With the advent of "democratisation" of the selection processes parties tend to become more extreme. The epitome of this is that a far left socialist, Jeremy Corbyn, has gained and kept the leadership of the UK labour party in spite of the vast majority of labour MPs not backing him. The result of which is that there is a real chance that Labour will lose enough seats to not be the official opposition party any more.

The Aus Labor party seems to be moving in the same direction with the left faction of the party gaining control of several states and pushing a "progressive" agenda that competes with the greens and ignores the back pocket of the working and middle classes.

There is a very real risk that labor in abandoning the centre ground to the Coalition, is going to make itself unelectable.

The Labor party in OZ bears no resemblance to the Labour party in the UK. OZ politics are generally to the right of UK politics. The Tory party in the UK is to the left of Labor in OZ at the moment.

Labour will go to the polls and be decimated, the loonies will lose their seats and things will gradually get back to normal, whatever normal is.

It's a long time since the ALP was anywhere near the 'centre' Shadow, and I don't think that the pommy nutter is anywhere significant enough to deserve your coining of a movement after him. The man is madder than a cut snake, and would be in a lot of trouble if he ever tried to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Shadow, not much chance of the Coalition gaining the center ground, when you have Barnyard and the Abbott Drys calling all the shots, with Turnbull acting as their glove puppet, for his own obvious political reason, to keep the captaincy. this has resulted in stagnant government, and Turnbull spending much of his time fighting brush fires lit by his enemies within. The Coalition will only gain in popularity if they move back to a liberal philosophy, which will place them in the center right of Australian politics. They very much need to ditch the far right conservative attitude, give it to the likes of Hanson, and once again adopt the liberalism they were once known for.

The British Labour Party grew out of a regimented class system, and has somewhat remained so to this day. Although through the reign of Blair it did became a more conservative force within the political system and gained popularity. The Australian Labor Party had a somewhat different upbringing, although socialists for a very long time it has mostly divested itself of that tag, and now act as populists center left party. It to should ditch the hard progressive stance it sometimes adopts, leaving that to the likes of The Greens.
No political party can survive for long, if it tries to be all things for all men. The Democrats tried and failed.

Trying to associate the ALP with the BLP is erroneous, they even spell the word differently, Labor and Labour.

Paul,

There is something in what you say. We need distinct differences between parties if people are to have any real choice. As Abbott found out, noone can be all things to all people. I, for example, went along with the Labor party until my early thirties. That Labor party no longer exists: I have no idea who or what Shorten Labor stands for. Up until John Howard (and he also started giving me the pip before he deservedly lost his own seat) I supported the Coalition. Not any more. Perhaps the Coalition has already reached what you suggest for it. As a conservative, I am pretty much stuck with Hanson, now, although I yearn for a touch more sophistication. You have your Greens.

So, we have at either end, Hanson and the Greens, and, floundering in the middle, the LNP and Labor, both of which really need to look at themselves if they wish to survive. At the moment, they stand for nothing. Certainly, they can both forget their 'born-to-rule' attitudes. Were I a betting man,I would suggest that the the Turnbull majority of one is the last time we Australians will see a government governing in its own right.

Paul,

I don't know if you are just pretending to be dense?

That the coalition has won the last two elections means by definition that if not dead center, at least holds a large swag of the center ground which makes it center right. The labor party is center left and the greens and one nation are far left and far right respectively. As for Shorten, the unions have their hand so far up his backside that they can change his mind manually.

Secondly, both the ALP and BLP originated from the unions still with significant union influence on policy and pre selection. They don't have to be identical for my commentary to be valid.

Finally, the reason that the BLP has swung so far to the left is not from the consensus of the party room, but because the leadership selection has been hijacked by left whinge activists. Given that the ALP has allowed selection of their leader by 50% contribution of the rank and file, who have already shown their more left whinge choices, there is a fair chance of this happening to the ALP.

The best path to win an election is to listen
to voters, be prepared to modernise on its
own terms, while fighting the old party factions hard,
that's the best insurance against a Corbynite insurgency
in this country.

Foxy,

I would love it if the labor party fell victim to Corbynism. The self immolation of the Labour party is a delight to watch.

Shadow, you are completely ignorant of the fact that the long term voting trend for both major parties has been consistently downwards. In 1960 the two major parties commanded 90% of the primary vote, by 1990 that had declined to about 80%, and today it stands at around 75%. That in itself presents little danger to the big two parties, given the biased two party preferred system in operation. Where votes are lost to minor parties and independents the system simply allows Labor and the Coalition to claw the lost votes back. The danger is with an uneven voting pattern, and as their vote declines one or the other major party will slip to third position in the count and then their votes will flow to the minor party candidate or independent. That point is not far off, if Labor and Liberal reach parity at 35% each then neither can expect to command a majority in the lower house, with a significant number of minor party candidates and independents being elected. There are rumblings from within, that the big two should do a preference swap in critical seats to freeze out third parties. That will work in the short term, but is doomed to failure as it drives more and more of the disgruntled to third parties and independents.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-03/election-results-historical-comparison/7560888

cont

cont

There was a once held belief that between them, Labor and the Coalition if they presented a moderate center view, and espoused policies that reflected a substantial degree of moderate politics, given 95% of their DNA was the same, then one or the other, depending on popularity prevailing at the time would form government with a workable majority. Wanting to sit at the center of the political spectrum may be a false premise today, as more and more voters feel disaffected and marginalized by center left/right politics and by the parties that espouse such policies. Voters are more and more likely to see an advantage in supporting parties and independents of the more radical persuasion. The trend is not for voters to polarize to the center, but to embrace more radical politics like One Nation, and the progressive Greens along with a host of others including Independents.

