“…conservatives are struggling to maintain relevance in modern day Australia.”

What conservatives?

The National Party might just scrape in as conservative, but the Liberal Party, which is certainly struggling for relevance, is not in that position because it is conservative. It’s because it is not conservative.

When John Howard was in America on one occasion and met Arnie the Terminator in his role as Governor of California, it was assumed by the Governor that Howard was on the left side of politics because was the leader of the Liberal Party. Not surprising as, in the rest of the world, ‘liberal’ whether big L or small l, means left of centre.

The Menzies Liberal Party was correctly named at the time – it was more liberal than the party it kicked out and which disappeared.

Now, however, it is ludicrous that a party claiming to be conservative should retain the name Liberal Party.

The Liberal Party is no more conservative that the Labor Party is socialist. In fact, there is so little difference between the two parties that it does not matter to the average person which one is on the Government benches. Both parties are opportunist, and will do all sorts of twisting and turning away from their supposed platforms to gain power. The me-tooism of Kevin Rudd is the best example we have had of this for many a year. The Liberal Party will move even further to the left over the next three years to try to regain office.

Any idea that we have a clear choice between a liberal and conservative government in Australia is sheer nonsense. We have very little choice at all

I must agree with Leigh. We're starting to see the first reactions of an electorate betrayed, as Rudd dumps his most progressive ideals one by one.

Last year Australia made a choice between two conservative parties, both of which left the true progressive parties for dust. A Greens or Democrats balance of power in Parliament would have been ideal, but people seemed to vote for Labor on its reputation, and not for what was actually being offered.

there are two management teams vying for power in oz, and both will chase votes by offering bribes to the electorate. this has nothing to do with democracy. would-be emperors used to bribe the mob, and later the roman army.

labor is currently most successful in straddling the hopes and fears of the electorate, but don't imagine this will continue. the personal careers of politicians will bring the libs back to the source of votes, or the labor party will fracture, or the greens will make themselves attractive to a bigger part of the electorate.

the struggle of politicians for dominance won't bring good government to oz, but at least some of the worst excesses of ideology will be filed off. life will go on. or so it used to be.

resource exhaustion and global warming have raised questions about whether oz can afford medieval government systems any longer. continuing to pursue the drunkard's walk of parliamentary politics might be fatal.

An interesting article here. However, in writing that "conservatives are struggling to maintain relevance in modern day Australia", Tucker seems to be suggesting that the contemporary Labor Party is NOT conservative. True, they have an apparently stronger social conscience and are ostensibly more inclusive than the Liberal Party - but it doesn't take a political scientist to tell you that they have moved considerably far from their working-class roots.

I agree, too, with Tucker that there are problems with one party holding the majority of power in Parliament. So what role can the Greens play? I have been a long-time Greens voter, and see this party as providing a genuinely 'progressive' political alternative to the two - rather staid and conservative - major parties. Yet there is still a reluctance amongst much of the electorate to give the Greens a go, either due to ridiculous myths that they are a pack of hapless hippies or the simple belief that they will simply never attain the power of the Labor or Liberal parties.

The times, they are a-changin'. It doesn't need to be either Liberal or Labor.

JAY.... if ANY political party has 'working class roots'....it is divisive, discriminatory, and self interested.

The same applies for any party which is rooted and grounded in the 'business' end of the socio/economic spectrum.

We need a government of ALL the people.. for all the people.. in the sense of having a sense of civic responsibility and genuine national interest.

The smaller issues of Abortion, Gay rights, Gender etc, should not in any way differentiate parties. Those issues should be fought out in the broader public sphere, and they don't impact the bigger national picture and foreign policy.

I'd like to see a more 'apart from government' mechanism in place which would allow those issues to be decided by some kind of consensus or mini referendum reflecting the will of the populace at large.

It is truly tragic when a Government gets elected 'just' because they will benefit 'me and mine' due to our economic status or the colour of my 'collar'.

A sobering article for the "Liberals".

But let’s not forget that Labor have gotten to where they are partly by changing, from Old Labor to New Labor & in doing so, stealing a lot of Liberal ground. The Libs need to do the same. They need to package themselves as a party who cares. They do care – more than Labor do IMO since the Libs are traditionally about putting the country on the right economic footing which is good for everyone whereas Labor care is all too often about pandering to minority groups & unions - bribing for votes which is long term counter-productive to growth.

The Libs look too stodgy & too white & not like a party which represents most Aussies - they look too aloof. Hewson summed up this stereotype. Had the economic qualifications to run the country properly, but no-one warmed to him. Zero marketing skills. Whereas Keating was 80% marketing (& 20% substance). Fraser oozed elitism & insipidness. Hawke oozed charisma. He turned on the water works at crucial moments – embarrassingly juvenile, but hey, if it gets votes.

Agree with Leigh, name change in order. Conservatives is fine.

