It's true that there exists a broad neo-liberal consensus and it is true that this means that, essentially, a Rudd Government will not differ in fundamentals to a Howard Government certainly so far as economic policy is concerned, although there is no mention here of Kim Carr's push for industry policy. This consensus, however, operates at the elite level and does not include the population who oppose privatisation, oppose "free trade" agreements, are in favour of fiscal policies that increase spending even at the expense of tax increases and such. What Prasser demonstrates, no doubt unwittingly, is that we live in a corporate dominated society where the preferences of the rich matter rather than most Australians.

At any rate, there are differences at the margin between the ALP and Howard and they are reason enough to vote Labor, if what happens to people matters to you.

Yes, all lefty things are on the retreat. Old socialists like me are just "left" to lick their wounds.

For instance, old growth forests (which always leaned to the left) are in retreat everywhere. Right-leaning clearfelled tracts of land can be seen from space; such a symbol of conservatism on the march.

Could there be anything more left-leaning than the atmosphere? Right-leaning co2 and methane are in the ascendancy everywhere - abandon hope you old lefty oxygen breathers. Your time is up!

Even as we write, a gale of conservatism is preparing to rattle our windows, bringing rain or not, at the whim of the new order. Now our food is really at the whim of free market, like never before.

Yes, the signs and portents are everywhere. Conservatives can stick their chests out and be proud of a job well done.

"Such policies, after all, are delivering so much prosperity" are they really?

Real average weekly ordinary time earnings are now falling and have been negative for the past 3 quarters, housing un-affordability at an all time high.

Interest payments on housing and other personal debt as a proportion of household gross disposable income at 11.7% the highest in decades.

Household liabilities at 158.7% of income.

The debt crunch is coming, but conservatives tell us we have never had it so good.

BOAZ=CONSERVATIVE.....but I'm not sure what you blokes are on about when you suggest that the issues raised by Chris and Ruawake are promoted by 'conservative's.... it just does not gel. I think we need new words.
"Morally Conservative" does not =EconomicRationalist/RightWing. but it sure means standing up for moral principles which we believe are abiding and unchanging and... for many of us, divinely sanctioned.

I think the 'Progressive/Conservative' dichotomy is WELLLL past it's use-by date.

I support many issues claimed to be 'lefty' economically, but on the moral level no way in hell. Please refer my thread 'Cave Sex' for reasons why.

I believe that we are witnessing nothing less than the humanistic/existential outcome of abandoning God. Its being expressed in economic rationalist, free trade, free market terminology but it all boils down to the power of HUGE corporations right ?

Economic Globalism is the closest thing to making us all slaves than anything else. The point made by Ruawake about household debt and interest, is one of those "like it or we will lump YOU" situations, where the huge corporations holding the reigns of power can simply choose to opt out of our country and select better 'margin' pickings elsewhere. They can dump us and there is squat we can do about it.

The only thing BEING done in the midst of all this is an entrenching of remaining Union power, and a FOCUS on the large infrastructure and on corporations which for various reasons cannot just 'opt out'.

For example.. the BLF..oops..sorry, I mean the CFMEU has big building companies by the balls. Do they care about the small laborer who is out in the suburbs? nah..not a scrap, they focus on those in the city and extract all manner of benefit from them and in my opinion, they do it in an extortive immoral manner.

The problem with Labor/Coalition is that it isn't choice. Greens are whackos' and Dems..who? FF are ok in my view but too small and will be kept that way by the 'BIG' players.

Boaz... I'm going to sound all school-teacherish here, but you've touched on what I think are the most defining elements in society that need to be outlined more clearly to all Australians - liberalism and conservatism are very broad concepts that can be applied to many elements in society, though typically, they tend to be grouped into one of two categories: economic and cultural.

This article is entirely about the economic sphere.

The entire debate in each sphere rests on the level of government intervention versus personal responsibility.

Now the terms used differ slighty between the two spheres - when referring to economic spheres we have classic liberalism and socialism, as well as social liberalism which is in-between.
Socialism refers to government control of markets while classic liberalism refers to government having very little responsibility at all. Social liberalism refers to government controlling some spheres of life and picking up the slack where the market isn't working in the nation's interest.

Now the concepts you're on to are cultural and I suspect we come from opposing ends of the spectrum. This is the simple liberal - conservative divide, and boils down to whether the government should have say on cultural issues - drugs and abortions are some crucial issues in western civilisation, but when referring to other cultures, and as Islam's a hot topic these days, ironically the muslim regimes would be best described as neo-conservative.
It's rather interesting that the prime opponents of these regimes tend to be cultural conservatives from the west rather than liberals... funny world sometimes.

