"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.