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.

suebdoo2 - Fully concur.

There is a lot Labor could be doing but isn't. Currently the Libs are backtracking on families in detention - do we hear anything from Labour? Nope.

The Libs are spending our tax dollars to convince us that the IR laws are fair and equitable - all we've had from Beazley has been chest beating - no action. Apparently the Libs ad compaign is unconstitutional - who is putting forward the legal costs to prove this - the unions.

Labor needs more than a broad choice of candidates it needs a transfusion.

Then we must conclude that corporate sponsorship should be eliminated from the political front.

This has so badly tarnished our democracy. In America we have seen so many examples of how their Government is enterwined with big Corporation through campaign donations and favouring of certain business identities.

The same thing is happening before our eyes. By containing both of the parties in what seems to be a two horse race by our media, they are impotent in their positions to be of opposition.

The Westminister system was created for the people so not one authority had an accumulative power. It was to have been spread evening ensuring debate.

You would think with all the tax payer dollars that both these horses have accumulated over the years, we could change legislation and ban the need for political parties to have business sponsorship.

In the reality our Government is taking the advice of business. Australians have not seen anything yet.

The issue is simple, the Labor Party has not had enough dynamic vote winning candidates, and its overall membership is very far from the average voter's sentiment in the key seats. Labor must find a way of resolving these issues.

Labor's brand needs renewal at federal level and in the process not be dragged to the Left and into the Wilderness. Indeed it must do what Blair was able to do - create an identity that could win a major victory and then keep those in the middle - thereby banishing people like John Howard. Easier said than done you say.

However primaries of the kind used in the US (for Senator or Congressional pre-selection) give control of pre-selection more closely into the hands of those key voters - so long as enough people turn out to vote. They would also create more profile for candidates and for the Labor Party in the run up to elections.

That is the key premise of the piece. I think the commentary has gone of topic somewhat.

Agreed the Labor Party desperately needs a broad choice of candidates - but where from? We have an education system based around economic 'rationalism' this does nothing to produce inspired, imaginative and visionary people - instead it produces corporate clones - acolytes for the god mammon.

Just where is the Labor Party gonna get its choice of candidates?

I question the political logic within this article by CM.
How many urban high profile local candidates would seriously look at banging their heads up against the wall from the back bench of the Labor party? The imperative here is to get Labor re-elected and not to give local high profile candidates a real voice if Labor won government.

There is why I don't think either of the major parties are attractive to high profile and community connected people at a local level.

Left, centre Left. Left right out?

The Labor party should focus their energies on reconnecting to the real world of people and communities as a party first and not depend and parasite on brokerage from the grass roots.

How much longer will we need to hear them talk of disenfranchising their factional system but then resort back to this calibrator to decide who gets the banana?

If they can't make sense to themselves, how are they supposed to make sense to ordinary Australians?

Johnny...

'where from'.. good question. but why even the question ? It presupposes there is some canonical validity for Labor that is unquestionable. Why not think in terms of principle, justice and prevailing cultural rights when discussing this.

For those who think 'religious groups' are what the coalition depends on, should look at what Family First are saying about some aspects of the IR plans of the libs.

Corin, sadly you don't even question "Labor" You just want to see them in power for reasons .... ? "because you do" ? err.. with 12.7 million Australian citizens from the Judao Christian cultural heritage, the last thing Labor should do is put a 'humanist' as its federal leader. They got the predictable result for that one.
Perhaps this little statistic also explains the closeness of the coalition to the 'religious' mob ? Not only is it good politics, its also a reflection of what we are as a nation.

How about we accept our inherited cultural situation (the European), seek in every way possible to give back dignity to our indigenous people NOT WITH "MORE FUNDING" (sorry for the caps, but indigenous people are NOT a political football to throw money at and gain votes).

How about looking at 'free access rights' for indigenous people to all grazing properties and tear down the symbolic barriers of fences which convey a message of rejection in their own country. Why not give more respect to sacred sites ? The only 'multi-cultural' aspect of Australia that I can accept is in regard to our indigenous people.

Instead of asking how 'Labor' can re-brand itself, why not ask how we as a country can redeem ourselves from enslavement to 'us/them' of party politics and look for candidates in any party who will reflect values on which we can build a future with a clear concience ?

By the way, I have a totally clear concience in regard to the need for government to protect our sovereignty and borders. I don't agree with outsourcing detention or jails.

“How many urban high profile local candidates would seriously look at banging their heads up against the wall from the back bench of the Labor party?” – “reward high profile local candidates” with what? – the wilderness!

Rainer talks about a reconnection with communities. There is a vast resource of people who see no vision from Labor whatsoever - you know this - and now elections are seen ‘out here’ as a mere batten change. They don’t want Howard but they also don’t want the brand.

If Labor wants this resource of it must begin now to engage, find out who these people are, their real aspirations and stop pigeonholing voters with that march you do: left, right, left, right and yes “create an identity” from that resource once you actually know what it is. They don’t know you either.

This is basic stuff and I wonder if it’s simply a matter of “Oh! We know that works well so we’ll do something else!

Labor can choose to continue with this pseudo democracy or stop competing on Howard’s terms - your choice!

