Labor Blog

24 Comments

• 

  johnhab from Red Hill , Queensland Monday, 9 April 2012, 17:09

  I was hoping to find some explanation/comment here outlining the process for implementaton of the Bracks/Faulkner/Carr recommendations, or at least some of them. Is it happening and just not being mentioned here on the members's forum?

• 

  matbadcock from LEICHHARDT , NSW Sunday, 4 December 2011, 12:04

  OK
  
  So we have had rule changes at conference yesterday, Can someone explain them to me. The media seems to be reporting that they were fairly lame and have done nothing. If this is the case Faulkner, Carr and Bracks should be out giving spray.

• 

  royr2alp from Brunswick , Victoria Sunday, 13 March 2011, 21:13

  Is there a way to make a comment on the Review report - via this blog or otherwise - that allows for more than 250 characters? I've got a one pager that I'd like to submit. Loading it via this method is going to take maybe 10 or 12 blog entries!!

• 

  paulhas from South Yarra , VIC Wednesday, 23 February 2011, 11:23

  The National Executive's reasons for suppression of two thirds of the ALP Review findings appear even more spurious as Bob Carr, John Faulkner and Steve Bracks have publicly declared they are "comfortable with the report being released". Rank and file branch members, who work so hard on our election campaigns, should not be kept in the dark.

• 

  TJNorton from JIMBOOMBA , QLD Tuesday, 22 February 2011, 00:22

  I'm now about 3/4 of the way through the 2010 Bracks/Carr/Faulkner ALP National Review recently released by the National Secretariat. An assessment of all points raised is far too difficult to address singularly. Nonetheless, there are some profound and self-evident recommendations throughout particularly with regard to the role of branches and the rank and file membership. I have views on some other notes but I would like to use this time to speak about branches and membership specifically.
  
  From the thousands of submissions there was a central theme: Acknowledging the power that comes with being a party member and assuring that their voice is being listened to - not just received.
  
  The single greatest challenge for all branches is ensuring there is a contemporary feel and operation for maximum attraction. This is the best way to keep members active and engaged. However, my view is the goal markings have been formulated in a one-sided way. Whereas the desire of branches is to attract members, keep those members and build on that success, there is a real disconnect between the exercise of membership and empowerment of that to be recognised by the party machine at-large.
  
  My take on this, whilst not intending to be overly simplistic or nebulous in meaning, is that when members do not feel their contribution and their skills valued by the branches and party respectively it discourages active participation. In other words - what is left for that member to do other than slip out the door?
  
  It is true that democracy wins and this isn't a mere case of branch infighting (although it certainly doesn't help). The evidence from the review is crystal: members are growing in their discontent of the machinery of the party - particularly on preselections, conference rules, policy development and partnerships in power with Labor governments.
  
  This is in stark contrast to the well-oiled LNP machinery in Queensland and credit where its due is a large plus in their electoral column. In comparison, the ALP is severely hindered by a web of near impossible processes and lacks meaningful direction on such matters as social media engagement, community advocacy in each electorate and inter-unit communication. It's a bitter pill to take but one that cannot be refuted. Labor can no longer afford to rely on out of touch mechanics.
  
  "Partnerships In Power" was a one-time Queensland Labor mechanism to act as a conduit between the party and the-then Beattie Government, whereby branches and other party units could submit policy ideas to the Government through the party. I can think of no other time during the course of my 13-year membership that branches - and members in particular - had access to such a thorough, direct and timely process to submit feedback directly from Queensland communities and bring it to the attention of the relevant Minister. Within a matter of a few years this fell away from practice and - don't quote me on it - seemed to coincide with the Shepherdson Inquiry into electoral rorting and acts using public funds. It does appear to be the most logical reason for its active discontinuance.
  
  From there on in, party members maintained the usual accesses although it was often a long and truncated structure. In an attempt to fix the wrongs in the political system, the new process was untenable for any party's partnership with the government of the day.
  
