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.

It's all fluff and stuff in the end fed gov's loose when intereset rates/inflation hurts Joe average credit line. Joe average put's about as much thought into the vote as they picking socks.

Looks like Labor may be saved eventually by former Country Party voters, many who have had a gutfull of country reps who because they are so conned by little Johnny may as well call themselves Libs. The lack of interest was seen as proof, even though it was known at the time, and has proven since that the bi-lateral deal would be no good for the average farmer, whether he or she be dairy farmers, fruitgrowers, woolgrowers, or graingrowers, especially wheat. Now that wheat has fallen so much in price, mostly caused by US and the EU governments monetarily protecting their growers and dumping the cheap subsidised grain on susceptible world markets. Wine producers in Western Australia are also in bad trouble through overseas dumping.

The truth is that farmers historically or economically, were never known as businessmen but part of the perfect economy,
sounding ridiculous but actually meaning a group that is better working together under what is known in France as agrarian socialism.

During the 1930's Great Depression, Australian farmers were saved not by the United Australia Party, the main conservative party at the time, but by Prime Minister Pollard of the ALP, bringing in stabilisation and a guaranteed price.

It is interesting that Pollard apparently did not expect grain farmers to be loyal to Labor, either, which means that farmers as a group would be better to sometimes play the field than to stick with a party who seem to believe right now that farmers even in a socialistic production group must always vote conservative. Look out you phony Liberals, the move could be already well on the way.

Bushbred - WA

Before I became an accidental immigrant in 1979, I had been a long-term supporter of the UK Labour party, although I sometimes despaired at their tendency to focus on the issues of the past rather than those of the present. In Australia, I became an ALP supporter. The first Ministers I met were at the inaugaral meeting of the Hawke Government's Ministerial working group on longer-term economic growth. I was very impressed by the ministers, Button (chair), Dawkins, Evans, Kerin and Willis. They were genuinely interested in what was best for Australians at large - not for ALP supporters, not for unionists, but for the whole community; and they wanted to hear from their eminent economic advisors their views as to "best" policy, unconstrained by existing ALP or ACTU policy. This was very impressive, and the reforms flowing from the Hawke governemnt have, in general, had very positive effects (while, as noted above, helping over the longer term to erode the ALP's traditional voting base).

I also had meetings with several other ministers, including several meetings over a number of years with Hawke and Keating. In my view Labor's success under Hawke was largely because of the focus on "good" policy, abetted by Hawke's skills in selecting and delegating to talented and well-intentioned ministers and in seeking consensus. Keating, in my view, was unfit to be Prime Minister because of his arrogance and other failings. To me, the ALP's decline at the federal level began with Keating's first challenge - the quality of policy-making declined thereafter. Keating was obsessed with becoming PM, but when he got there seemed not to know what to do. And, unlike Hawke, he did not make best use of his able ministers. Keating's stealing of the 1993 election was very damaging for the party and the country, and the ALP has not yet recovered. I could not aupport a party led by Keating, and have seen no reason to return to the party since 1996. (MF)

dear bushbred,

Looks like you have come up with some new information, as I have never heard of Prime Minister Pollard. Sure you've got the right country? At the start of the depression we had briefly a Labor Prime Minister called Scullin, who was deposed by Jack Lang's supporters in 1932, and then we had Joe Lyons of the UAP for the rest of the thirties. Nary a mention of a Prime Minister Pollard. Any sort of opinions are OK, but let's try and keep the facts straight.

Read Robert Mann's new book " Do Not Disturb: Is the Media Failing Australia? and you get a sense of the crisis in our liberal democracy.

For me this book points out what Glover and others fail to comprehend
as the 'problem' with both the Coalition and the Labor party -- and its much more important than who wins government.

The other reading I would recommend is John Raulston Saul’s essay
"The end of globalism" where he charts the demise of another grand theory (Globalism) and a rebirth of nationalism.
• http://www.afr.com/articles/2004/02/19/1077072774981.html

Labor is not only faced with the task of rediscovering itself, it must simultaneously redefine itself as 'part of' a new emerging national identity. The days whereby one could simply trot out the usual symbols and poltical trinkets of converntional nationalism are over.