While I agree Labor needs to have transparency at preselection level, the party needs to realise that ALL matters require greater transparency in order to maintain public trust. Squabbling about branch stacking has a place, but much of it only plays into Howhard's hands. We need to have a clear consistent voice on the economy and security....THAT is the national agenda. It needs to be easily and simply expressed (Kim??) and understood, fully funded...or at least clearly showing where the money is to come from, but most importantly it NEEDS TO BE BALANCED AND HUMANE. We NEED to be safe and secure, but we WANT to feel GOOD again.... and we need to reflect the values of the labour movement....RESPECT for human beings, and all that that implies. Here's a possible slogan for you....'Vote Labor. Restore the Balance!'

Ditto Hutlen!

This is a repost of my comment from the McMahon article--

Never has so much been written and said about the chronic and infectous illness plaguing the bloody Labor Party.

Never have so many Labor supporters and commentators put up suggestions and counter opinions on how to fix this illness.

And finally, never have so many 'once were Labor supporters' been so utterly disinterested.

A tit bit from that famous dead parrot sketch seems appropriate: (perhaps we should rename it the Dead party sketch?)

Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.

Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

Mr. Praline: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead.

Owner: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/dead-parrot.htm

I think most of you haven't discussed the true premise - membership is now so out of touch that Labor members do not reflect the electorate it connects with to win elections.

There are two ways of re-connecting:

1. increasing centralisation and a move to the middle (or in Labor's case to the Right; or

2. having a pre-selection system that could capture public sentiment better than it currently does.

I have put forward that primaries would be the best means of doing this. Creating a very difficult couple - more "centrist" candidates and also more diversity. Also it is obvious to me at least that the process of having to get the public involved - reflects well on the only tennet of the Labor tradition - it being a mass movement.

When you consider that unions only reflect 19% of workers now - it seems obvious that for Labor to be a mass movement it must seek more direct methods for involving "suburban" "normal" people in the process.

Thanks for all you comments,

Corin

Corin

While I agree with much of your post and indeed much of your article. I'm not sure if your 'Labor' is the same as everyone else's 'Labor'.

You stated: "1. increasing centralisation and a move to the middle (or in Labor's case to the Right"

I agree with increasing centralisation, I don't know if you've noticed but Labor moved to the right years ago with Hawke/Keating and hasn't really found its place since. It has lost touch with its traditional supporter base as a result.

As for the swing away from Unions - the current IR changes may bring back alot of former union members as they endeavour to secure their jobs.

And just what do you mean by ""suburban" "normal" people"? More information on this please.

Most people agree that Labor has lost public sentiment. It makes me wonder just what Beazley's advisors are telling him.

Part of the problem is also out of Labor's control - the current global unease as a result of terrorism. War favors the conservative and is part of the reason for Howard's success.

We still need to fasten our seat belts for the foreseeable future.

Mass resignations in both Qld and NSW govts suggests something is afoot. I don't know what, but it smells like future preselection wars to me

Trinity,

The reason Labor lost its' blue collar support was more to do with social issues (ie. Mabo and others in 96) than "liberal" economics - this is the biggest failing in the Leftist critique of Labor.

Labor was also unlucky to be in power when the recession happened and yet have delivered the policy foundations for Howard's dream run.

The voters that seem to matter at the moment are:

1. home owners (with mortgages in the belt of outer-suburbs)

2. young families (see above as well)

3. retiring people with pensions

4. regional voters who often think "city" dwellers don't understand them - a "regional face" in touch is important

5. often entrepreneurial (there are somewhere close to 1.8 million ABN's which is indicative of this trend )

6. scared people (ie. over job security (IR for Labor but if Howard's reform goes well ?) or the changing face of Australia and international uncertainty

7. people indebted to the hilt.

They must present a "liberal" programme of economics that confirms prudence at its core, and that is a growth and investment strategy. I grant that Labor has tried to move to this position (and certainly was this in the mid 1980's). In 98 Labor could have done a tax reform package that was economically prudent and able to deliver greater fairness: "Howard Better" as opposed to "Howard Lite".

To achieve this - reform of power in pre-selection is also required. Whether by massive centralisation or primaries. Primaries are a fresh coat of paint and reflect well!

But most important for Labor at any time of victory is "Charisma" - candidates make a massive difference and also indicate a party that is "alive" and "vibrant" and "in touch".

Labor needs to sell a longer term strategy - it needs to define 85, 90 or even 100 seats it can win and really banish the Libs for a generation: now that would take a real move to the Centre. Seats like Aston would be on the list - now who's an optimist!

Cheers again,

Corin

Corin

Thank you for your article. It was interesting reading and has certainly generated some interesting responses.

Do you think the Federal Labor Party will head anything that has been suggested on this thread? There are some highly intelligent people in this forum who are from diverse backgrounds. All posters have provided very thoughtful feedback. If the Labor Party does not listen to this group, they will definitely be out for a duck!

Xena - I loved the notion that Labor requires a transfusion.

Rainier - I agree. So many state resignations in NSW and Q. Something smells. Something is about to happen me thinks. But what? is the penetrating question.

Corin - yes the Labor Party needs an infusion of charisma. This is hardly likely, given that the Labor Party no longer has an identity. All of the talk about preferences, seats, middle, right, left etc seems of little value to me unless the Labor Party can clearly define its: philosophy, value system, conceptual framework, paradigm or meta-paradigm, underpinning principles, pragmatic/realistic/achieveable strategies.

The State Labor Party in Q is in a mess. Yet charismatic Peter Beattie continues to ride a fairly good wave. He has no opposition.

The Howard Government continues to ride a very good wave because it has no opposition.

Cheers
Kay