  For the ALP, members rose issues with branches, which raised it with SECs (State)/FECs (Federal), which IF ADOPTED raised it with regional conference, which IF ADOPTED THEN resolved with state conference .. the process went on. Debates on the issues affecting one community originally was taken on as a far removed proposal, if it succeeded at all.
  
  Let's now sum up what members across the country have said and were acknowledged in the National Review:
  
  
  1. In order to survive, branches must be inclusive of its membership.
  
  2. All party units - branches in particular - should always be contemporary of its members, community needs and profile and their direction for the success of the party unit.
  
  3. The adoption of a single, uniform process where members and units can raise issues and make submissions to the party and the respective Labor Government, complementing electoral laws and regulations with regard to the use of public funding.
  
  It is absolutely critical that all members and the wider community have the assurance that Labor is working for them, by opening up the doors and developing a system that is responsive to the electorate.

• 

  RoHaagain from Kelvin Grove , QLD Monday, 21 February 2011, 16:21

  The party games won't resurrect the popular vote. It is policy that does that.
  
  The ALP needs to show that it the party that puts Australia and Australians first.
  
  Stop China and Singapore from buying up the country.
  
  Stop supporting every stupid idea that America comes up with. We are NOT a deputy sherrif.
  
  Pull Australian troops out of Afghanistan.
  
  Stop sucking up to Israel. Maybe Labor politicians want Israeli support, but the Australian people don't need it.
  
  Stop wasting money on the F35. So much secret data on that plane has been stolen that it is now thoroughly compromised. Buy Sukhois instead.
  
  Put Mark Arbib on trial for treason.
  
  Australia needs agriculture. Make sure that the farmers get support for sustainable agriculture with well-planned water use.
  
  Fix the housing problem. The old South Australian Housing Trust would be a good starting place.
  
  Drop the carbon tax. There is no good evidence that it will do anything to deal with climate change. (And forget the propaganda about "scientific consensus". There isn't one. ) The climate changes all the time.
  
  Just a few of those would greatly improve the ALPs standing in the eyes of the public.
  

• 

  Raybut45 from Muswellbrook , NSW Monday, 21 February 2011, 10:21

  Colleagues, this forum has fallen off the track. Could I suggest that a new forum be opened for ALP members only to comment on the suggested changes in the report. Otherwise we are sidetracked by other issues not connected with re-building our branches and en-powering our remaining members.
  
  Whilst I expect that nothing substantial will change from the recommendations, we should at least try to stay on target.

• 

  restless from Sydney , New South Wales Monday, 21 February 2011, 00:21

  I used to be a member of the ALP - I resigned last century about 1986 I guess when I felt that there was a turn in the tide and the budget attacks on English Language tuition for Migrants and Refugees came under the knife. It seemed like the values of assisting those who came to live here by choice or for refuge were being diminished for needing such basic support. I attended an FEC meeting and heard others speak of "them" as being people who were not really welcomed or embraced here.
  
  I'm a pretty ordinary person - I don't always think I am correct and I am happy to hear other's ideas but I also know my values. That night at the FEC, I had the strongest sense that what I believed in - giving those who needed support - was not the way of the ALP in the future. The good of the community and providing for people to get involved in the community just by having access to language and communication skill development felt like it wasn't as important as having a record of financial management that would appeal to the media and worst of all to those who fear people who are different.
  
  I accept that Australia didn't over night become a less fair place - but I still am concerned that I don't know what are the values by which the ALP stakes it claim for having the capacity to contribute to a better nation and communities that we live in. That's not to say that I think that the ALP doesn't contribute - but I was somewhat comfortable in feeling prior to then that the ALP had a distinct value of communities and the people within them. I know that there are many who work hard and are committed to trying to rebuild the ALP and to create a more fair society but when I read the preamble of the article above, it doesn't fill me with a sense of expectation and passion for change.
  
