Excellent article, even though the author piqued my grammar fascism by misusing the word "hierarchy".

"... at the federal level, the conservatives do well and Labor poorly, while in state parliaments it is the reverse."

That depends on your definition of "conservative". Peter Beattie won a landslide in 2001 with a "denial of change", protection of vested interests, approach. How conservative can you get? Change is inevitable - voter self-interest requires both them and their governments to develop ways of coping with change positively, in taking advantage of the opportunities it provides, but so long as voters don't see this, head-in-the-sand pollies will continue to win elections with policies which aren't in the public interest.

But this is the idealist in me talking (cf another thread).

I don't think you are giving the Howard Government enough credit for their dominance in Federal Politics. In this instance Incumbency is king due to strong leadership and Economic management. Whilst Labor have widened the gap with their lack of internal cohesion and ideological indifferences and policy based simply on rejection of Liberal policy.