Christian Kerr comments on the recent COAG meeting:
But if the premiers want movement on these issues, why do they need to wait for the Commonwealth? Why don't the states take a lead?He is absolutely correct. Even with the fiscal imbalance there is nothing budgetary wise stopping the States ignoring the national government and making/implementing policy. (more)




The state was sufficiently anti-Labor that there was a competitive electoral market for many non-labor parties such as the Conservative Party, the Reform Party, the Country Party, the UAP, the Electoral Reform Party (which held a minority government for a few days) and the Liberal and Country party. The latter held government for 27 years until the Liberals were able to win government on their own in 1972.
Aynsley Kellow argues that during Labor's hold on Tasmanian politics between 1934 and 1982 the politics were "distributive rather than redistributive in flavour, what Lowi calls patronage politics." State sponsored development for industrialisation, mineral extraction and hydro-electric power led to electoral success.
Other than one period of Liberal Country League dominance for over thirty years, South Australia has seen the frequent switch between governments of differing parties.
I think it is safe to say that the periods where the parties are competitive are short and don't seem to last beyond a party establishing itself as the dominant party of government.

