Paul Keating walked away from an emphasis on good economic policy when the recession-he-brought-about tarnished his "world's best treasurer" image, and he sought to boost his ego in fresh fields, e.g. with the arty types and Suharto. It's been all downhill since then, and the 2006 ALP doesn't have the depth available to Hawke, who had a raft of good Ministers.

The Hawke years are now too distant to hang an ALP narrative on, but they need to acknowledge the merits of that government's approach in rebuilding. Many Hawke Ministers were genuinely interested in the best policies for all Australians, irrespective of ideology and union and special interest positions. Can the present crew do this? Lindsay Tanner probably. Emerson, I don't know, his analysis often seems very flawed and leads him in unhelpful directions. Swan to date strikes me as too much the political apparatchik compared to those Hawke ministers, he might seek good policy as a political imperative though. The uncharismatic Rudd has some merit, although at time's in the past he's been a bit fixated on silly ideas (such as all schoolchildren should learn Chinese).

But for the sake of the ALP and the nation - a strong oppositon is essential to good government - I hope that they start to get their act together soon. And don't depend on inspiration and direction from Beazley, or they'll sit on their hands forever.

Dream on Dreamer, Dream on.

The ALP Federally has more than economic policy to regain. The danger I see is this, they may win the next election with the most unpopular Opposition Leader in living memory, without having to reconnect with their traditional voters, much in the same way Johnny Bonsai came to power, people hated Keating. They may hate Howard in much the same way and win by default.

This is nowhere near good enough for the population of this country. The ALP has to be reformed into what it began it's life as, a working person's party. A vote for the current ALP is a wasted vote, with the only change being a more moderate Howard Government. We need a different philosophy to prevail, one which cannot be had from a right wing ALP. I remember when the ALP was a vibrant party with many inovative ideas of a progressive nature, these days it's just a me too party.

The electorate deserves more, much more and we will be so much the poorer if we elect an unconverted Labor Government.

When interest rates were high in Australia under Labor, they were high right around the world. In the same way that they are lower in Australia under the Coalition because they are lower right around the world. We're a globalised economy we'll pay whatever the going rate is. In fact in relative terms interest rates in Australia under the Coalition have been higher as a ratio to those in the USA, Europe and Japan. One of the most useful functions of Online Opinion is to devote the time and space to unsexy facts like these.
But given that the majority of voters still believe that Labor equals high interest rates and coalition equals low interest rates, it is not Online Opinion that Labor needs to use to get its message across but the mass media.

Liberals will loose the next federal election with a half hearted campaign, as they know when to get out and get back in.

All - these are fair comments.

Agreed that Hawke is now too distant to chase as a legacy - and also the debates have moved on - but it is the spirit of Labor reforms in the 1980's that provide the basis of renewal.

The role of government and a winning party is defined only by capturing a sentiment for "prosperous policy": who will deliver the reforms that promote the interests of the majority who enjoy improving living standards.

Labor needs this narrative at its core. The "Ladder of Opportunity" is still a value based idea that has resonance.

The ladder of opportunity relies on tough decisions (like a broad based tax reform position in 98), fiscal discipline, as well as opening up incentives and opportunities for workers to prosper and even to migrate to business ownership.