The other interesting dichotomy, is that economic liberalism tends to be married with cultural conservatism - observe the coalition and the American republicans to see what I mean. This is why one of Australia's culturally conservative party is known as 'Liberal.'

Prasser's referring to more classic economic liberalism (which ironically, tends to be referred to as conservatism, due to the associations... yeah, it's confusing) and it can't be denied that broadly speaking, Australia has drifted very far into economically liberal policies.

Culturally speaking however, I'd say we've gone the opposite...

Well Australians are sure not conserving the environment, water or soil.
They are rushing blindly after their leaders to sell Australian real-estate and its assets off to the rest of the world in exchange for unbelievable debt. Most Australians are hopelessly uneducated in any discipline which would permit them to see through the lemming-economic mantras of our religion-blinded electoral choices.

The mainstream media run the elections in any case.

One's only choice would be to vote labour although I think that just gets us the same media and they run the country as well as the elections, and reap the profits of our governments' policies which the rest of us all pay for.

Could be that Australian elections are just not worth intelligent participation any more. Revolution would make sense but who will revolt whilst they still have food in their bellies?

Kanga

"Conservative values drive the policy agenda to such an extent that whoever is in power is essentially unimportant."

Thank heavens that someone with a little more public credence than little 'ole me has finally said that. It reinforces my belief that most of us need not worry which 'brand' of politics rules in Canberra - especially as we are only ever going to have the choice (if you could call it that) of two parties. Minor parties and independents are treated, properly, like village idiots.

Here is proof that the lefties, greenies and bleeding heart asylum-seeker lovers are wasting their time squealing about things which are just not going to happen, irrespective of who is in government.

Take heart though, Chris Shaw, you lefties are not the only ones who like to see forests left alone and uranium left in the ground. There is still room for your favourite topics, and many of them will be continue to be pushed by us nasty right wingers.

You're rather a negative person Leigh - I've yet to see a post from you that wasn't couched in hostility.

The major parties are bad, the minor parties are bad, the independents are bad... what's your alternative?
Rather than bleating about the evils of society perhaps you could suggest some practical positives.

I for one, would rather see more independents elected in our democracy... though apparently they're nothing more than village idiots.

Idiots they may be, but they are at least doing something. Whatever their reasons may be, at least they're less likely to be driven by party politics.

I agree with Boaz n TurnR;

What is this 'Conservatism'? The Left latches on to it and flings it about all over the place like they know what they are talking about. Even Righties like it. But what is it, really?

I too am certain it is a mis-used term in Austrlia. It is more befitting of Us politics and social comment; but to just throw it about Australia is essentially, a flaw.

I think it needs proper clarification, because here it seeems to apply to a somewhat liberal use of legisaltion/policy (to begin with).

"Australia is on a one-way street of more deregulation, market-based reforms, greater global integration and less welfarism. The only issue is the pace of change, not the destination."

That is YOUR early 1990s opinion Mr Prasser.

Other more sophisticated commentators have noted a gradual pro-labour drift back to the left (or should I say 'centre') in the advanced democracies as the inequities wrought by two decades of extreme economic liberalism become harder to ignore.

As to Labor's ability to deliver an economically rationalist agenda, where you alive in 1983-1996?

I would urge you to read this penetrating analysis by Morgan Stanley's global chief economist Stephen Roach on the approaching labour backlash in the industrialised economies.

"Contrary, to orthodox 'win-win' theory, globalization is a highly asymmetrical phenomenon. Initially, it creates far more producers than consumers. It also results in extraordinary imbalances between nations with current account deficits and surpluses. And it has led to a widening disparity of the returns between labor and capital. Does this mean that globalization is inherently unsustainable? Probably not. But it does mean that the most destabilizing phase of this mega-trend could well be close at hand. As seen through surging corporate profitability, the returns to capital have never been greater. Meanwhile the shares of labor income have never been lower. As day follows night, the pendulum will swing the other way -- and so will the balance between real wages and business profitability. It’s just a question of when -- and under what circumstances."

You can read the full report here.
http://www.morganstanley.com/views/gef/archive/2006/20061023-Mon.html

I am fascinated by this Fukuyama style "end of progressive liberalism" or "end of socialism" piece.

If 1987 was Year Zero I would agree that Australia has become a bit more conservative. But what if we ask the question - is Australia more conservative now than in 1970 ? 1960 ? Or in 1950 ?

