A very interesting article. I think the two most dramatic examples of the Labor Party's problems, which were mentioned but should have been more emphasised, were illegal immigration, where Howards strongest supporters were the Labor Party heartland, and the Tasmanian woodchipping controversy, where the pictures of Howard being cheered to the rafters by Tasmanian unionists were to me the most effective of the 2004 campaign.

The single most important issue for most former Labor voters is the perception that the party is controlled by an inner city elite and has lost touch with its (more conservative) heartland. The results of the 1999 republic referendum illustrated this in dramatic fashion, with the yes vote falling consistently as you moved out from the centres of Sydney and Melbourne. The media loved to point out at the time that John Howard represented the Republic of Bennelong, but failed to mention that Kim Beasley represented the Kingdom of Brand. How a party can hope to be elected when it cannot secure its own heartland eludes me.

The right wing analysis of Labor becoming "more dependant on minority ethnic vote" and "Losing the white working class heartland".. are interesting.

I tend to put it another way "Kick people in the guts long enough, they will look for a way out" or.. "Dont be fooled, God is not mocked, whatever a man sows, he will also reap" This applies to political parties also.

If one ties one's platform to the 'immigrant working classes' and alienate the traditional anglo Eurpean working classes, don't cry shock horror when suddenly you lose an election or 3.

Perhaps this explains the Howard coup "We determine who comes here and under what circumstances"

.. During the Tampa affair, (BEFORE the children overboard thing) I spoke to a LOT of people, and apart from the Labor party office and the Greens office who I rang, I could not find anyone prepared to speak up for the illegals, but there was PLENTY of passion along the lines of John Howards statement and most of it from 'white working classes'.

Howard won, not because we were 'sucked in' by the rediculous children overboard affair, (you would be pretty shallow if that swayed you), but by the realization that we have been progressively losing our voice on matters of immigration.

One thing for me, was the fact that illegal would be immigrants were SUEING our government about being held for a long time in detention.
Nothing comes closer to a loss of soveriegnty that something like that.

It appears more than just me noticed this. (and were outraged by it)
Lefties can bleat all day about intolerance and xenophobia, but unlike the animals which bleat, we are not sheep. Individually we notice, and decide. Clearly, our collective outrage was not confined to small numbers.

Anybody who does not 'get' this, should not be in politics.

There is no great mystery about the fact that states and territories are held by Labor but the Coalition looks set to stay federally for a long time to come. The state and federal ALP are entirely different animals. The state parties actually take the trouble to find out what voters want and what they believe. The federal party tells voters what the ALP wants and believes. The states also have competent and realiable leaders. If Mr. Glover and all the other 'experts' started listening to voters, none of this pontification and soul searching would be necessary. Out here, in the real world, most of us don't really give a damn about parties and their idealogies. We want what is best for us, our familes and our country. Federal ALP, with its pig headed, out of date attitudes to just about everything, it's succession of dopey leaders and their refusal to listen to the population, simply hasn't got what it takes.

I was in the Labor Party for years. I have been rained on, hailed on, sunburned, soaked, chilled, frozen, wind blasted, sand blasted, barked at, sneered at, starved, thirsted, indigestioned, foot-sored, bum numbed, ear bashed and plain boored whitless for the party with narry a single complaint.

I never actually left the party. You left me. I won't tell you why because that would only help you. But at least I now know my enemy.

C,mon Perseus; let us know the secret. Why did the party leave you? Heavens above if you are to be believed you hold the key to Labours' re invigoration. And even if you are a bit bitter and twisted now once Labour rises fromt the ashes you can sit back and say - "It was all because of me!"
Even if they are only a little bit succesfull Democracy at the very least needs a stronger opposition - do it Perseus. Do it for the greater good.

A look at the Australian Election Study (AES) 2004 suggests that the last point of the "press gallery critique" has much to recommend it.

The AES surveyed voters on which major party they considered to have a policy closest to their own view on twelve major election issues. The Coalition was considered superior to Labor on all of twelve election issues surveyed by the AES, except for the environment, education and health. More damaging for Labor, the Coalition’s lead on its strong points was often massive. For example, on national defence, interest rates and terrorism the Coalition’s policy was preferred by voters over Labor’s by margins of 48.5% to 21.2%, 46.2% to 17.5% and 44.8% to 19.5% respectively. In contrast, Labor’s leads on its three strong points were 44.3% to 35.1% on education, 34.6% to 28.4% on environment and 43.5% to 37.2% on health.

Perhaps as significantly, when asked about the performance of the Federal government in general over the three years since 2001, 13.7 % of respondents considered it to have done a very good job, 61.6% a good job, 20.2% a bad job and just 4.5% a very bad job. When asked about the government’s performance on the issue which voters considered most important, these figures were “very good” 15.3%, “good” 46.0%, “bad” 23.9% and “very bad” 14.9%.

The conclusion which strongly suggests itself from these figures is that the 2004 Federal election was probably not there to be won by Labor.