Don please. In my lifetime Labor has always been a creature of the bosses, industry & union bosses that is, & academia.

Any association with the workers was always at arms length, with the operative trying hard not to show their distaste.

Labors present problems is not because of any change of interest or attitude of the leadership, just a lack of ability to hide their feelings for, & response to the useful idiots.

It is not better people, just better actors they are looking for.

Sadly what we've seen in the past few years, contrary to the author's claim that "[p]oliticians ... who are obvious cheats, hypocrites, self-promoters or underminers of group cohesion will always get their comeuppance from the wider public", is that bad behaviour reaps its own rewards.

Witness Kevin Rudd's constant undermining of Julia Gillard; his reward was his elevation back to the Prime Ministership.

Witness Tony Abbott's constant lies, exaggerations and appalling parliamentary behaviour; his reward an election victory.

While Rudd has been (quite rightly) punished at the polls, I wait with little hope to see Abbott held to account. Instead I expect a supine media to forget the so-called 'budget emergency', the hysteria over the carbon tax, his promise to 'stop the boats' and his party's constant talking down of the Australian economy.

The person who has behaved most decently through this whole period (Julia Gillard) instead got rolled by her frightened colleagues.

It seems decency, kindness and honesty are not characteristics rewarded by our political system.

Gee Cazza, & we used to think it was the Democrats that lived in their own fantasy world.

Cazza, Julia was a trail blazer, who will no doubt make it easier for other women to aspire to the top job.
If some future Female wants the top job, she will need to remember the lessons Julia learned!
And seek a full-on spill and a contest, rather than assuming the Leadership by default!
I'm pleased the rank and file are finally involved, as this will prevent the so called power brokers calling the shots or manipulating the left or the right, to anoint their preferred leader.
Julia was somewhat of a captive of minor parties, who extracted a heavy price for their cooperation!
A price that had a Labor electoral defeat written all over it as soon as it was paid!
If one has core beliefs, the main lesson here, is be true to them. Rudd's failure, was he seemed to be a policy weather vane, turning and back-flipping with every real test of resolve?
Genuine courage of conviction would have seen him initiating a double dissolution, in order to get his preferred ETS through, which would have likely avoided all the subsequent problems and difficulties, he later faced; and which cost him the Leadership and ultimately, cost the party the treasury benches!
And he could have found his new found position on marriage equality, when it mattered, while he was still leader!
Rhrosty.

I see no capacity, either in this, or the previous government to see into the future, further than lunch tomorrow. This is evidenced by the lack of a science minister as a minimum. I see no interest in listening to the people or having any interest in what makes us as voters, important to the "process" of government. We are treated like a large bunch of utter morons, and as a group, in general, we are happy with that status quo.

Sad really, because a lot of my friends are much smarter than that.

Daemon
Well if they're that smart, perhaps they should jettison their theory of government which obviously doesn't explain the facts, and consider one with real explaining power.

The theory of representative government is just so much fiction. For starters, it's ex post facto - it's made up after the event to try to justify government from the point of view of what people would like it to be. Then the very fact that voting is compulsory destroys the entire justification of government that it holds out. "Choices" made under duress are nowhere recognised as legally valid. Then the electoral process provides no evidence whatsoever that any given act of government represents the wishes of the majority, let alone of "the people". And then no-one ever gives any reason why that particular collectivity should be the deciding entity.

The protection racket theory of government has far more explaining power. In fact, governments arise from whatever is the biggest armed group that takes over a territory. They claim a legal right to do what for everyone else they decree to be a crime. They are literally a legal monopoly of crime. Democracy doesn't change this fact. All it means is that the people are able to vote for the State to loot each other. You wouldn't expect a mafia to care what its subjects think; but when we substitute the State, all of a sudden we get this credulous attitude that the state should be some kind of caring benevolent institution.