Michael,

Let the "residents" and "normal people" in the suburbs and regional centres pick the Federal ALP candidates then. Go primaries and actually see what the suburbs want rather speculating as Beazley, Latham and you do now.

Give the power over to the "residents" or is that too big a step for the union pre-selection process to contemplate. What is clear if you accept the "residents" thesis is that "elites" hold Labor back - that could be interpreted as Keating and Whitlam but it could also be interpreted as the closed shop pre-selection of dud dull canidates often from backgrounds that are extraudinarily narrow.

Look at the difference on the cross benchers in backgrounds - the ALP is very much worse at picking good local candidates from a wide variety of "residents" backgrounds. No wonder it can't connect.

Go read my article: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3696

Good article by the way.

Corin

Micheal SIMPLE...."listen to it"

The sad "unions" verses "capitalist pigs" and "redistribute income" themes of the Left, are about as relevant as another hole in the head.

I really think the community is 'past' all that. Labor needs to move to the right, and the Coalition needs to move to the left. MIDDLE GROUND is where most of us dwell and have our being.

If labor (or the coalition) tries the pathetic and transparent tactics of half truths and scoring political points as did Lindsay Tanner with his sooooo obvious political salivating dredging up out of date sex offences at the 'right time' to 'damage' Howard via the GG.. welllll does he think we are THAT stupid ?

The religious values based groups will probably determine the outcomes fron now on, because a) they/we are growing, and b) they/we have something to believe in (as opposed to the wasteland of secular humanism/nihilislm/amoral existentialism) and are more and more passionate about it.
c) they vote on ISSUES of social justice and morality. d) they (we) are becoming more politically analytical, examining marginal seats etc, developing strategies, becoming more active.

So, I'd forget about 'redeeming the unredeemable' as in "Labor" and begin to think about a better Australia. When a political party thinks past it's ideological nose, it has a chance with 'us'.
When they deny we are relevant, exist, or write us off as the lunatic fringe morons of the fundy right' we simply form our own party, and fight them democratically.

Here is a Hint. Labor seems to have a wide 'migrant' heritage support base. But the community is not itching there. The vast majority (and increasing in size) is itching in the 'cultural identity' spot. Especially the Anglo/Europeans. (we are 12.7 million )

The 'para-message' of multi culturalism is that (Anglo/Europeans) 'YOU DON'T EXIST' or.. "you don't matter", or.. "You dont even HAVE a culture" or "Your a pack of intolerant racists" well.. we will see :)
Failure to address this running sore, will be done at the risk of political and social oblivion.

The Labor Party cannot rebuild if they are relying on the union movement. In all honesty while I agree with much that the union movement is saying, their economic record is very much revolves around an old world view. There is a niche economic agenda that the Labor Party can target but that would still require Labor to break with their union ties.

The Labor Party machine will not change unless there are more electoral losses for Labor. Tony Blair in 1994 changed the Labour Party for the better and made them a force to be reckoned with. Labor must learn the lessons of their British comrades if they are to return to power in 1997. Though I doubt it.

The idea of primaries is excellent, yet there are inbuilt problems. The current system for Labor means that the branch stacking continues and people turn up to vote someone in (if the are lucky) whilst others are genuinely not interested. There is the potential for running the risk of having primaries just mean larger turnouts of factional support than before. Yet it would be an improvement on what tehy currently have.

One thing I do find interesting is that as the Labor Party have lost more and more of their base in the suburbs to the Liberals, they are becoming ever more beholden to the inner-city elite. Because they have lost, the remaining members of the Parliamentary Labor Party and their factional bosses come from a dwindling geographic area. It would have to take a real concerted drive to bolster party members in the outer suburbs and bring in new ideas for Labor otherwise they will be forever linked to an inner-city and left-wing union set.

Seang,

You are totally right.

Blair did it with complete centralisation of power into the political operation and away from the unions. This is best done by primaries in my view but I agree that if that is unachievable - then by removal of the LEFT forces (by that I mean those rusted on to "ideology" - so many in the right too) from influence in the Labour party.

Get Gordon Brown, Alistair Campbell, Peter Mandelson, et al, types and remove the dead wood like Martin Ferguson, Jennie George, et al.

Corin

Primaries can work. I feel that it would excite the base and because of the novelty would attract attention but the Party Professionals would be deadset against it because they would see it as fostering division and it would restrict their ability to gain office. Such egotism nowadays has blocked good, hard-working people from achieving political office because of their background.

It would take real guts to reform Labor.

Federal Labor opposition could well do with more butchers, bakers and candle stick makers, gardeners,alternative lifestylists,poets - but this isn't going to change its fundamental outlook.

It suffers from being caught between two worlds - the one created by the Howard regime [off the back of the Hawke and Keating years] and the other which is off its own making. It does not know what it stands for.

