This is the same Labor Party that has won successive elections in every State and Territory. Certainly the ALP should deal with the running sore of branch stacking and broaden its membership base, as well as attracting better candidates. But perhaps the failure to win Federal elections is more to do with leadership and policies, not party structures.

As an ALP member who lives in one of the seats named in the article, I don't know how a primary system would have thrown up a substantially different candidate. Labor was represented by a local councillor; anyway, no one ran against him at preselection, so he was hardly imposed on us by party hierarchy. End result was a slight swing to the ALP at the 2004 election - unlike many other places in the country.

I agree that the ALP needs to better connect with voters in the outer suburbs and regions on Federal issues, but a lot of that is the need for the Federal leadership to get its house in order. The candidate question is only a small part of that development.

Ozpuck - apologies for singling out electorates as that may indicate singular candidates. I was singling those electorates out to identify how the membership - not the "elites" the candidates - are often out of touch.

There is only one means of fixing the elites / membership divide that means rampant control freakery - that is to get Centrist candidates selected by the centre of politics - directly.

Labor only won a quarter of the "years" last century (24 out of 100!) - I want Labor to win three quarters this century.

I grant the States do better - but that's because they do law and order, education and health and not a great deal more. At Federal level - they do the economy and security - Labor must get its' views on these from the Centre ground from the electorates that matter - and not with the "identity crisis" it now faces. ie. "move beyond the polling elites" and "membership" divide.

I also encourage sitting candidates from the ALP to put themselves to the "Primary Test": would they survive - ask yourself - how many would? That should tell you something I think.

Thanks for the comments.

Corin

Corin
Trying to explain success at the State level but not at the Federal level on the basis that the States only "do" a limited range of areas is too simplistic. There are so many key areas eg health, education, transport, environment, where the States and c/wealth share responsibility.
The question is why are the States able to select electable candidates (not necessarily great but at least acceptable), have leaders who are accepted by the voters and are able to articulate policies which get them elected.

Given the same party sructure and processes, why can't the Feds get their act together?

rosco,

People keep saying Labor needs to move to the Centre and also have more diversity in candidate selection - primaries are the only way to bring this couple together. Otherwise you have a party of "elites" and "sub-branches". This is the only way of moving beyond this identity crisis.

Look at Blair and Brown in Britain - as soon as they go Labour in Britain will drift back into the wilderness Left: how do you stop that from happening permanently.

Corin

All of our media outlets must be Liberal supporters? In the West we only see a glimmer of Labor and the opposition they are suppose to be working hard on for the Australian people.

Labor needs to say to themselves that they almost achieved half of the vote of Australia. Liberal needed a religious group to be in their effective position in our parliament today.

Now that is a lot of people they are letting down by not being a passionate and fighting person for the people.

Or do we conclude that corporate sponsorship has tied Labors hands and they are gagged and impotent.