This article is a joke, isn't it?

"Since then, a line of Labor Premiers have rolled out an identikit agenda..."

Lets talk about the public transport and hospital debarkles in NSW, teachers asking for a 30% salary increase in Vic, QLD health and roads. The Labor governments have been a dismal failure all across the country - the only truth in this article is that the Labor governments are still in because the Liberal oppositions have been cr@p.

Also take for example the last state election in NSW - 60 something percent of voters said that the current government did not deserve to be re-elected. Hardly becoming of "the natural party of government".

It's true that the Libs have lost their way - they are anything but a party based on Liberalism, and a period in the wilderness is required so that they either fall apart entirely or come back in a completely different form. Personally, I'd like to see them return back to a more Liberalism based policy platform, but I think that's a long way away.

Lets see what 10 odd years of federal labor comes up with. I'm willing to bet a nanny state, a failed economy, maybe another recession "that we had to have". I'll also be interested to see how long Rudd lasts before he's given the boot by "the party faithful".

No, the ALP is NOT the natural party for Australia. Labor dominance at the state level is explained by ineffective oppositions. For the same reason, Federal Labor has been floundering in the wilderness for the last 11 years. If the federal Liberals get their act into gear and provide strong effective opposition, then Rudd had better watch out next election. Why? Because incumbents will always fall short on their promises (the nature of the beast), and if there is a viable alternative, WITH a leader that people can see as prime minister material, then there is highly likely to be a change. The Libs won in 2004 for the same reason that NSW State Labor won their last election - the opposition, particularly the leader, was a joke.

Plus its a bit rich for the author to have a dig at the Lib's for being slightly more socialist than in the past, and not then apply the same logic to the ALP's turn towards economic conservatism.

“….the ALP is Australia’s natural party of government”, according to this lawyer. All of the really strange statements seem to come from lawyers.

The claim is, of course, complete and utter rubbish. Labor is in government everywhere in Australia now because slightly more voters – including those who did not vote Labor directly, but whose preferences helped them over the line – decided that they preferred Labor for a myriad of reasons best known to them.

Simply put, all elections are usually decided on a 51% to 49% basis, or some other slim majority. Almost half of the population clearly indicates that it does not want either Labor or Liberal, depending which party wins or loses at the time.

This whole article is ridiculous. Mr. Corke must spend most of his time in outer space. All Australians, irrespective of political leanings, should feel insulted by this prat.

Save us from lawyers and their absurd notions!

I think the 'identikit' Labor premiers are mostly concerned with securing corporate board places and consulting gigs for their next incarnations, rather than being the natural government of anything.

What I'd like to know is what's the use of a triple-A government credit rating if you never borrow to build public infrastructure?

Toll-funded turnpikes don't count; governments do nothing there but grease the tunnels for private investors' pleasure. Where are the promised railways, the open roads free of tolls, accidents and commuter congestion, the brilliant schools and the excellent hospitals?

Public transport and schools and hospitals should compete on quality, safety and even comfort with the private alternatives. If they don't, they're nothing but a mop for the leaks the market can't be bothered with, consigning the people who rely on them to second-class citizenship.

actually, xo, it's 1st class subjection.

The conservatives do so much damage when they are in power its hard to believe they have held power for about a third of the time since 1980.

Now we have wall to wall Labor I expect that GST funds that the Howard government held back for pork barrelling will be redistributed to the states so they can build roads, equip hospitals and staff schools. If, of course it hasn't all been squandered.

Any one who doesn't believe me needs only look at the employment prospects of young graduates who want to teach in Victoria. While hospitals complain about lack of funds they pay consultants and nurses agencies squillions of dollars every year. Let's lose this outsource and rent mentality - its costing the community dearly.

Actually, historically speaking and looking at the raw numbers without any political inflection - yes, the ALP is the natural party of government.

I do find it most interesting when posters such as BN trawl out the poor performance of State Labor as a hammer to whack the party.

Perhaps when they can point me to a better State Liberal party then I might give these claims a little credence.