I think the answer is Australia is significantly more progressive and liberal than it was, Government takes way more tax, spends a lot more, we readily accept divorce, abortion, sex before marriage, homosexuality, and the list goes on.

The mild changes conservatives have managed in the last 30 years have not reversed or even dented the sides of the progressive liberal juggernaut.

Australians are all progressive liberals now might be more accurate.

Ruawake
It’s true than real wages dropped a little in mid 2007, but that owed more to the unexpected blip in inflation caused by the effects of Cyclone Larry and the drought than to a weakening of wage growth. The drop in inflation in the December quarter saw real earnings rise once more; I’d say a further increase is virtually certain in March, given the 0.06% inflation rate during the quarter. In any event, one or two quarters of bad results don’t mean much, the longer-term trends is clear – growth in real wages of 9.1% in the five years to December 2006 – not spectacular, but steady progress.

It’s also true that debt has increased, but so had the value of assets, so the average household’s balance sheet is the strongest it’s ever been, despite rising debt.

Housing unaffordability is rotten for those who are or would like to be first time buyers, and for those who face rising rents. But it’s not all bad news – high house prices have also boosted household wealth.

While not everyone is benefitting, I think the evidence that we are more prosperous overall is very persuasive.

The Howard era has spawned a lot of this ‘triumph of the Right’ kind of writing – in both the MSM and blogosphere. Beneath all the crowing, however, the reality is a little different.

Remember that in 2004, the combined Right-leaning parties (Libs, Nats, FF and One Nation) cleared about 49 per cent of the first preference vote, and the combined Left-leaning parties (Labor, Greens, Democrats) about 48 per cent. That hardly indicates a long-term Right-wing ascendancy.

I also object to this interminable assumption that the Left is radical (or ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’) and the Right are the conservative upholders of tradition. Left-wing politics has been around since at least the nineteenth century, so it can hardly be classed as radical or progressive. Also, in the past two decades, the policies of the Right have been intensely radical – overhauling at least a century of mainstream economic and social policies.

On both Right and Left, there are those who now want a more inclusive, co-operative political system, and those who want to move more towards a system of dominance and fear. In an era of climate change and nuclear weaponry, if the latter system wins out, it's not the Left or Right that will be 'in retreat’, but humanity itself.

Considering the real state of the world with unipolar Americana acting unethically while spinning tales of socio-political morality, one could regard the above thesis as printed in Alice's wonderland.

The real facts are, our conservatism as stated, with huge growing corporates calling the tune, is not much different than when huge concerns like the East India company and the Dutch equivalent were practising similar overlording.

Admittedly, countries like China and India could be helping to paint a brighter picture, yet historically we might have slipped back into the 19th century period when Herbert Spencer slipped his own conception of a Survival of the Fittest, in front of his former friend Darwin's simple animalistic concept, justifying not only the injustices of colonialism, but caused America to take over countries on both sides of the Pacific in the name of protection for honest or rather dishonest free-market trade, not forgetting to also blockade China, sacking Tientsin in the process.

And now with us Anglipholes having crushed the attempts by Germany and later Soviet Russia to stand up to us, we are still playing the old colonial game with a different name calling it freedom and calling the poorly armed unfortunates terrorists similar as we called our Aborigines even here in Perth, while shooting old Midgercoo at ten paces outside the barracks gates, having made sure to organise a mixed big crowd to watch.

From one who spends his old age studying history and decency, reckon us Anglipholes haven't changed much.

Several contributors have pointed out that the terms social, liberal, and conservative don't do much to inform the discussion.
Humans are both selfish, greedy, and opportunistic on the one hand, and altruistic, sharing, and long-sighted on the other hand. I think we need to encourage the so called virtues rather than reward the less admirable qualities. But to ignore one or the other sides of the human equation is to cause the pendulum of political change to swing. Maybe an electorate that is somewhere within the 45% to 55% spectrum is the best we can do to prevent gross excess for too long. So we need to be very zealous in protecting the right to elect governments, and change them, and to put up with the pertubrations of excess for a few years before we kick the bastards out, and give some other shade of bastards a try. Does it matter much? Probably not. But if the pendulum has swung one way, let it swing the other way for a bit.

