The term “working families” is, in the political fashion sense, definitely the new black. It was to the 2007 election campaign what “It’s Time” was to ’72: it seamlessly married the dominant theme with the prevailing mood. What it did was to wedge the master wedger, John Howard – which is no mean feat.

Families had become Howard’s code for his hypocritical stance of social conservatism – an imagined bulkwark against homos-xuality, contagion from refugees, moral decay, drugs, and general permissiveness and decadence; in fact, anything remotely progressive.

This was hypocritical because Howard’s IR policies were causing immense damage to the families he was supposed to be defending – loss of job security, loss of shift penalties, extended hours and loss of public holidays, not to mention the rampant casualisation of the workforce and the exploitation which that has involved.

Howard was snookered when the familes took account of “working”.

Greg Combet was the first I can remember using it repeatedly, and it formed the cornerstone of the ACTU’s campaign. It was taken up by Julia Gillard (every second sentence) and Kevin Rudd (every third sentence).

Tactically, it was brilliant.

But it also has resonance far beyond these shores.

Presidential hopefuls in the Democratic Party, Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, are peppering their public utterances with the term, and a Working Families Party has been formed in the US. Last week, it had two members elected to the Hartford City Council in Connecticut.

The party is taking the lead in protests in New York this week against yet another round of train and toll fare increases.

Something is happening out there.