How can you possibly ask the electorate to support a party suffering from a personality disorder whereby the most predominant and visable characteristic of this disorder is that it doesn't think it has a disorder at all.

"Insanity is doing the same thing in the same way & expecting a different outcome"
Old Chinese Prover

I thought it was a blow for the Labor Party to have re-elected Beazley as their leader. Australia is bleeding with some huge issues being debated; but where is Beazley? Meanwhile John Howard has been able to continue to divide and conquer; though there appears to be cracks forming (Telstra, Immigration,Iraq,leadership and IR legislation).

The factional nature of Labor would seem to not necessarily foster the best talent in the Party. Simon Crean I think had been right in trying to reduce the influence of Unions. While the move to the right and stranglehold tactics used to ensure Coalition Parliamentary members vote the "right way" ultimately leaves the Liberals vulnerable. I think we Australians still support the view of giving people a fair go, or has that now been legislated against?

While those with strong religious seem to be mainly support the Coalition on account of moral views, there are issues where the Coalition has been very ordinary in relation too. Economic advantage appears to be a driving force underlying many areas; people are alienated to the extent of being work units, even education is seen a mechanism to produce fodder for industry. A current frightening trend is that pure and seeming abstract science is not accorded value.

So while Labor may not be traveling well, there are potential difficulties for the Liberals. In my State the tables are turned in that we have a seemingly strong but arrogant Labor Party and a weak Liberal Opposition.

Dear Michael

Thank you for an interesting and thought provoking article.

Rainier - what a spot on post! I wish I had written it.

I was reared to be a Labor voter. And I was OK with that until I finally realised that since the Hawke-Keating era, Labor no longer stands for the philosophies and principles that I had learned as a youngster.

Labor is not in an identity crisis because it has no identity. Without a clear philosophy, grounded principles, and pragmatic strategies Labor is likely to spend the next 10 years or so searching for an identity. Then the sheep might return to the fold.

Cheers
Kay

Aaaaamen Kay ! and I'm also beginning to think I've had some kind of nervous collapse because am totally at one with Raniers post for a change.

Your point is very important though Kay "It HAS no identity".... my biggest fear, is that in order to get one, it will just look for some other position like 'union support' its traditional base to resurrect one. That would be more suicidal than a jar full of sleeping pills.

So, 'where' do they go ? I would repaat and emphasise THE MIDDLE GROUND stupid (them not u :)..... and I say the same to the Coalition...

I am totally against xxx rated porn being available from ACT by mail order when the STATES have ALLL outlawed it. I thought that a Coalition with full power might do something about it but a reply from Phillip Ruddock confirms that either those in the industry have deep pockets supporting the libs or the libs are just plain ignorant of how people (conservative, specially evangelical) feel about the availability of it. They may as well SPIT in the faces of the state governments.

Needless to say, Mr Ruddocks reply will be going to a 'large number' of people in the eastern suburbs, and also to Family First as 'ammo'.

I've had an ongoing dialogue by email with Robbie Swan of EROS about this, and he offered to show me some stuff which mocked religion to test the RRT, nothing has showed yet.

Have a peek at what Aslan says about that Altman character. The mind boggles, I guess if he isn't a member of NAMBLA he would be soon.

When you see this moral relativism'"make-it-up-as-you-go'ism and a leading professor describes Man boy sex as 'nothing more than.." the alarm bells ring at double time.

So, LABOR -there is a good place to start, have some MORALITY in your platform.

Boaz and Kay and others,

Even if you don't vote Labor but preference them - you are Labor by default.

Chasing a higher primary vote from the Left is oblivion.

Labor can afford to take the Left for granted - its the centre of economics that matters and the conservative "blue collar" voters that matter.

However it takes a better program than Howard's to win.

Corin

Kalweb,

I like your sheep analogy, but didn't know why beyond the usual connections - and then it dawned on me this afternoon.

It reminds me of (and this is not an original thought at all) Orwell's Animal Farm.

See the online and searchable version here http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/animalfarm/

The control of the senate ?

"Upon the expulsion of Snowball, Napoleon’s first decision was to eradicate the Sunday Morning Meetings. “They were unnecessary, he said, and wasted time. In the future all questions relating to the work of the farm would be settled by a special committee of the pigs and, presided over by himself.” Immediately the conditions of Animal farm are not controlled by the animals but by Napoleon."

Rainier - good analogy and thanks for the link to that website - always interested in literature.

Agreed Labor started losing their way with Hawke/Keating - how ironic is that the economy we have today couldn't have existed with out them and here's Johnny riding in on their shirt tails.

I don't get the reappointment of Beazley either - so many opportunities offered by the coalition for beazley to create a solid platform on and so many opportunities lost.