I'm not hip to the lingo, but if conservative mean "to favour traditional values", then I am mostly conservative. However, I don't see anything conservative about these current policies:

* Globalisation

Pat Buchanan - the Return of Economic Nationalism
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52837

"With the 2006 election, America appears to have reached the tipping point on free trade, as it has on immigration ... Anxiety, and fear of jobs lost to India and China, seems a more powerful emotion than gratitude for the inexpensive goods at Wal-Mart. The bribe Corporate America has offered Working America - a cornucopia of consumer goods in return for surrendering U.S. sovereignty, economic security and industrial primacy - is being rejected ...They are tired of sacrificing the interests of American workers on the altar of an abstraction called the Global Economy ...

China and Japan manipulate their currencies and tax polices to promote exports, cut imports and run trade surpluses at America's expense. Europeans protect their farms and farmers. Gulf Arabs and OPEC nations run an oil cartel to keep prices high and siphon off the wealth of the West. Russians have decided to look out for Mother Russia first and erect a natural gas cartel to rival OPEC. In Latin America, Bush's Free Trade Association of the Americas is dead ... We are entered upon a new era, a nationalist era, and it will not be long before the voices of that era begin to be heard".

Ditto Australia.

[continued ...]

* Immigration

The Howard government bellows "we shall decide who comes to Australia and on what terms" and appears tough on immigration and border control. But the reality is different:

"Rarely in our history has a federal government pursued such a high level of immigration as the Howard Government ... The Government plans to increase the numbers ... The fact that John Howard, who has gained re-election by exploiting Hansonite xenophobia, has presided over a record inflow of foreigners is an irony little remarked"

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/its-life-but-certainly-not-as-we-want-it/2006/12/29/1166895477172.html

I don't see anything conservative about bringing in different races/cultures, and turning a fairly homogeneous society into the strains of diversity. It is radical social engineering, a dangerous experiment that will end in Australia splintering into warring factions unless a tough over-arching monoculture is enforced from the top.

* Muslims

There is nothing conservative about permitting the immigration of Muslims, or their population growth from within, in the "clear and present dangers" associated with a rising Muslim population. There is no apparent strategy to deal with the march of regressive Muslim culture that, apparently, inevitably follows their exploding birth rates.

* Nationhood

The growth of the EU highlights a disturbing loss of nationhood and we have to be careful values such as "free worker movement across borders" don't find their way down-under.

AND THE CONSERVATIVES ARE IMPLEMENTING/THINKING ABOUT EXTREME GREEN POLICY HOW IS THAT FOR YOU??!?!!?!?!?!?*

I let myself utilise all caps this once :D

"Humans are both selfish, greedy, and opportunistic on the one hand, and altruistic, sharing, and long-sighted on the other hand. I think we need to encourage the so called virtues rather than reward the less admirable qualities."

qft

Rhian

If you care to look at the figures real wages started to fall in 3rd quarter 2005 and have not kept up with inflation since then.

I could give you the link to the data but that would be too easy, use your brain and find out the truth.

Also our net public debt is $90 billion dollars, due to Costello cost shifting to the states, paying off Labor's debt is toad poo.

11 years of a lazy govt fudging the figures is disgraceful.

Ruawake

I have used my brain and found out the truth. Guess what, I was right.

These are my estimates (deflating seasonally adjusted full time ordinary time earnings by the all-groups CPI). The occasional quarter of declining AWE is not uncommon, but the only significant drop was in the June quarter 2006, reflecting the sharp rise in the CPI caused by a spike in food prices that quarter. As that blip unwinds from the data real wages will trend up again, as started in the December quarter 2006.

The real question is not these short-term variations but the longer term trends. Between December 2001 and December 2006 full time ordinary time earnings rose by 26.4% and the CPI rose by 15.9%, yielding 9.1% real growth.

If you use original or trend data or one of the other average weekly earnings measures you’ll get slightly different results, but the same basic pattern.

________________ Earnings _____ ________ CPI _____ _____ "Real" Earnings _____
_____________ $pw _____ % Ch _____ Index _____ % Ch ___ Dec-06 Prices __% Ch

Dec-01 ______ $849.00 _____ 1.4% _____ 135.4 _____ 0.9% _____ $975.03 _____ 0.5%

Jun-05 _____ $1,008.70 _____ 1.7% _____ 148.4 _____ 0.6% _____ $1,056.96 _____ 1.1%
Sep-05 _____ $1,022.00 _____ 1.3% _____ 149.8 _____ 0.9% _____ $1,060.89 _____ 0.4%
Dec-05 _____ $1,026.00 _____ 0.4% _____ 150.6 _____ 0.5% _____ $1,059.38 ____ -0.1%
Mar-06 _____ $1,036.20 _____ 1.0% _____ 151.9 _____ 0.9% _____ $1,060.76 _____ 0.1%
Jun-06 _____ $1,043.80 _____ 0.7% _____ 154.3 _____ 1.6% _____ $1,051.92 ____ -0.8%
Sep-06 _____ $1,051.80 _____ 0.8% _____ 155.7 _____ 0.9% _____ $1,050.45 ____ -0.1%
Dec-06 _____ $1,058.80 _____ 0.7% _____ 155.5 _____ -0.1% _____ $1,058.80 _____ 0.8

The terms "left" and "right" need to be rethought.