Paul,

Sometimes I think you have dementia as we have discussed the drift away from the major parties before. I think that the rise of smaller parties is facilitated by the preferential system, and I believed for a while that a "Conservative" party with overlapping values with liberals would help by capturing those disaffected by the liberal drift to the left, (as the greens captured those disaffected by labors drift to the right) .

Unfortunately this was preempted by the rise of One Nation which has filled this niche. However, preferencing ON above the Greens and Labor would have labor sweating as ON while taking a majority of its votes from the libs, will also be taking a fair chunk from labor, especially with ON now projected to get as many votes as the greens.

Shadow, you always suffer a self inflicted degree of forgetfulness. The bounce in the One Nation vote post election was to be expected, particularly where it had be most successful in Queensland. In the wake of the disunity displayed during the Rod Culleton affair, it remains to be seen if Hanson can hold her party together longterm.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Unless both party's make some changes their support
by voters will keep on declining. Both need to listen
to voters. Both need to modernise and not allow
the party factions to dictate. Both need to confront
the fears of voters and remember that it's the
Australian people that put them either in government
or the opposition. Voters should not longer be ignored.

Paul.

".... they even spell the word differently, Labor and Labour."
and with good reason 'Labor' is the English spelling inherited in the ALP's case from the USA, that great repository of English spelling and tradition.
The Pommy Labour party uses the French spelling.

Shadow, I am fairly well versed in Australia's political history, so to make a statement like "I think that the rise of smaller parties is facilitated by the preferential system" shows a lack of understanding. Given in a close contest, the preferences of minor parties and independents plays an important roll, but that is as far as it goes. An anomaly in the returns is only evident when for some local reason a third party candidate becomes a first or second party candidate and thus has a chance of being elected, the independents Cathy McGowan and Andrew Wilkie are such anomalies. Any collusion between the big two could easily spell the death of the third party candidate, as was evident in the seat of Batman where the Green led on first preferences only to be defeated by Labor with Liberal support.
The Australian parliament began as a genuine three party organisation with (State) Labor being that third party and winning 16 of the original 75 seats. The big two at that time were the Protectionists and Free Traders, which later merged to form the one anti-socialists party. It didn't take long for the system to solidify into a two party contests between Labor and Anti-Labor, anti-labor went under various names until it settled on Nationalists. No third party or independents were evident in Federal parliament until the sectionalism party, aptly named Country Party gained prominence in the early 1920's, but it soon became part of the anti-socialists, and not being contested by the Nationalists to any great degree. The hiccup came in the form of the 'First Labor Split' in 1931 when Lang Labor gained 5 seats from the ALP, this was the result of internal rivalry and not a genuine third party formation Lang Labor later reverting back to official Labor. The Nationalists badgered themselves as the United Australia Party, later forming into today's Liberal Party.

cont

cont

The primary vote for the big two parties peaked at around 95% in the early 1950's, and that was from a historically high base prewar. Today's decline in the primary vote of Labor and the Coalition, and the rise of third parties has much more to do with disillusionment and the diversity of the electorate than anything to do with the voting system. Despite a plunging primary vote, the major parties still enjoy a disproportionate level of representation. That is what the voting system delivers for them.

Please provide evidence of your assertion, just as I have.

BTW, I have a close friend at 59 with dementia and its not a pretty sight, I am fortunate not to suffer from that horrid disease and I hope you never do either.

Paul,

My opinion of the benefit of preferential voting for small parties is founded on a few examples such as the Motoring enthusiasts party getting a senate seat with a handful of votes, and the greens consistently getting far more % of senate seats that their % votes based on preferences from Labor. If the lower house was purely first past the post, Labor would get a much smaller portion of seats, the greens a couple and everyone else nothing.

Well argued and written, Paul,

Hey Shadow Minister,
(From an earlier comment to Paul1405)
"Finally, the reason that the BLP has swung so far to the left is not from the consensus of the party room, but because the leadership selection has been hijacked by left whinge activists. Given that the ALP has allowed selection of their leader by 50% contribution of the rank and file, who have already shown their more left whinge choices, there is a fair chance of this happening to the ALP."

Whilst this may be true I think its only one part of the story.
The other part of that story is the status quo of the voting public.
Is it a fair statement to say the left are constantly being bolstered with fresh troops, in the form of immigrants which are likely to firstly support the liberal left anti racism side of politics?
I can't see supporters of Islam as being in any way supportive of other other left leaning cases though.

AC,

Labour was soundly beaten in the last 2 elections precisely because they had veered to the left. Jeremy Corbyn would have been far more comfortable in the greens as a protest politician.