So, one way to get back the electorate would be to dump Beazley - but with whom do we replace him? Must be able to stand up to Howard, definitely must have the 'ticker' - only point of agreement with Howard.

BD - I absolutely loath XXX porn too - suggest you do what I do. Don't watch it. :-)

Labor, with the proposed Industrial Relations reforms, has a chance now to cave for themselves a coherant economic argument which will boost their standing within the community. The reforms during the Hawke Prime Ministership were done because our economy was lagging, yet these reforms are being done during a period of sustained growth and rightfully scare many voters (for interest, I am a Liberal supporter).

Labor has opposed these reforms, which is good but not enough. I believe that Labor can create a 'third-way' between the Liberal Government support for large business and the union movement's desire for a return to Keynesian economic policies. If the Labor Party were to speak about economic issues that truly matter to the electorate then they would get some traction.

Casual employment is an issue - many simply dislike it and realise that it is a way for business to cut costs.

GST and small businesses - the GST promised to streamline the tax system yet small businesses are suffering because of it.

Paid maternity/paternity leave for people working in large businesses - we have an ageing population and tend to like family-friendly employment policies.

I feel that the above three issues will greatly aid Labor in making a dent in the economic shield of the Government. It comes down to kitchentop issues: job security, small business survival and worries about starting a family. Infrastructure is important, but it does not strike a chord with the vast voter base that have deserted Labor.

But creating a coherant economic argument is simply not enough. There needs to be reform within the party machine. The above issues are felt within the community, but not within the Labor policy units. The reasons are obvious - they live in Canberra, they enjoy job security through factional support and they do not really run anything that demands performance-related goals. If the Labor Party were more open, the above would be obvious issues to press home against the Coalition Government but they are out of sight and hence out of mind.

Very well said Seang.We definitely need a stronger ALP since I'm sencing cracks of complacency appearing in the Coalition.They are making a lot of noise about IR reform yet done little about Welfare reform.

Christopher Reason's "Welfare a Taxing Concern" in the Weekend Australian 7/8/2005 make some excellent points.The growth of welfare state has continued to accelerate under the Coalition with the introduction of the GST.The IR reforms will mean nothing unless we get State Govts like NSW to remove all the unnecessary red tape,workers comp. expenses,taxes and stupid work place safety over regulation etc.No company can possibly conform to the maisma of rules and regulation.

Industrial Relations and work place regulation needs to be taken over by the Commonwealth.In todays climate employers of trades people are petrified of employing new staff since they cover the full cost of workers comp.The shortage of trades people will continue and it will cost us economically.

Our Govts solution will be to bring skilled migrants who cannot speak English.How do we then not only communicate job tasks but also the complicated work place safety rules that find the employer guilty until proven innocent?

We need some courageous logical thinkers with real business experience in the ALP to keep the Coalition on their toes thinking about creative and effective reform.

ARJAY.. good point about the over-regulation etc.

When Labor stops representing 'special interest' groups such as unions who basically exist for their own sake and to 'bully' employers as much as to 'protect' workers, clinging to relevance with thuggery as much as negotiation, and begins to represent all segments of the Australian community they will begin to be 'born again' :)

WHO'S SIDE IS GOD ON ? :) .... Coalition/Capitalism's ?

Here is a hint :) referring to Capitalist Israelites, through Amos the prophet: (Ch5)

11 You trample on the poor
and force him to give you grain.
Therefore, though you have built stone mansions,
you will not live in them;
though you have planted lush vineyards,
you will not drink their wine.

12 For I know how many are your offenses
and how great your sins.
You oppress the righteous and take bribes
and you deprive the poor of justice in the courts.

14 Seek good, not evil,
that you may live.
Then the LORD God Almighty will be with you,

So.... He is on LABORS side ? :)..... nah.. all of these sins can be turned around and applied to the attitudes of some Union thugs.

GOD..is on the side of.... yep.. u got it in one (clap)... 'justice'.

So, as long as it's 'Labor/Unions' and "Coalition/Farmers,Chemists,Newsagents,Employers" .. we will have 'us/them'.... how about we look to those who seek justice in the political realm.

GOD is also on the side of 'morality'. Justice cannot exist without it.

Apart from the XXX porn we seem to all be in agreement for once ;)

Of course the Labor Party stands for nothing. Its the theory of
"Stand for whatever people want to get their votes" which brings with it a myriad of conflicting and contradictory policies with no theme. Such is their frustrated and cynical desire for power.

After working twice as hard as they were 10 years ago,the populus realizes that the "have-nots" are often the "do littles" and a Party catering to them as victims is no longer accepted by the voting population. Redistributing the wealth of hard workers to the less active is not popular particularly as there are so many hard working Australians these days.

The Labor Party's belief that voters were hoodwinked by the Liberals economic argument shows how little respect they have for the electorate. Telling them they were too stupid to see the trap is a big loser. The Labor Party needs to realise that the electorate is not only more sophisticated than they think but more sophisticated that they are.