TurnRightThenLeft,

You say:

"Actually, historically speaking and looking at the raw numbers without any political inflection - yes, the ALP is the natural party of government."

Really? "Of government"? Which numbers would they be? What numbers mean that it's natural for the ALP to be in government?

I would love for someone to explain to me why one party is the "natural party" OF government. There is a problem with that statement from the start.

My point was not that the libs are the more "natural party" - but that the original author made it sound like there was something fundementally wrong with Labor not being in Goverment, which is patently false. The Labor party is made up of humans, they make mistakes like any other humans and deserve to be kicked out when they screw things up, just like happened to the federal Libs over the weekend.

BN: the simplest numbers. Looking at the numbers of State and Federal governments elected from each side, it's pretty safe to say more voters have voted Labor than for the Liberals, Nationals (or Country Party) combined.

As to which one should be in power, well, that's up to the voters. And they seem to pick Labor more often, whether we like it or not.

I agree that ‘natural’ is not quite the right word, but, in the absence of another more precise one, Labor has been the ‘natural’ party of government for a lot longer than 27 years. It has been the ‘natural’ party of government since the Second World War. The fact has been disguised by the 23-year existence of the DLP, which split the Labor vote. Now that we have a prime minister form a partly DLP family, we can say that the Split is definitely over.

The Victorian Labor Government is so much better than the Liberal Government that it replaced and the Liberals have become such a disunited bunch that Labor can look forward to many more years in power. The federal campaign showed a Liberal Party in a parallel universe banging on about Brian Burke, union ‘thugs’, the ‘hopeless – but strangely re-elected - Labor state governments and the non-issue of the day – Mersey Hospital, Queensland LGA amalgamations, etc.

Just as Victorian Labor gained two landslides with its policies of reforming the Upper House, constitutionally protecting the auditor-general, re-investing in education, cutting taxes, capping prep to grade 2 classes at 21 pupils each, restoring proper academic subjects to the curriculum, etc, so will Kevin Rudd be re-elected with an increase vote in the next federal election. Liberal commentary so far shows that just as they do not understand the results in Victoria in 1999, 2002 and 2006, they do not understand the result in Australia in 2007. If they did, they would be able to put pressure on the state Labor Government.

Billie,

Sometimes I do wish you weren’t on the same side as I. All the GST revenue goes to the states already. The poor staffing of Victorian secondary schools and the poor conditions and pay for teachers are solely the responsibility of the state government, which has the funds to fix them today.

Who is the natural party of government is immaterial, the important issue is that the mood out there is calm,happy and a joy to be amongst. Something that has been missing for a long time.

Commonsense of being and reality has returned to Australia.

Chris C stick to being the expert on school administration policy. The economics teacher at Hampton High could tell you that the Federal Government collects taxes and allocates money to the states for provision of schools, hospitals, roads, utilities etc.

One of the commentators has said that the dispersal of GST revenues is unpublished and he felt the first act of the Labor government should be to release information about how much GST is collected and which state gets the money. It is clear that the GST moneys are sitting in Canberra and the states' share of revenue has fallen as a percentage of GDP over the last 11 years.

see http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/surpluses-need-to-be-spent-on-infrastructure-that-in-turn-provideservices/2007/11/23/1195753308773.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Also read Alan Kohler in the Eureka Report

We all forget that the Labor party was formed in the 1890s as a result of the shearers and miners strikes and that conservative parties have come and gone in the mean time. Protectionist, Free Trade, Commonwealth Liberal, Country Party, Nationalist, United Australia.

I think the assertion that the ALP - or indeed the coalition is the natural partry of government misses a few salient points.

The dominance of Labor from sea to shining sea is a refelection of organisational efficiency as much as it the delivery of good policy.

The ALP as made a virtue of breeding good machine men and women hence the effectiveness of thier campaigns and pretty long tenure in the states

Policy differences remain narrow to the point of being indistinguishable - and lets face it if Turnbull gets the gig as leader of Her Majesty''s opposition the differences will narrow further still - he was keen on Kyoto - perhaps for political reasons and a champion for the republic.

