This book questions the common understanding of party political behaviour, explaining some of the sharp differences in political behaviour through a focused case study-drawing systematically on primary and archival research-of the Australian Labor Party's political and policy directions during select periods in which it was out of office at the federal level: from 1967-72, 1975-83, and 1996-2001. Why is it that some Oppositions contest elections with an extensive array of detailed policies, many of which contrast with the approach of the government at the time, while others can be widely criticised as 'policy lazy' and opportunistic, seemingly capitulating to the government of the day? Why do some Oppositions lurch to the right, while others veer leftward? Each of these periods was, in its own way, crucial in the party's history, and each raises important questions about Opposition behaviour. The book examines the factors that shaped the overall direction in which the party moved during its time in Opposition, including whether it was oriented towards emphasising programmes traditionally associated with social democrats, such as pensions, unemployment support, and investment in public health, education, infrastructure, and publicly owned enterprises, as well as policies aimed at reducing the exploitation of workers. In each period of Opposition examined, an argument is made as to why Labor moved in a particular direction, and how this period compared to the other periods surveyed. The book rounds off with analysis of the generalisability of the conclusions drawn: how relevant are they for understanding the behaviour of other parties elsewhere in the world? Where are social democratic parties such as the ALP heading? Is Opposition an institution in decline in the Western world?

Defending the nuclear family and extolling 'family values' have long been central features of politics in capitalist societies, in spite of radical left challenges from social, counter-cultural and gay rights movements. This book examines these challenges as they emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, re-appraising their relevance in the light of recent developments, including the spread of more diverse family forms and the rise of the same-sex marriage movement. Drawing on archival research in the US, UK and Australia, the author asks what the emergence of same-sex marriage movements and legislation mean for challenges to the nuclear family in the light of an original general hostility to marriage and family structures in the gay liberation movement, whilst considering the extent to which the nuclear family might be included in the list of social and economic institutions subject to criticism on the part of more recent anti-capitalist movements, such as Occupy. A detailed study of the extent to which the nuclear family remains susceptible to the radical critiques of the last century, Radical Challenges to the Family examines whether the original challenges shed light on ensuring social problems, including domestic violence, child abuse, homophobia, and growing marital dissatisfaction. As such, it will appeal to scholars of sociology and politics with interests in gender and sexuality, the sociology of the family and feminist thought.

Whereas many writers and scholars interested in the field of social democracy have focused on factors such as the role of economic globalization and electoral pressures, Ashley Lavelle explores the importance of the collapse of the post-war economic boom and lower growth rates since then. He examines how these pressures have led social democrats to embrace neo-liberal policies and become threatened by minor parties and independent politicians. Providing an original argument about the decline of social democracy, the author investigates how its decline has increased the popularity of minor parties and independents, along with the reasons for social democratic membership and electoral decline. This is an important book for scholars of social democracy and the broader themes of world politics, political parties, social movements and globalization.

This book questions the common understanding of party political behaviour, explaining some of the sharp differences in political behaviour through a focused case study-drawing systematically on primary and archival research-of the Australian Labor Party's political and policy directions during select periods in which it was out of office at the federal level: from 1967-72, 1975-83, and 1996-2001. Why is it that some Oppositions contest elections with an extensive array of detailed policies, many of which contrast with the approach of the government at the time, while others can be widely criticised as 'policy lazy' and opportunistic, seemingly capitulating to the government of the day? Why do some Oppositions lurch to the right, while others veer leftward? Each of these periods was, in its own way, crucial in the party's history, and each raises important questions about Opposition behaviour. The book examines the factors that shaped the overall direction in which the party moved during its time in Opposition, including whether it was oriented towards emphasising programmes traditionally associated with social democrats, such as pensions, unemployment support, and investment in public health, education, infrastructure, and publicly owned enterprises, as well as policies aimed at reducing the exploitation of workers. In each period of Opposition examined, an argument is made as to why Labor moved in a particular direction, and how this period compared to the other periods surveyed. The book rounds off with analysis of the generalisability of the conclusions drawn: how relevant are they for understanding the behaviour of other parties elsewhere in the world? Where are social democratic parties such as the ALP heading? Is Opposition an institution in decline in the Western world?