I do not think the Labor party were ever in the drivers seat so no change imo.
They have better policies, without a shadow of a doubt, but then the Liberals can do equal or better policy if they wished to. The difference is they do not wish to. And many people hate change forced on them. Even if they end up loving it.
So those that force change, like Whitlam, are sacked and those that are quite useless and stand for nothing like Morrison get re-elected. . The less you stand for the fewer you offend.
Liberals have the most left leaning progressive electorates along with the most right wing. They sell themselves as the party for everyone, the broad church, so progress still occurs if enough support it. Just slower and sometimes slower sticks better. Same sex marriage and climate change have both progressed under Liberals. I think making progressive issues an either or option hurts the cause. You halve the potential support base from the get go. example..... Having people fight for climate change who are Liberal MPs may have a better outcome than making it an ALP owned policy. If more voted progressive Liberals instead of ALP we would be further advanced. But instead Liberals became too right wing and started to bleed the more progressive to the cross bench.
You want as many people as possible to embrace progress and breaking those people into two parties stalls progess imo So imo framing a political party as progressive is not progressive.
We need opposition more to keep them honest, accountable but otherwise I see zero reasons for one party to be "progressive' when we all live in and love a progressive country.
