I think they are wrong, it makes for good journalism, but is meaningless when compared against our political and media system. Party legitimacy, discipline and authority comes with winning elections. The party can be a bunch of no-hopers with no political vision, in fact this was true of Howard and Beazley both using "small target" strategies to try and win government. It worked for Howard, and nearly did for Beazley with only Tampa and 911 scuttling it.

It is a waitocracy, you dont need vision, or a compelling leader, you just got to hang around until you get a go, and then once you are PM, the media loves you and claims you are a "leader". The party likes power, and having the taxpayer's purse, so they fall in line with the leader. Legislation, the treasury and smacking down the media are then all used to ensure the party remains in power.

This vision and leader celebrity form of political journalism doesnt mean much. If Labor follow the Keating style of political management without his arrogance they will be fine. Howard has expanded government to an unhealthy point. If they shrink government, as they did under Hawke and Keating, then Labor will be fine. They can wedge away to their heart is content, and claim Simpson and the Donkey for Labor.

We will then see the same cycle in the Liberal Party as we did between 1983 and 1996. A constant changing of leaders as the Liberal get subject to celebrity political journalism. The same journalistic hubris of the right being in disarray and Labor being the "natural party of government".

Idiots.

Cameron,

fair enough. That means the ALP hopes that the Howard-led Coalition shoots itself in the foot and power falls into its hands.

The Coalition has changed since June 30. It has lost the plot on accountability, as it becomes increasingly arrogant and secretive. Witnes s the one day allowed for the examination of the counter-terrorism legislation by the Senate committee, and two weeks to debate the legislation in Parliament along with the Industrial Relations legislation.

And it is becoming increasingly intolerant of criticism.

However, the downside of your proposal is that the ALP looks like a clone of the Coalition. Why bother to vote for the clone?

I am pretty much of the thought now that you cant win elections, only lose them. A natural cycle in government appears to be eight years before corruption, hubris, arrogrance etc become endemic. The US Republicans are having that problem after ten years of Congressional power.

Howard got in as being what Labor could be, and for three years he was, other than cultural wars. Since tampa he has been a bit weird though and some internal negative passions have been externalising themselves IMO.

Hawke got in as claiming he would do what Fraser couldnt, basically liberalise the economy. So maybe you get in as being current government light. For all the political rhetoric, most new government's do continue with the previous government's budget and policies.

Cameron,
you are right about 'For all the political rhetoric, most new government's do continue with the previous government's budget and policies.'

The economics stuff is largely Treasury driven. Keating just implemented Treasury's agenda.

Mark Latham, in his lecture at the University of Melbourne last month, advised people to turn their backs on organised politics because social problems require social solutions.

Given the current problems with the ALP you would have to take that advice seriously.

I have to admit that I decided against working with the ALP after June 30th.I had a close look and did lots of checking things out and said no. Things were just too bad and depressing. Renewal was a long way off.

Senator John Faulkner describes the corruption well:

"When factional interests are put ahead of the party's interests, the party rots. As party membership declines, the influence of factional warriors increases.They maximise their influence by excluding those who disagree, not through leadership and persuasion.Those who defer to the powerbrokers are rewarded with positions in the party ? This is not factionalism. It is feudalism, and it is killing the ALP."

Latham had argued that since he could see no way to reform the ALP, and that it was unreformable. Faulkner disputes this and reckons the ALP has the capacity for renewal.

He's probably right.But he has few suggestions.

The factional interests will entirely disappear though when Labor wins an election. Factions love power and a leader who gets them government will have them falling in line - quick smart. Keating spent how long on the back bench before the factions, even the mighty Labor NSW Right, finally mobilised against Hawke?

If Labor was not in power and Hawke not PM, Richardson would have been dancing a constant jig and not restrained himself at all. But because Hawke was PM, and Labor was in power it took approximately three months before the factions finally did something. You could measure that time in days in a similar situation if Labor had been in opposition.

The only legitimacy a leader gets in Australian politics is when they win an election, then all their factions, detractors, media etc become supine almost immediately. When Labor wins an election and stays in power for ten to fifteen years, then we will probably be deluged with stories of how the Liberal special interests are tearing the party apart since their strong leader, Howard left.

Howard isnt intrinsically a strong leader, he is the PM and has won them elections. Even twaddly old Downer would get that same respect if he was PM and winning the Liberals elections. It will be the same with Labor, whether it is Beazley, Rudd or whoever. Once they become PM, and prove they can win an election, the factions will fall into line.

We have a system that goes through slow oscillations. IMO we need to do somethings to make elections more competitive, like fixed term elections and term limits on the PM.