As posted previously commenting on an earlier Forum article criticising modern Aussie Labor, to say again what is basically wrong with our Labor. It has forsaken its grassroots which are social democratic rather than the arch right-wing doctrine it is now trying to emulate.

Labor forsook its roots when Bob Hawke somewhat successfully in the late 1980's turned Labor to economic rationalism defeating the Liberals who at the time where so disoriented they did not really understand what economic rationalism and globalisation was all about. They do now, of course, and making a go of it, because of its radically conservative parameters. But such does not belong to a true people's party, and not to Tony Blair, come to that, as he has been told so many times by certain of his former Ministers.

As also stated in another post, Labor in its true dinkum role, should not have followed the US in the unlawful attack on Iraq, instead following Canada and New Zealand, and virtually the bulk of the premier world states.

It is now left for future good philosophers and historians to tell the truth about in the future.

George C, WA - (Bushbred)

Labor stands for nothing because it does not inspire it's constituents to achieve beyond what is mundane and mediocre.My father use to wax lyrical about Bob Hawke.He represented the aspirational working class.Our modern day unions on the the other hand seek priviledge without effort and appeal to the most base of most base of our motivations i.e get what you can with the least amount of effort.

While there are many in the elite who vote for the Coalition also seeking also a free ride,by comparision,their numbers are are few.

The Labor Party is still living in images of past capitalist's exploitation,and consumed with individual rights.

If the Labor Party want to become relevant,inspire ordinary people like myself to achieve beyond our mediocrity.

Our modern day Labor are introverted,self indulgent,and appeal to our weakness rather than our courage to achieve.

You are only partly right, Arjay, but, yes, Labor needs to be more aspirational, but better still, inspirational, because aspirational means to usually chase after someones else's ideas rather than your own.

Furthermore it was aspirational rather than inspirational for Hawke to have Labor go for economic rationalism in the late 1980s. Furthermore Hawke would have known it was nothing new, and was not Labor's dinkum socio-political territory.

Hawke as a scholar must also have known that economic rationalism and the free market had already been tried and tested. First, a warning from Adam Smith, the creator of Laizess-faire that during workings of free-market competition, man's natural greed would need strong government laws to take care of the underclass. Years later, the British philosopher, John Stuart Mill said almost the same thing in his literary classic "On Liberty."

Some of our group have already called the above style of research, historical twaddle, or old pap, but even as Winston Churchill warned, if we don't go back many more times in history than we go forward in our speculation, we could be in for a lot of trouble.

Yes, Arjay, the world is in such a mess at present, it needs something intensely inspirational to get us out of it, and that does not mean in old language, making better artillery.

So maybe Labor will come out of the woodwork yet, for to be sure the Libs have not, only able to aspire mostly to what Pax Americana is already trying to achieve.

Brushbred one thing I agree with you on is Global Capitalism.It is feral with short term objectives and is self destructive.

Multinationals are strutting the World looking for the cheapest labor and thus selling their products to western nations for the highest prices.

They have failed to realise that real wealth exists in the minds of your people.If you diminish any nation to poverty,you are simply diminishing the size of your market,since poor people with less time on their hands,for learning, have less intelligence and thus less spending capacity.Subjugate your population and everyone becomes poorer.

With free trade we are running the risk of even fewer jobs for Australians.We have the choice of being insular and not competing with countries like China or India and thus missing out on the latest technologies or reduced real wages for many who have to compete with third world wages.Chinese workers exist on less than $60.00 per week.No holiday pay,worker's comp,sick pay,long service leave,payroll tax, OH&S regulations ,litigation,insurances,union demands or taxes for social security.This is a major area in which all parties have just put their heads in the sand and hoped will sort itself out.

Global Capitalism will create more poor people by letting fewer to be consumers,but wouldn't be it ironic that our own greed may well delay the planet's environmental degradation.

Maybe there is a consciousness beyond our own

Look markets and capitalism are very different.

Markets are healthy and can be shaped by government to opperate more favourably to more people too - ie. Health being a good example of where government has a role in altering the provision of the market - whether by performance itself (like the NHS in Britain) or by giving insurance (like Medicare).

Markets give a good account of efficiency but don't always create obvious benefits for those who don't own assets. Therefore make assets easier to obtain, like promoting shares for poor people by subsidy, or houses for poorer people.

Capitalism is the use of market power. This is used by big business and big labour. Both are the big beneficiaries of capitalism that promotes oligarchy, and monopoly.

Australia is prone to capitalism because the smallness of its' market - ie. media being the best example.

Markets are good and can be shaped to promote more social good by "light touch" regulation, and capitalism is an altogether different beast that the ACCC must watch.

Corin