Could predict that what could destroy the Liberal Party, as it is, could be its foreign policy ties with the present White House establishment. GW Bush is considered by some critics as now on the edge in Iraq, talking about having to let the Shias have their way, yet at the same time talking about attacking Shi-ite Iran. It is here our Australian PM is so loyal or rather so weak that it is never mentioned by the media that he has argued or had cross words with the US President about American foreign policy.

This is what happened to Menzies when the Japs came into the war, when John Curtin was elected because Menzies was too much sucking up to Britain, the Home Country.

We need the US, but as an equal, not to have a PM, of whom Mark Latham described very truthfully, but failed in his choice of words.

We also have a PM right now who has got us enmeshed in a trade agreement mostly to please our corporates, and which right now has allowed quarantine standards to be lowerered on "foot and mouth" allowing possibly infected Brazilian carcase meat to be dumped in Queensland. An enquiry why such has not been broacast or published by our media, proved of no avail, and suspiciously seems as if the truthful but very dangerous "foot and mouth" report has been muzzled by the media by orders of our PM.

All such events if proven true can lead to impeachment as could be similar with George W Bush, who is proving so much similar to Richard Nixon, it is too serious to be amusing.

Brushbred,I too don't like the way the Libs pander to big business.The Labor Party is useless.With free trade and big business artifically under pricing small business to drive them from the market,we have a shrinking middle class.

If the Nationals were smart ,they could fill the breach that small business/contractors are yearning for, and take votes from both Labor and the Liberal Party.

Dennis,

Great great article.

If you look at outer suburbs and regions and smaller states (like WA, SA, Qld) its pretty clear that Labor falls down outside of the Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra triangle.

I think the comments by Faustino and Dr Paul were also appropriate.

Finding a big pool of voters the way Hawke, Clinton, and Blair have require a special leader with a connection to the centre ground but carrying the party. Labor needs more candidates from the regions and suburbs and from beyond traditional Labor backgrounds to re-create this.

Corin

That the Labor Party has “lost its soul” (the Left critique) is I think indisputable if only we modify it slightly to “lost its presentational soul”.

How many times do we hear the refrain regarding politicians – “they’re all the same”??

This justified cynicism reflects the fact that both major parties use the same presentational devices. One cannot distinguish between the utterances (the wee grabs we get on TV) of either – they are bland, risk-free, designed to offend nobody important.

The conservatives have been Federally successful mainly for the reasons given in the “press gallery critique” – especially economic prosperity. Why change the Govt if things are going OK?

The Labor Party needs to do a number of things to effectively differentiate itself from the tories, and to show that it is in fact fit to govern.

It needs to destroy factionalism in party structures. As things stand, each faction is little more than a club for getting jobs for club members. The gyrations of Sharon Bird, now MP for Cunningham, are especially revealing. She was originally in the NSW “left” faction, but changed to the right. She claimed that this did not reflect a shift in her political views but was essentially a tactical intra-party move. I believe her.

It needs to adopt a distinctive language and vocabularly. No more neuterspeak. If we hear a pollie talking, we need to know that “this is a Labor person”.

It needs to attack the tories. The argument that negative rhetoric is damaging to the user has been elevated to the status of a principle, which it is not. The success of the ACTU campaign against the Govt’s industrial relations “reforms” shows what can be achieved.

It needs to show that it stands for something different. Not a better-managed tory economy but a well-managed fair economy consistent with what used to be Labor ideals of justice, equal opportunity and protection for the weak (who include nowadays much of the so-called middle classes – Howard’s new-won “battlers”).

Re-invent the Labor brand name and clean up internally – that’s the solution.

Mhoram

Another question is how Labor approaches issues where there is not a close fit between policies which follow logically from a social-democratic value framework, and policies which represent the beliefs of "the working class" or "ordinary Australians".

Take same-sex relationships. A social-democratic policy would affirm the principles of equality and non-discrimination between citizens regardless of sexuality, and that same-sex couples committing faithfully to a long-term intimate relationship should be entitled to have that relationship given the same legal recognition as a comparable heterosexual relationship. However, the evidence of the Australian Electoral Study is that such a policy would not currently have majority support. What should Labor do?

