I think supporting economic democracy is part of the answer. Wage earner funds, works councils, subsidies and supprt for co-operative enterprise - are part of the answer.

But I'm wary of stigmatising the state completely - there are some things the state still does better. That includes running Government Business Enterprises to provide competition in oligopolistic markets; providing services and infrastructure such as banking and communications on the basis of need - not just to maintain share value; financing infrastructure at the most competitive rates; progressively re-distributing wealth through the tax transfer system, welfare state, social wage...

And yes, a lot of this sounds very radical now - even though it was part of the mainstream 30 years ago. The ALP's drift to the Right under Hawke and Keating, and in Opposition, has left social democrats feeling left-behind, isolated, voiceless... As I argue in an article to be published here tomorrow, the ALP will not even consider $10 billion (1% of GDP) of progressive tax reform to pay for new programs in education, health and welfare. This would be deemed too 'radical'.

And rights at work is also crucial. With the ALP seeking to repress pattern bargaining, ban political strike action and maintain the ABCC - and the ACTU feeling it has to 'go along for the ride' - who will stand up for workers' rights?

Certainly the ALP Left should not allow itself to be 'contained' and silenced by demands for discipline - for all for 'fall in behind the leader'. Unless the ALP Left speaks out, what credible voices are there for an alternative social and economic vision? But if the ALP Left finds it has little leverage on policy - despite holding almost half the Conference floor - perhaps it is time to start considering alternatives. A new party of the Left in Australia, aimed at the mainstream, winning the support of welfare groups and Left unions not currently affiliated to the ALP - could have the same kind of impact as the Left parties in Germany and Sweden, or the Socialists in Holland.

One difficulty I see here is the difference between governance and political theatre. Howard has been brilliant at the theatre of democracy and for most of us we've only understood his philosophy in retrospect.

We still expect that the theatre will resemble the philosphy in some way, but if Howard had clearly enunciated his vision in 1996 we'd be a very different country. The problems Howard's having now with issue ownership suggest that, culturally, we're still as much social democrats as we've been for the past 50-odd years.

Perhaps the labor movement would have a more secure future if it took care to match the theatre and the policy, because it's not in anyone's interests to get business cranky with a lopsided agenda.

Naive as that might sound, it's a tactic nobody's tried recently unless Rudd is sincere. Sounds good to me anyway.

if you had democracy, maybe socialism would follow?

Let's hope it is true that us Aussies are still natural social democrats, meaning that we are still ready to help a neighbour in trouble, not like our growing multi-billionaires who will only help if it makes news and adds to growing prestige.

Certainly the terms left-wing loonie and academic fruitcake has helped push such democratic thoughts aside, and even more borderline when Howard reorganises the Uni' Humanities when he wins the election.

Just lately he is proving himself so adept at agenda thievery or coming in on the grouter as with Global Warming, reckon if he does get in He might come at anything, even asking for the proverbial Heil-Heil-salutation from an Adoring Public.

Voters have the say about party's directions, you after all can not plant pumpkins and wonder why you are not harvesting spuds.
The result of the last election was the worst one for the left of center in my life time.
So dreadful it demanded a Kevin Rudd driven ALP nothing but the fall of John Howard is acceptable for Australians who care this year.
In truth that outcome is worth a drift away from old Labor.