  Maybe I am restless for greater change in the way that we are as a nation - but it never ceases to amaze me how many people work so hard for something that is not able to be explained in simple terms of what does the ALP stand for in 2011 and for the future. It's not enough for me to be told of the distinctions between the ALP and the Liberal Party or the Greens - I can do that myself mainly because I can read what those political parties say they are and how they hold themselves to their vision. I just want to read something from the ALP that sounds like it has a bit of plain speak grit.
  
  Howard used Fair Go in his workchoices legislation - what does it mean to the ALP? The words are really a bit empty for me now - it's not smart talk I am interested in reading - it is in smart action that I want to see. Words might be enough for the media but not enough for me.
  
  There is something unique about the ALP and it's history - it's breadth of support and how people at election time are still very much rusted on to the history and the historical understanding of the ALP being a grouping of people under one banner for a better Australia.
  
  What is changing is that the historical contribution of the Party is not being seen as the road map for the future.
  
  I have read through the recommendations - good stuff in the main - and I am sure it is very challenging, but I detect a real passivity and maybe a slight hopelessness that there will be any real change as a consequence. I sit as an outsider and I read of my friend's real sense of urgency for change to happen - but often I don't detect this sense of crisis and urgency from what is often written.
  
  When I read about the bold agenda for growth and engagement and increased participation, it sounds good - a bit 101 in terms of community building and perhaps a bit focussed on numbers but I wonder if there was ever a question asked about what are the things that the ALP is prepared to stand for that resonate with those who tend to vote for a progressive party?
  
  It can be quite a comfortable position in trying to be so mainstream that no one is offended by challenging some of the anti social attitudes that seem to have grown in the last 20 years - but why be comfortable and irrelevant?
  
  I don't want Abbott to be PM - but I am not content with the notion that he is likely to screw up his own political future and leave it to the internal machinations and political ambitions of others in his party to bring about his downfall. I want Abbott and all of those other grubs to be defeated because their attitudes and opportunism is unacceptable to the Australian people. I really want that man to feel defeated by an overwhelming vote because he wants to take Australia somewhere that is not acceptable to us!
  
  The last Federal campaign lacked much - it was like a Presidential campaign focussing on individuals and not on vision. I couldn't identify the values that the ALP were calling on to be the fundamental basis of what policy would be supported and pursued. I did get the message that Tony Abbott couldn't be trusted - but I felt as if I was one of a nation of dumb people who was being entertained by political advertising rather than challenged to make a decision about the future. I really don't think that people generally felt that they were being treated respectfully and with a brain - I hope that changes.
  
  As for the factions - well I don't know any group of human beings be they a class of year three's, a group of workers or bosses for that matter, a sporting code, or even a charity that doesn't have different groupings active within it. We are humans and we will be also identify with sub groupings within a greater group. The existence of the factions doesn't worry me on bit. What worries me is the tribal behaviour between the factions that makes me wonder sometimes if the enemy is within the ALP or outside of it. Yes the factions are powerful, it isn't that they have power which concerns me - but rather how the power is used and for what purpose.
  
  There is a lot of blame game shenanigans that seem to characterise the reasons why the ALP is not as relevant and less attractive than in previous decades. I guess I see that until the blame game stops inside of the ALP and everyone can be gutsy enough to admit that everyone is responsible that nothing will change.
  
  The media will still stir and meddle because that's how they sell newspapers but why give it to them on a plate???
  
  I don't want to have a rest and a bex - I want real and lasting hope that Australia can be a better nation for those who live within this land as well as contribute to the whole planet.
  
  I am not comforted by a party that is content in growing less relevant to the majority of supporters and members and the people who have a responsibility to exercise a vote.
  
  I'll be out in March and before then volunteering for the re election of people that I know and trust to keep their seats in state parliament. I haven't lost my entire faith that the ALP is dead - but goodness we are pretty close to having to be admitted to the Emergency Department!
  
  To those who have the power to make something of these recommendations and to chart a future for the ALP and inspire the hope of the voters by smart actions rather than smart talk, I can only hope that you will act in a way that honours the people that you want to vote for you in the future. I know it is far easier and more comfortable to do nothing than it is to do something challenging - me? I hope that you find a way to challenge yourselves as well as a host of people like me by getting me to feel that our contribution and efforts, and potential membership might be worth fighting for.

