved unpopular idea's are attacked quite viciously.

Labor seem's to stand for intrusive government trying to regulate every aspect of people's lives in an attempt to fix all the problems (in the process creating a new set of problems).

I'd agree that the coalition has moved a long way from being 'liberal' in it's approach, not all that different to Labor and the Green's in the way they embrace creeping regulation of peoples lives.

R0bert

Maybe Mr Leigh is referring to the all powerful New South Wales Right. This bloke needs a reality check before someone has to send for the men in white coats to take him away.

Any resemblance between the present day Liberal/Howardism party and the stated liberal ideals of Deakin are purely co-incidental. The re-branding of the Australian conservative politics as being represented by the 'Liberal' party was the brain-child of Robert Gordon Menzies - an ultra conservative fanatical roylist who would roll over at the thought of republicanism, gay rights, same sex marriages etc. Mr Menzies was fully aware of the power of labels as, inter alia, his utilization of the communist bogey-man clearly showed.
What's in a name? - in my experience, there are few better manipulative means available to the power hungry ruthless than name calling whether referring to individuals or political organizations.