I hear a lot of musings about the ineffectuality of the Labor election campaign.

In spite of the huge gift Labor has been handed in the form of opposition to the Industrial Relations Reform laws passed late last year..I get the feeling that this still wont be enough.

Is it just me or does Kim Beasley look like he's lost hope.?

He just does'nt inspire the average Labor voter with any conviction that he's in there pulling for them.

With Kevin Rudd in the wings and liked and respected by a lot of the electorate I fail to see why Labor cannot get its act together.
Every blunder could cost Labor dearly in the current climate, the Rove McManus being the latest.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/election-is-workers-last-hope--beazley/2006/11/14/1163266550343.htm

Holyshadaow, there have been various theories floating around since 1996 which point toward Labor losing government because it deserted the working class. (working class meaning manual workers).

The Hawke and Keating government are often implicated for this loss which then has been used to conveniently critique why subsequently Labor leaders failed to recapture them. This is just lazy in my analysis in view.

I for one am not convinced that Labor and its support for the unions campaign against Howard's IR laws will bring this huge electoral demographic back into the fold. I don't think there is a landslide Labor win waiting to happen, more like a 'falling over the line' win - but they have yet to create the right political and cultural conditions for either of these to occur. In fact I believe they have absolutely not control of this at all.

The think the key will be how well each Labor dominated state gets on board and begins to talk up the importance of winning federal government -well before the election.

Most don't and will only give the usual symbolic support - [especially here in Qld]

So to answer your question 'are they doing enough’? Yes they are, but they have yet to connect the quadrangle of local to state to national to global issues. Announcing what they will do in policy if they win cannot be done as isolated national initiatives – they need to gain traction on the ground where it matters with all voters- not just the working class.

A national Labor committee which includes all current party leaders (elected) would provide the focus that Labor currently lacks. But I think pigs will merrily fly before this or anything that looks remotely like a united Labor forum will occur.

Raineer,

You make some good points here.
In terms of are they doing enough I guess I see that they dont seem to be capitalising on issues that so glaringly need to be dealt with..

I feel that the last 10 yrs for the Howard government has left so much 'fodder' on which Labor can feed and really make a meal of.

A comprehensive election campaign would see Labor going to the electorate and really driving home the glaring, lies and deliberate ommissions of the last 10 yrs.
Starting with the 'children overboard saga' ,Detention Centres,AWB kickbacks, David Hicks and the governments abandonment of him.
Sedition Laws, the Iraq war and Industrial Relations Reforms.

I mean there is a whole plethora of sins that Labor could draw on but does not seem to really play lipservice to them.

I saw an interveiw with Paul Keating on the 7.30 report a few weeks back and he was quite scathing , and rightly so, of how Labor under Beasley were just plain lazy and stupid.

I just dont think they know what the heck they are doing.

I don't think federal Labor is doing enough in the leadup to the next election.

If you listened to Kerry O'Brien talking to Robert Doyle, former leader of the Victorian Liberals they discussed the comment that
- this was the worst election result in Liberal history
- the Liberals were so busy fighting pre-selection battles and shoring up their own postion they had lttle time to formulate and promote policy.

As the election results came in it was clear that right wing voters voted Family First instead of Liberal and left wing voters who didn't like John Howard voted Labor - no way would they vote Green in case the Liberals got in.

The Liberal leader, Ted Baillieu's speech conceding defeat was very gracious and you felt he might govern for all Victorians.

Peter Ryan the leader of the Nationals sounded most divisive and unpleasant and unfortunately his facial features mirrored the tenor of his speech. He has no appeal to city voters who abhor guns and chain saws.

Steve Bracks acceptance speech was strange, bellicose and faltering, in it he repeated or stated his pledges improve schools, roads and to fight Canberra over IR, water, hospitals.

Holyshadow, totally agree with Keating’s call on them not being up to the game at hand.

However, good point scoring is very much dependent on a media that is fair and impartial. We simply don't have one.

You only need to read the front page of the Weekend-Australian and there’s an opinion piece dressed up as an objective news story that blatantly suggests that the Howard government are innocent of any impropriety in the AWB scandal.

Labor cannot afford to continue to rely on 3/10 political news items going their way. See how the Stern Report was dealt with for example. Howard was let off the hook big time despite 10 yrs of anti environmental policy. The Murdoch Media spin doctors (known as Editors in real media outlets) are now remodelling the Howard government as born again greenies. Where was Labor in all this? No where at all.

Beazley was on the ABC's program Insiders this morning (http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/) spruiking how Labor policies were going to benefit Australians; he was talking political strategy to win government, not policy.

In other words he's not yet realised that he is actually on the paddock playing the game now, not on the sidelines doing a running commentary on how he is performing on the field. This regular bipolar positioning whereby he jumps between these two positions of - on field player and off field ‘cricket’ commentator drives people to distraction. He’s not in tune or on song.

But for me this isn’t simply about good media performances, its about knowing the game of politics well. The other stuff up was that he couldn’t provide a good reason for retaining some front benchers who are retiring at the next election. It’s a bloody Joke!

But perhaps we are thinking of that largely mythical Labor Party from long ago, one now far away, one that I saw in the twinkling of Paul Keatings eye - or heard singing in one of Gough Whitlam's sardonic quips, or in the infectious enthusiasm for life you hear anytime you listen to Barry Jones speak on anything at all

Ranier,

You couldnt be more right about the lack of impartiality in the media at large in Australia.

Howard has always taken care of Packer and his ilk hoping for favourable media coverage.

I have often wondered if Keating might throw his hat in again, maybe missing the cut and thrust of politics after all this time.Wouldnt go down too well Id say.

Beazley seems he has not been versed in any form of media perfomance technique much needed to win over the hopelessly jaded electorate and inspire confidence in established Labor devottees, they who are hanging on to any shred of hope that this 'circus act' can pull it together and actually , as you say , fall over the line.