• 

  Richo1 from Wallagoot , NSW Monday, 21 February 2011, 00:21

  Hi lord nelson 101.
  Thanks for your comment & no, it wan no typo!!
  If you think Julia Gillard saved Labor from a disastrous result at the last election, that's obviously your privilege ... from my point of view, the only reason Labor didn't disappear into the abyss the way it will shortly do in NSW was becasue Tony Abbott was the alternate prime minister.
  All the party reform in the world won't alter the fact that Labor is currently bereft of a vision for the future of our nation; is risk averse; will not stand-up for principle; is content to try & beat the Liberals at the own game by supporting the big end of town, in the hope that they will not arouse their opposition; & certainly doesn't think about its responsibility, let alone act to secure & defend the best interests of this country & all its people.
  I am not a 'rusted-on' Labor supporter. I will vote for the politician who I think will do their best for our country & all of its citizens. Believe it or not (it doesn't actually matter), there are a lot of people like me & they actually think that voting for the Greens is a better option than voting for either of the major parties. It's not necessarily because they want to see the Greens running the country but rather, the possibility of the Greens winding-up with the balance of power is a whole lot more atractive for some than is the option of voting for either of the major parties. The tragedy for our country is that so many people (like Kristina Keneally) think that it's better to vote Labor, even though they are currently a disaster. The sooner dopes who think they are 'entitled' to be in government are shown the door & are replaced by people who have the vision, passion, integrity & energy to genuinely make a difference, the better off we'll all be.
  I don't wamt to break anyone's heart but I walked away shaking my head in disbelief after hearing Wane Swan announce today that there will be no super profits tax on the banking oligarchy that has its hands around the throats of most Australians ..... 'little precious' said this: ''Australia cannot afford to frighten off foreign investors by giving oxygen to populist policy proposals. 'Without these investors, whether they're investing in our growth sectors such as resources or by funding the balance sheet of banks, growth in Australia will stall and unemployment will rise.'' What hope is there with minds like this driving policy in this country?
  I'm looking for an Egyptian to vote for!!

• 

  BenAveling from Alexandria , NSW Sunday, 20 February 2011, 23:20

  As Race Matthews and Paul Haseloff have said, the challenge is to ensure that these Recommendations, and especially Recommendation 25 "intervention only as a last resort", are implemented without being watered down.
  
  To me, this means getting rule changes past Conference. What do other people think?

• 

  zazava from Elwood , Vic Sunday, 20 February 2011, 22:20

  So very many erstwhile members and supporters are now waiting ....
  and watching ... either way, change will happen !!!

• 

  zazava from Elwood , Vic Sunday, 20 February 2011, 21:20

  For now we must just wait and see what notice will be considered or rejected by the Executive. For too long the rank and file members have been treated like the 'Worker Bees' simply there to carry out their wishes maintining the 'Hive' of activity.
  With the number of disappointed and disillusioned loyal grassroots members and supporters walking away from the party. Many people are now coming to the realisation that this is no longer the party that they joined, and the ideals and directions they have held in their hearts are apparently no longer those of this party.
  For now we will just wait and see ... but, either way ... change will happen regardless !!!

• 

  ozziejack from Coffs Harbour , NSW Australia Sunday, 20 February 2011, 20:20

  There are certainly many valid comments and some realisation about why you are losing members – you lose what you don’t value. The Labor Party is realising that people are fed up with being used and not listened to. However, my main observation is what the Review did not contain. Why are you losing supporters apart from the branch members ie: Labor voters who are not members of the Party? Why are voters deserting Labor? (Unless the missing bits are in the secret bits of the review that haven't been released)
  
  It is obvious by the rise of The Greens that the two major parties are NOT providing something that hundreds of thousands of voters want. The rise of Get Up! also shows that people want a voice and they don’t feel that the main political parties are providing it.
  