Agree with Boaz, we need a party which encourages personal (& civic)responsibility, enterprise & at the same time is looking out for everyone as Australians & is inclusive.

But at the end of the day, marketing is a reality. Labor do it better than the Conservatives.

I must agree with Leigh. We're starting to see the first reactions of an electorate betrayed, as Rudd dumps his most progressive ideals one by one.
Well, it's not very likely but not impossible that Rudd is getting a steady dose of reality since taking office. Is it just possible that Rudd is actually real Labor & not just ALP ?

No one can complain about the conservative nature of Kevin Rudd. It is the banner that got him elected. The only real complaint here is if Rudd gets roled in the future, which is a possibility if the polls turn on the prime minister. Those who voted for labour, thinking they will have a socially conscious government, with Rudd to control the ship, will not have what they voted for.

Like the Latham saga demonstrated, Labour was willing to jump on any wagon to an election victory. Kevin Rudd is mostly a one man show, but still has all the polictical clout required to keep the reds under the bed. This will not last forever, he will be brought back down to earth and the arbitary leadership he enjoys now will dissipate.

Three factors already sound out alarms bells for the Rudd supporters;

1/ can not fix the murray darling impass by the labour victorian government. demonstrating he can not control the labour machine even in the first 100 days of office and exacerbating Australia's world beating, rate of inflation on food. Thank you rice and cotton industries.

2/ income tax cuts are ridiculous at this time, yet we will proceed with them. Added to this spending regime that includes 1 billion on computers soon to be worth $20, 4.7 billion on internet that is going to cost us double to get access to.

3/ big promises on health and indigenous affairs which are both huge polictical timebombs

Those of you who do not like Rudd's conservative nature may not have to wait that long, combining these issues with the worlds financial crisis. Kevin Rudd may soon be reigned in, but the electorate may run back to the Party of economic conservatives rather than the party with one.

I hope he swings into action and has a chance to demonstrate the promise his media skills demonstrate. But he needs more achievement and less symbolism and forums

Peter Tucker “The graph below shows just how things have changed over the past 30 years.”

Wrong

It shows something on a time line of 20 years.

I did not bother with the rest of the stats. If the first one is patently wrong, why bother to inspect and place any credence in the product of sloppy and erroneous conjecture?

the liberals are more proficient at running governments than they are at running for election.

Which they do need to do something about.

However, from the notes, Peter is one of the advisors (having a bet each way on both teams) and not one of the torch bearers.

The anti-socialist side of politics is having a few hard days but the “sustainability” of socialism has always been its undoing. We will see the pendulum swing back to favour the libs and nationals either as an alliance of preferably a single unified party.

As for the title “Politics in the 21st century: Labor first, Liberals last :”

Where does that come from?

If we look at federal elections in the 21st century for the house of reps

Liberals score two.
Labor score one.

To quote Peter: "Australia needs a viable conservative alternative at the ballot box to allow our Westminster system of government to operate successfully."

A viable conservative alternative?! The only options presented to us are conservative. It is a mistake to think Labor represents anything but a conservative option and I am one of the people that helped vote them in (via a Green preference) in the hope that there would be a greater social conscience but it is still early days.

Australia's ALP like Blair's 'new Labor' is so closely aligned in economic principles to the Liberals and Conservatives that there is not much, in essence, to divide them.

One benefit in having strong voices from the far Left and the far Right is to maintain a balance or a sense of proportion. To keep the b**ds honest and positioned somewhere in the centre to represent all people within a framework of social responsibility. The pendulum tends to swing more one way or the other at various times but since Keating the pendulum has been getting a bit rusty on the right side of the line.

The Liberal Party too, is not the centrist Liberal Party of old and is too often influenced by the far Right. One example is the change of focus from small business to big corporates.

As Leigh states very much a choice between the two tweedles, Laborals or the Libours.

politics is an extension of class, and thus an extension of economics, since our mode of production drives our social behaviour

the lower-middle class has been apathetic about politics for a long time

thus it has become usurped by the finacial elite

the two major political parties are simply the left and right arm of the capitalist conglomerates. When you trace the arm, it is moved by the same head.

the world is governed by two party political systems abound...

it gives the public change and an illusion of choice... but it is simply good cop bad cop...

bad cop-bush-blair-howard...becomes good cop.. rudd- clinton/obama-?

enter global warming socialist spending... good cop... then enter economic recession becoming bad cop ,then people want change and vote for the long forgotten bad cop of the past , more war...the cycle continues

we humans are very ignorant.

Leigh is right. We have two major parties but one set of policies, with the only differences coming from the demographic to be targeted for votes.

In this situation parties get voted out when they get too arrogant (which they all do sooner or later) and the opposition has at least a half-decent leader of a party that is not publically fighting factional fires all the time.

Howard lost because of this. I am not familiar with the situation at state level, except in NSW where the ALP has been broadcasting its arrogance since the last election.