Cameron,

that means the ALP becomes a political machine that organizes elections every few years.

That reaches to the core of the Barry Jones critique. He argues that:

"Labor must tell a story, a graand narrativ of where we want Australia to go and its place in the world. [Prime Minister John] Howard tells a story--one that diviides, building on fear and alienation, laced with 'wedge politics' and 'dog whistle' language--but it is powerful and sells well. Labor does not appear to have a good story to tell: we provide good governmens and ineffective oppositions.I have identified 32 major issues since 1996 where Howard has inflicted significant damage on the Australian community and Labor did not lay a glove on him."

Labor probably supported Howard when the legislation passed through the Senate. Jones continues:

"Labor must promote an inclusive agenda not an exclusive one. Currently, there is significant disenfranchisement of our traditional vote, people feel lonely and alienated from the party they have always voted for. If we do not bring them home, the party's heart and mind will die."

I am arguing that organizing for elections, even creating an inclusive narrative of Australia is not possible unless your *are* government. In opposition it doesnt really much matter. Howard made no claims to Australian nationalism while in opposition for the simple fact he couldnt. The government, media and polity deny the opposition that possibility. Opposition is excluded from making those claims to national legitimacy. Only governments get to make those those types of claims.

The waitocracy is defined by its patience. Not by its political abilities, or its claims to national legitimacy. That can only come with the power of legislation and the media spotlight that the PM gets.

Cameron,
you write:

"Howard made no claims to Australian nationalism while in opposition for the simple fact he couldn't."

He did make such claims circa 1987. They were about Asian immigation and national cohesion He lost the leadership of the Liberal Party to Peacock as a result.

Gary, I was in high school back then ... so my memory isnt perfect :)

I dislike Howard's claim to nationalism, but that proves that oppositions cant make those claims. They get punished for them, government doesnt. Howard managed to dog whistle his way through the One Nation episode and was not brought to account for it.

Nelson can get away with saying simpson and his donkey should be taught in schools, but if Beazley said that, he would get laughed off stage, and the MSM punditry would have a field day. You can do it when you are government.

Cameron
Re Howard: It was a return to One Nation Anglo-Australian conservatism and social cohesion, a move away from multiculturalism, and a limitation on immigrants from Asia as opposed to Britain.

Nationalism (of the one nation sort) runs through everything that Howard does. All the stuff about suburban values and the white picket fence is about the identity of Australia as a nation.

Your waitocracy position is similar to what Latham judgement of the Beazley -led ALP: they're just waiting for a recession.

Senator John Faulkner, in a speech entitled "Apathy and Anger, Our Modern Australian Democracy", said that:

" Labor has become a party of parliamentarians with a machine element dedicated to funding campaigns and influencing the composition - and often the behaviour - of the parliamentarians elected. Grassroots members are an afterthought and, for many in the machine, an inconvenience. They shouldn't worry. If things keep going as they are, they won't have to worry about party members at all."

Gary, Yeh politicians dont become dangerous until they get the power of legislation. Bit like Twain's comment on no mans life, liberty or property being safe while government is sitting.

Howard's nationalism is particularly damaging in my opinion. The information age has shown that strength comes from decentralistion and diversity. Howard is creating a unitary state. Unitary in government, culture, and society. It is also one that is becoming more and more dependant on government. Whether through electoral welfare, middle class welfare, increased regulations, and loss of discretionary income to increasing taxation.

I think there will be a clash of worldviews in the next twenty years. The cold war warriors time is past. I was barely a teen when Hawke came in and transformed the Australian economy. I was in my late teens when the wall came down in Berlin.

I have known globalisation for most of my adult life. Communism to me doesnt represent central planning and dangerous dogma. It is more like Chinese style autocracy. Something that hasnt got in the way of trade and wealth.

Unitary nationalism also stops the flow of labor moving from nation-state to nation-state. The demands that people "conform" or "integrate" is asinine. First generation immigrants are lost to integration. They love Australia, but they wont be Australian.

Same way as I will never be an American, even if I wanted to. I was twenty-five years an Australian before going to the US, and you cant get that out. No individual or government can force that out. By the same token it does not mean that I am unable to integrate into the community and become involved.

The two most dangerous unitary states are Saudi Arabia and Iran. There conditions are producing, fostering and even sponsoring extremism. The path we are travelling with the anti-federalism, national security state, increasing shadow state (ASIO etc), culture wars (including monoculture with the judeo-christian tradition) are all pushing us toward the conditions that make Saudi Arabia and Iran failures.