He still claims Liberals to be the party of free choice and free enterprise and small business -- but where is the evidence that the ALP is not either?

Rudd is a technocrat - it is a technocratic form of government we need to expect - pragmatic and while totally devoid of politics we wont see the kind of populist nonsense HOward produced almost seasonally.

All the potential Liberal leaders have avowed to rid themselves of failed policies - they now have nowhere else to go other than cosey up Kevin and his team - the parties per se are self declaring that in many respects each of them are past their used by dates.

"ALP - the natural party of government"

about as natural as my dog trying to mount my cat (and getting a good scratching in the process).

Oh, let the socialists gloat in this honeymoon period, when it is too soon to see the lies and deceptions and plain old incompetence (which is the hallmark of every socialist government).

Just remember the financial disaster which the socialists straddled this nation with back in the early 1990's and how the liberal government of the past decade "managed" - Yes, "MANAGED" the country out of the economic purgatory left by Keating.

The coalition did a useless job of campaigning and they are paying for it. However, it does not mean that a whole block of Australians do not still support the liberal policies, just the same as there is always a bunch of dullards who think a socialsit government is there to make life “fair” for them, regardless of their own apathy.

Ultimately, the floating voters might understand what they have elected into power once the unions start demanding to rule their dominion and maybe marginalizing Krudd out from his leadership

Col, you really think anybody still believes the absurd dichotomy between "socialist" and "economically liberal" policies anymore? Howard's government was no less "socialist" than Keating's, and some would argue more so.
Social spending and respect for free enterprise can and do go hand in hand, in virtually every successful economy in the world. It's all a question of balance.

Col, we need socialist governments every now and then to inject a bit of balance back into our economy and society. The Lib's have forgotten that its not always ideal to run a budget surplus - there's more to managing the economy than that. Economically speaking the Howard bunch moved a little far to the right for the comfort of most Australians. The impact of workchoices, whether real or media influenced, seemed to me to be the nail in the coffin. There were many reasons that they failed to win this election, but workchoices was a large one.

The implications of workchoices in the future of the Australian labour market is a big one. Instead of requiring our business to compete with those that employ children, have little or no safety restraints, pay subsistence wages and have little regard for environmental issues, we should look at implementing tariffs that are based on the business practices of the countries, or industries that we buy from. It will mean our prices will go up, but that will reflect the true cost of the products that we buy. It may also lead to Australian businesses (that DO abide by our reasonably strict HR and environmental laws) being able to expand, employ more staff, plus lead to a reduction in the CAD (given increase in local production). It is important though not to confuse protection of inefficient industry (which shouldnt happen), with the balancing of business conditions. Such tariffs should also be flexible enough to be easily reduced as overseas businesses conform to our HR and environmental standards. Think of it also in terms of encouraging green standards in business worldwide. I doubt any government including the ALP would have the balls to introduce such a policy, but its probably the only way to go in the short-medium term, otherwise we risk falling to the current standards of china in order to compete.

Wizofaus is on track. Sadly, many people still do not get it - it is no longer about socialist/fascists, right/left, us/them, etc.

Rudd knows this, so does Turnbull - Howard was lost in the past as were most of his right wing fundamentalists. I am looking forward to a Rudd/Turnbull parliamentary session.

Aside: My bet is Turnbull for leader with Julie Bishop as deputy (assuming of course the Libs 'get it').

Hang on to your old world view if you like, but leaders like Rudd and the like of Turnbull understand what has to be done. Jump on board, it will be exciting. Or, bury your head in the sand and continue with the archaic way of thinking.

Although I don't believe Labor's win will solve any of the problems the working class is confronted with - in fact they are likely to be far more dangerous than the Howard government - it amusing that Col Rouge is spitting chips.

As usual, Col's "analysis" is totally superficial. The Coalition has been decimated - they no longer hold state power anywhere - and their policies (or what passed for policies) have been thoroughly repudiated.

