I'm a little undecided as to how I view the topic.
- The two major parties as they are now
- The two major parties as they should be
- The mindsets that tend to cause most of us to support one side or the other.

rache has in my view provided one of the best summaries so far of the broader underpinnings of the parties.

Some points which I'd like to add.
- I think the left generally has more faith in the ability of government to deliver useful outcomes than the right.
- Both sides tend to simplify things and work with broad groupings rather than individual cases when they go to implement beliefs and policy even where that implementation goes against values in specific cases.

R0bert

Foxy, you ask; Or does the media influence public opinion? Very much so, where once it was newspapers it has shifted from that medium to TV and to a lesser extent radio and the internet. It is not only what news is being presented but also how that news is presented. Often news is inaccurate by the omission of vital pieces of information, with complex matters condensed to a 30 second grab. I do believe 80% once said they received their "news" all from the 6 o'clock commercial TV bulletin, which sadly omits 80% of the news and mostly sensationalises or trivialises the remaining 20%.
Some vote for a certain party regardless, where once that was probably in the order of 80%, and the other 20% being the uncommitted or voting for minor parties, its now days in the order of 60/40. The best a major party can rely upon is roughly 30% of rusted on voters. So media influence as to outcome is greater than it ever was. Media bias is a little more subtle these days, no longer do we have Frank Packer's 'Daily Telegraph' demanding that "On Saturday vote Liberal!" we have more sophisticated methods of conservative bias in the main stream media. The commercial media, simply by presenting positive stories for "our side" and negative stories for "their side" influences the outcome.
I think Hawke learned the lesson for Labor after the Whitlam experience, you need the media on side in Australia if you want to govern. Also, its not entirely concoctions by the media that make or break governments, political parties give them plenty of ammunition all the time, its what the media choose to do with that ammunition that is also important.

Labor is infested with 'Progressives' aka Fabians aka International Socialists who believe that the State should reign supreme and be interfering in every nook and cranny of the private citizen's life and personal affairs.

Combined with the egocentrism, cynicism, materialism and ratbaggery of the middle class feminists who have an influence in government way out of proportion with their numbers (they don't 'represent' most women for starters), it is only to be expected that there are negative outcomes such as fatherless families.

Any party that boasted at election time as Labor did, that its 'productivity' in government was hundreds of new laws to control and regulate the life lives of ordinary private citizens should be considered for what it really was - radically centralist, Statist and directly opposed to maintaining the rights of the individual.

There are the few who are finding it impossible to accept the results of the federal election. Of them, many would be recipients of the generous, unsustainable largess from the public purse they were receiving courtesy of Labor and their outrageous sidekicks the Greens Watermelon Party. Their manipulative spin is that the Labor-Greens mob were somehow denied government through 'bad' media. They insinuate that there is something wrong with democracy. They believe that the public cannot be trusted to 'get it right' (as in the public should be supporting international socialism) in elections. However Labor and their Greens sidekicks were rejected for very solid, compelling reasons indeed: divisive social, class and gender warfare (ideology), unsuitable policies, poor decisions and bad management.

While the LNP generally make a reasonable fist of balancing liberalism and conservatism, a criticism could be that they are inclined to generalise their 'medicine' for budgets previously blown by the international socialists, and that can negatively affect the vulnerable.

Of course the 'vulnerable' as defined by the 'Progressive' elite are in fact the horde with an oar in victim politics and the guvvy largesse that flowed from it. That horde will be buzzing and crying foul for a long time yet, until they are forced to get real jobs (being hopeful there!).

Some are certainly in Cloud Cuckoo Land with their great conspiracy theory. This nasty conspiracy led by those International Socialists aka Fabians, aka Feminist, aka Labor Party aka Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, add to this the Bolshe/Grennie alliance, and what do you have, an international conspiracy to take over the world. This is no doubt all being control by the unseen hand of Joe Stalin, direct from the Kremlin!
What do we have to protect us from these evil hoards, according to some Campbell Newman is saving Queensland, and Tony Abbott is saving the rest of us.

LOL. Paul, you and a few of your mates who claim to be the world's Number 1 Labor/Greens supporters and experts on politics didn't even know about the Fabianism aka Progressivism aka International Socialism and its influence in present day Labor until I informed you in a thread a little while ago.

That was despite Labor leaders declaring their 'Progressive' ideology, avowing membership of the Fabians and speaking at their knees-ups.

I even linked you to a video where Julia Gillard admitted its in her words. Here is another source,

"Julia Gillard remained actively involved in the Socialist Forum/Fabian Society after her departure from Slater and Gordon

You'll recall Tony Jones from the ABC's Lateline interviewing Ms Gillard about her communist/socialist forum antecedents. It took place on 17 October, 2007"

http://tinyurl.com/Gillard-Fabians-Progressive

You were all completely clueless even about the ideology and its origins, notwithstanding the evidence available publicly. Honestly, didn't you ever wake up to that 'Progressive' word that pops up so often in the discourse of Labor leaders like Little Willie Shorten? Too funny! There you all were, hundreds of postings on OLO spruiking for politicians, being the foot soldiers of Internationalist Socialism and you never realised. Dupes!

Here you go, this PDF is a reasonable summary. You are invited to counter with facts,

http://www.fli.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Julia.pdf

I was wondering if government debt (and receipts) worked as an indicator of the difference between the two in terms of practical outcomes. There are a range of measures that could and should be considered with debt being just one indicator.

Perhaps someone else will have reference to more exhaustive data, eg it would be interesting to see the performance of the states over a similar period. There is much this does not tell, external economic factors, spending on infrastructure compared to day to day running costs etc.

I've tried to map Net government debt and receipts from the budget in the year that various PM's took office. Budget data source http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/bp1/html/bp1_bst10-04.htm

Year PM starting Net Debt (Pct GDP) Receipts (Pct GDP)
1971 McMahon -496(m) -1.1 9,135 20.5
1972 Whitlam -790(m) -1.6 9,735 19.6
1975 Fraser -341(m) -0.4 18,727 22.5
1983 Hawke 16,015(m) 7.5 49,981 23.4
1991 Keating 31,014(m) 7.3 95,840 22.6
1996 Howard 96,281(m) 17.3 133,592 24.0
2007 Rudd -29,150(m) -3.8 294,917 25.1
2010 Gillard 84,551(m) 6.0 302,024 21.6
2013 Abbott 144,887(m) 8.9 392,544 24

I might well be missing some fundamentals in the way this is done, if so I'd welcome improvements. Any thoughts for other measures that could be considered to see what if any practical difference the parties make when in government. Things like suicide, bankruptcy, employment rates come to mind but I don't have the time to try and track them down in a usable format right now.

R0bert