One answer is that Labor should make an effort to bring public opinion around to a situation of majority support for a social-democratic position. This is a long-run project requiring patient communication of the principles involved, assuring socio-culturally conservative voters that the social-democratic position is not inconsistent with the fundamental moral values that currently lead them to take a conservative view.

The sticking point is what should Labor do in the context of a six-week election campaign. It is perhaps easier to say what Labor should not do. It should not prostrate itself before the homophobic hard right as Nicola Roxon did at a meeting of the religious right in 2004; such a stance actively breaches social-democratic principles and undermines the effort to bring moderately conservative voters on board.

On the other hand, Labor is not the only political actor with a more or less progressive stance on this issue. It is politically less problematic for such stances to be advocated boldly and without nuance by parties like the Greens and the Democrats, and by the social movement for queer rights.

In broad terms, perhaps the best approach for Labor is a long-run strategy of building majority support for queer-friendly social-democratic policies, combined with flexible tactics which include the option of tactical compromises which don't undermine the strategic goal, but which accept that other political actors might sometimes be better placed to make up the hard yards.

The problem with Labor is quite simple. Despite the intellectualisation about Labor and Liberal policies and personalities the simple fact is that the electorate is MORE SOPHISTICATED than the Labor party. People can see through their policies as insincere attempts to gain power. Unfortunately Labor Party media presentation is dominated by emotionalism and beating up a fear campaign against a measured and predictable Liberal government. This worked in the 70's but is no longer sophisticated enough to win an electorate over.

People are richer, happier, smarter and appreciative of a govt whose policies have allowed this to happen.

The Liberals appeal with the "measured logic" approach and rarely stoop to Labor party's playground taunts. Who do you want to run the show, a whingeing, emotional child or a predictable conservative adult?

I think the problem with the Labour party is that they're actually so intent on emulating the Liberals, while remaining "nice", that they've totally lost their way.

I think we are mistaken if we think the Australian electorate has become mean spirited, even given Hugh Mackay's observations. I still think the "decent" aussie is still there in most of us - they just need to be inspired - and they need a leader untainted by previous attempts to "out-Winston" Howard - so Kim has to go - and I know everyone is afraid of the "left" - but Julia Gillard is what this country needs - (she was great tonight on Lateline up against Malcolm Turnbull).

Howard rules through fear but you can only cry "Wolf" so often (Tampa, Interest Rates...) I think people are ready to listen to a voice of true common sense and compassion adn I think the Labour party - if it can get rid of its amateurish attempts to be as gung-ho as the Liberals - can be that voice.

Once we were very close to New Zealanders (an I think, deep down, we still are) - the Kiwis have taken a very different track and are probably not doing quite as well we are economically - but I bet they sleep better at night.

The Australian Labor party began in Queensland as a grassroots working class Party, similar to Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. But the problem with working class parties is that they are unsustainable. Working class people are not political activists and whatever political problem troubles working class people enough to get them political, will run out of steam sooner or later. Such parties are ripe for takeover by people who are very politically active and who also may be cynical, upwardly mobile, ideologically driven, or all three.

The leaders of the Labor Party always knew that with rising prosperity in Australia, there would be no need for a Labor party. What they needed was a new poor whom they could present themselves as the champions of. That was why Labor so enthusiastically embraced Immigration and Multiculturalism. That the adoption of these ideals was anathema to the working class people, who still voted for Labor, troubled them not at all.

Labor is now run by university bred academics who have never done a days work in their lives and their white working class electorate know it. Worse, these academics are passionate about “causes” which white working class people steadfastly oppose. The “Republic” issue was defeated in the working class suburbs. The highest vote for a Republic came, unsurprisingly, from Sydney’s Darlinghurst area electorate, which is the homosexual capitol of Australia and the suburb with the highest rate of cocaine abuse.

What is most amusing is the sneering and superior tone which so many Labor apparatchiks adopt when attacking critics of their own trendy policies. That they are insulting their own traditional electors is something they can never figure out.

Can someone get Dr Paul a job advising Labor.