Far from the loss being due to a bad campaign, the old silent majority Col used to speak of so highly (when they voted his way) has now spoken. The landslide to Labor is not a vote for Labor, but a vote against the Howard government and its policies. However Rudd's policies are hardly different to Howard's.

Anyone out amongst the electorate during the election campaign and on polling day, speaking to voters, would understand the determination with which they wanted to get rid of Howard and the vileness he symbolised. They know Rudd won't be much different, but are hoping that he will.

It won't be long now before ordinary people come into conflict with the reality of a Rudd Labor government.

While I was writing this in "Word" Tao posted a more succinct version but here goes anyway

Col Rouge

I am an Apathetic Dullard and at present I am very happy to be one. Once again the "We are born to rule because we are more intelligent" Liberal Creed has been trotted out by another conceited, arrogant and ignorant, in the sense that he has no manners and demeans anyone who does not agree with him, Liberal voter.

In case you had forgotten this is a Democracy, and if an election is won 51% to 49% that means that almost half the nation is unhappy. Well now it’s your turn and I believe it will be for at least two terms.

Now, if we had a decent alternative to the Labor Government in Tasmania I would vote for them. But we don’t and if the Liberal opposition cannot defeat the likes of the Lennon government then what good are they?

I have just watched Gerard Henderson on Lateline compare Howard with Hawke and Costello with Keating as best PM’s and treasurers. So he must be a dullard too. I don’t know what his level of apathy is.

Not only are the current crop of Liberal oppositions in each state, and now also federally, looking very ordinary, but for them to be in opposition they must have been pretty ordinary in government as well and deserve to be where they are. That only leaves the Labor Party to vote for. So if you lot are so intelligent and smart how did you get into this mess?

Take off your blinkers Col Rouge, unless of course you wear them to hide your eyes.

Ulysses

On Lateline tonight Gerard henderson also indicated he thought a Turnbull for leader with Julie Bishop as deputy was his pick of the new leadership.

Turnbull has already agreed that Kyoto should be signed and Workchoices should be wound back as per the mandate given to the incoming party. Now, if Wilson Tuckey has anything to do with the outcome we are in for some very interesting debates.

I know who my money will be on, and its not "Iron Bar".

Ulysses

'They know Rudd won't be much different, but are hoping that he will.

It won't be long now before ordinary people come into conflict with the reality of a Rudd Labor government.'

I agree Tao but I suspect we may have a little different reasoning.
The 'ordinary people' you refer to might need a precise definition to give your idea greater depth and broader understanding. I'd define 'ordinary people' as the class of people who switched from Howard to Rudd. They are not the 'workers' or the 'elites' who habitually vote labor. I'd hazzard they are mostly small business people who employ people. What do you think?

Keith

Col Rouge -- "it does not mean that a whole block of Australians do not still support the liberal policies" You said it.

Dead right Col - I never thought we'd agree on anything - trouble is nearly EVERYONE agrees with the Liberal policies - but 53% voted for the ALP and the rest voted Liberal! Why? Because the policies between the two parties are indistinguishable, that's why -- didnt you read what I wrote earlier??

We now have the front runner for the Leadership, Malcolm Turnbull, as a self declared Kyoto supporter, an avowed Repbulican, agreeing with Rudd in his intention to say sorry to the indigenous population, and agreeing that the ALP has a mandate to chuck out Workchoices

On the other hand we have Rudd the conservative, keen to exercise Federal control over hospitals( a heart felt Liberal desire), committed to the market economy that only Keating had the guts to embrace, committed to the maintenance of a system without tarrif protection that stagnating Liberals stuck by for decades in stark contradiction to a truly Liberal ethos - spot the difference between the two groups - I doubt if any one can.

There is no natural party of Government - but there is a natural and increasingly clearly identifiable Australian consensus on Government- that is represented by a party free zone - the Liberals on this occassion were just to dumb to pick it.

I'd disagree Keith. I'd suggest the biggest swing would have been in employees of small businesses. From experience these tend to be mostly Liberal/National voters, as they are more likely to recognise that good business conditions lead to good employment conditions, and its often the case that in small businesses (and I am defining this as those with 5 or less employees), the owners tend to pass on good times to the workers. I havent come across a single small business owner that is pleased with the election outcome - this is generally from fear of interest rate rises, and fear of increased union power (unions have a much easier time bullying small business than large).