For one, we have a "right" government, that runs a trade libralisation agenda (once associated with the left), has massivly expanded middle class welfare (old-left), yet still manages to implement protectionist economic policies (old right).

Their "left" opposition pushes the same trade libralisation and protectionism, talks about work/family balance, and introduced a refugee policy back in the 1990's that favours locking asylum seekers up (very old-right).

While both parties are quite happy to accept huge donations from large corporrations, sit side by side with shock-jocks, remove the process of candidate pre-selection from the grass-roots to the offices of party officals. Both parties have been known to gang up on minor parties (particularly the Greens, but to a lesser extent, the Dems and Family First) and outspoken independants, be they "left" or "right".

The distinction between left and right has changed. Both "sides" of politics (as though there are two sides to every issue!) need to realise this, least the duo-opoly of political power lose touch with the needs of the punter on the street.

Personally, I believe that the concentration of political power has in part led to the blurd line line between the old left and right. I think, for alternative views to enter mainstream politics, it is important to reduce this concentration of power.

The Hijacking of society by the professionals and white collar workers

The labour party candidate in my electorate is the manager of Mcdonalds, a company known to pay their young workers as little as possible. Hardly an old time true labour party man to my way of thinking. Kevin Rudds wife is a successful business woman (all credit to her) but she must say to Kevin Rudd that she rather finds the new IR laws to her benefit.

Isnt peter Beattie a lawyer and his wife a doctor or the other way around(again they are to be admired for this) but they hardly seem to be of the old time labour party ilk. This country has a shortage of tradesmen and skilled workers because the country has been hijacked by the professionals and business people because ordinary working class people have been sending their children to university. And governments also being university pen pushers in a lot of cases have favoured businesses and haven’t insisted on the training of apprentices because they had no understanding that it is the people who work physically who really keep the wheels of industry and business running.

These people are only administrative pen pushers.
And so we have a shortage of real workers like tradesmen and skilled workers who work physically by the sweat of their hands and bodies to build all the homes and buildings and maintains the electricity grids and all the machines and transport etc that REALLY keep a society running.
The white collars workers never needed to strike for wages and conditions because the public service always granted them the best wages and conditions and the business people mostly put their own pockets ahead of wages and training, So the true labour movement is dead along with all the never trained trainsmen and skilled workers that the country so badly needs. But this will all be handed to cheap foreign labour, again for the benefit of the professionals and administrators and business people who are selling their grandchildrens future ownership of this land to ethnic groups.

Dr Scott, This is the highest taxing, biggest spending and largest government in our history. We have all manners of middle class welfare by way of subsidies, handouts and tax concessions. Private health is subsidised, child care is subsidised, LPG conversions too. Not to mention first home owner's grant, Family tax benefit part A and B, baby bonus and private schools. Where did you ever get the idea that this was a conservative government.

I suppose Scott you are correct in some of the things you allude to.
"Right" and "Left" views are old hat these days, due to an ever changing moral and values attitude, renewed through each of the recent generations. As Australians compete with each other more, and get more greedy, decent values and morals of our past have been erased.
Howard said earlier in his term of office, that he was going to run the government on a business level, he has done just that. Aboriginals, health and education are not part of the Howard or corporate mind, unless there is a profit to be made.
Howard has made it look simple for the simple minds, that feel they have made it in life, when they qualify for a large mortgage and possess a share portfolio.
The Australian people's money [tax] is appropriated by Howard, for the corporates to prosper from. Howard's economy is all about converting the majority of Australians into conservatives, and making it easier for him to hold onto power, up till now.
Howard's inaction over the term of his office on the issues of water, global warming, and ignorance of the people's real needs, has found him caught short, in this an election year.
Maybe the collective conservative minds of Australians will sometime soon, realise that there is more to life and surviving, than money and good old American know how. Change does happen, the same as sh-- happens.
Bush cannot help Howard now, as he spends like a drunken sailor, in attempting to buy Australia's conservative minds, once again.