And yet, Country Gal, small (and medium) business owners deserve to share a large part of the blame for the outcome. To the extent that WorkChoices was a deciding factor, if businesses had not abused the flexibility that the legislation gave them, then the Unions campaign against it would have run hollow. I largely thought it was an exaggeration until I started to hear real stories of employees getting screwed over - then we had the fairness test, and the fact that something like half of the AWA proposals put before it were failing the test. Indeed, my opinion of employers and business owners has definitely taken a battering over the last few months. OTOH, my own personal experience with employers has been nothing but positive, and certainly my current boss is more than happy with the election result (he's an ALP member) - but the way he treats his employees guarantees that there is no need for unions to ever become involved. In contrast, from what I've heard of the management practises of the company that my wife works at, it's no wonder that employees do choose to form and join unions in order to get a decent break (and yes, obviously they could also find jobs elsewhere, but people have various reasons for preferring job stability and wanting to make existing arrangements work where possible).

Further, the vast majority of small businesses aren't really going to be affected significantly one way or another. Their owners might do well to choose a government based on more just its ability to serve their own narrow business interests, and to look to themselves and the way they treat their employees rather than expecting the government to keep those "nasty unions" away.

billie,

In your first post you stated that you expected that the ‘GST funds that the Howard government held back for pork barrelling’ would be redistributed to the states. I pointed out that no GST is held back. You then shifted your ground to other taxes which the federal government distributes to the states. The reference you gave has nothing to so with the distribution of federal taxes to the states and does not claim that ‘the GST moneys are sitting in Canberra’ – because they are not.

GST revenue to the states is, according to a Macquarie Bank report, about 5 per cent of GDP, the same percentage of pre-GST federal revenue passed to the states in a typical year, though less than the best pre-GST year. The amounts dispersed each year are publicly available.

The state budget has, I believe, a $1.3 billion surplus. A 10 per cent pay increase for teachers would cost about $320 million (c40,000 teachers times c$80,000 each, including on costs). The restoration of the missing 1,700 secondary teachers (the 1981 Liberal staffing ratio) would cost about $150 million at the higher pay rate. Both are easily affordable now, but teachers would have to do something they haven’t done for years and start standing up for themselves if they want the pay cuts and conditions decline of the last 25-30 years reversed.

As the timetabler for Hampton Park Secondary College (not Hampton High) until the end of 2004, I organised that school with a maximum teaching load of just under 18 hours a week and the capacity for decent time allowances. These were the best conditions in the state, the ideal towards which other teachers should have worked in their own schools.

Instead, Victorian teachers foolishly endorsed the 2004 Enterprise Bargaining Agreement, as a direct result of which the teachers at Hampton Park, who intelligently voted against the proposed EBA, were forced to accept higher teaching loads, longer periods, inadequate time allowances and the abolition of their management advisory committee.

Victorian teachers surrendered in 2004, and the government expects they will do so again.

keith,

The point I was making was that average people (in the working and middle classes) who voted Labor (whether they have always voted Labor or not) for certain reasons, and for 'change' will find that Labor will not represent their interests.

For example, people variously voted AGAINST the war in Iraq, attacks on democratic rights such as Hicks and Haneef, racsim like the anti-Muslim and anti-Sudanese vilification, inhumane detention of asylum seekers, the military intervention in NT, workchoices, imposition of the market into every aspect of our lives, blatant lies etc. However, on most of these issues Labor agrees completely with Howard. Even Labor's industrial relations policy retains most of the worst provisions of workchoices.

Not only will Labor be as bad as Howard, it is likely to be worse. Labor has mechanisms through which the working class can be suppressed, namely the trade unions. Labor began the deregulation of industrial relations under the Hawke-Keating accord with the unions. To illustrate what happened - under Whitlam annual wages increase was 4+%, under Fraser 1.5+%, under Hawke/Keating 0%, and under Howard 1.5+%. Workchoices is merely the logical progression of the Hawke-Keating reforms, which is why Labor will keep many of the provisions. As the US economy goes into freefall, attacks on the working class will be even more severe.

Labor will not get out of Iraq, and will likely participate in an attack on Iran - hence Rudd's reference in his election night speech to the US. Just as the American people voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats last year in the hope they will end the war, and they are now coming into conflict with the Democratic party, so will the Australian people come into conflict with Labor.

Hi Country Gal,

In my experience most employees in small business already vote labor. It's a reality as a common as the voting paterns of economists or investment bankers .:-)

The types of small business owners we meet and circulate with might not be the same. I know dozens of builders, brickies, plumbers, tilers, electricians (Well really only one or two as they are so bloody hard to track down), mechanics, truckers, diesel fitters, machinery mechanics and technicians, earth movers, roofers, metal fabricators, furniture manufactures, cabinet makers and even the odd forklift mechanic.
I know one or two personal trainers, engineering consultants, solicitors, realtors, retailers, auctioneers, importers, wholesalers, tax accountants, stockbrokers, landlords, consultant surgeons, and finally, of course, merchant bankers and unemployed millionaire businessman (who pretend they aren't) former diplomats. Yep I do know Kevin. I once lived in Griffith and he was hard to avoid. :-)

Now among the first group most employees are unabashedly labor and I shiack with them in a good natured way often. They are my mates.

Now among the latter there is a lot less easily identifiable labor employees and I shiack in a similar but more refined way with them. Most are quietly liberal leaning. I'd never be invited to one of their b-b-ques.

It's the former group of employers who changed their vote on saturday.

There is a great truth in your statement 'its often the case that in small businesses (and I am defining this as those with 5 or less employees), the owners tend to pass on good times to the workers'.

It's because they really do have great empathy with each other. It is especially so among the first group of employers I listed.

It was mostly that group's empathy that took real form and was displayed on saturday. I haven't discounted the employees in the latter group changed their vote either...but I don't really know that as acutely as I do, due to familarity, the circumstances and intent of the first group of employers and employees.

Regards Keith

Dnicholson, I agree that some smaller businesses got it badly wrong with AWA's which mostly goes to show how complex the process can be. Personally I know of none that have gone down that path - those that have had the choice have stuck with the NAPSA's for now (because they are used to the provisions), and many small businesses operate as sole traders and partnerships, and hence dont fall under the federal IR jurisdiction anyway - these are still operating under the state award system (apart from Victoria). Most of the small business that I have anything to do with arent affected by workchoices.

When it comes to union influences on small business, the worst experiences of the 80's and 90's had little to do with the way an individual business treated its employees. In fact in many situations the employees wanted the union reps (from out of town) to bugger off and leave them alone so that they could get on with the job. I'm not excusing all employers, as there are some that are obviously exploiters, but the vast majority are not. I guess I view things from a country town perspective too, wherein if you dont treat your employees decently pretty soon you wont be able to find anyone to work for you. And take into account the costs of high employee turnover.

I do not agree with the thrust of Kerry Corke's article - that the Labor Party is confirmed as the 'natural' party of government in Australia. There are several major flaws in the argument (not least being that the word 'natural' is incapable of definition in this context).

However, I thought that Corke's article, especially the table showing the state of the Liberal Party throughout government in Australia, would give people cause for concern about why the Liberal Party is in such a bad way. And to put their minds to how the status quo might be challenged and ultimately.

Instead, on OLO (and elsewhere) we read denial, anger, outrage, rationalisations and the inevitable abuse thrown not only at voters but at the writer-as-messenger ("All of the really strange statements seem to come from lawyers." A curious piece of abuse given the predominance of lawyers in the Liberal Party - but that's another matter.)

If I were a Labor Party person, I'd be delighted with the obvious inability of many Liberals to come to grips with the reality. The longer it takes the Liberals to take stock of their policy directions and to reform their administration, the longer the Australian Labor governments will remain in power.