  I have been a Labor voter at most elections although I have never been a member. I am quite conversant with politics having studied it and taught it. The Review has many good suggestions but on reading it I was getting the feeling that it was about organising ship life. Let’s do things more efficiently. Let’s use new ways. Let’s start listening to the crew, and so on. But the question that wasn’t asked or answered is what direction is the ship going? Where’s the vision? It seems that Labor will do anything to try and stay in Government – even in turfing away its principles to keep the big end of town, the miners, the public schools etc. happy.
  
  Labor talks about its proud heritage of reform and change. I wouldn’t have been able to go to uni if it wasn’t for the Whitlam reforms that valued education and made it possible for low income earners to achieve educational goals. But what do I see now? I see students unable to attend uni unless they come out with a $30,000 debt. I see other tertiary institutions charging high fees. (I thought that our kids were the greatest asset!) I see a Labor government too scared to promote the public education system lest we annoy the powerful private school lobby. I see private schools stash away millions of dollars because they are getting such great government support. I see local public schools slowly declining. Is that the aim of your policies to eventually kill public education?
  
  The Review mentions one man, one vote several times. Why do I feel cheated when the only time the party takes any notice of voters is at election time but the lobbyists and those prepared to make donations or get ministerial access at dinners seem to be listened to all the time.
  
  I see a party that takes a decision, jumps at shadows, has a focus group, the backroom boys decide to change direction in case the public don’t like it any more and so we have a Labor Party that is so like the Liberal Party I can hardly tell the difference.
  
  I see a Labor Party that seems afraid to admit when it makes a mistake (BER program) and yet can’t seem to communicate the good things that it has done.
  I see a leader who during the campaign constantly said, “If elected I will…” not WE will. (Is it a one woman band?)
  I see a party so obsessed with ‘spin’ and sound bytes that Australians are sick of it because it no longer seems to have substance. (It is easy to see why Anna Bligh did so well in the Queensland floods – no spin, just honest talk)
  
  I see loads of my friends who were once sympathetic to Labor voting Green because at least the Greens have the balls to stand up for something without the backroom boys, factions and focus groups telling them when and how to change direction due to perceived public opinion. The Greens have policies that in some areas are not popular but they are their policies and they stick by them – like the Labor Party used to. I think Australians prefer that approach so if you want the Greens to succeed, just keep forgetting the public-good policies like public education, forget that you once stood for the workers and battlers and the good of the population, take political donations, support developers, listen to the Arbibs and Orbeids, have focus groups and the members will surely keep falling away.
  
  So let’s have a Review Part 2 which looks at where Labor should be going, decided by members and fed up through the party to the National Executive. Let’s not have "discussions" (they have the aroma of an already decided policy), let’s have debates about where Australia and Labor should be going from the grass roots – not only from members but from sympathetic voters. (ie: don’t preclude people from commenting on-line because they are not members.) Let’s provide Australians with a clear knowledge of what Labor stands for now – I follow politics and quite frankly, I really couldn’t tell you – Public Health – Yes, Public Education – No, Proper development of cities - ? and so on. I haven’t seen any passion in Labor supporters like I used to see. If you want it back you’ve got to give them something that they feel is worth supporting and a party that listens to them. Give them the POLICIES not just a change in structure.
  
  We’ve already had an election with so little talk of policy that it was disgraceful. Let’s not have another one.
  
  

• 

  lordnelson101 from Toowoomba , QLD Sunday, 20 February 2011, 01:20

  Richo 1: I think it was a Typo you must have meant MOST impressive. She saved the Labor party from a complete disaster. Then convinced two independents with a majority of LNP supporters to side with Labor. She has always been better than the boys since being president of the Students Union. Wait till she faces an election without LEAKS.
  
  Now the labor review was done by three of the smartest brains in the Labor movement. The aim is to get better qualified candidates and boost the image of the ALP. I hope most of the report is adopted.

• 

  Richo1 from Wallagoot , NSW Saturday, 19 February 2011, 16:19

  Pull the other one boys .... come back & talk to me when you're ready to publish the whole report & more importantly, when you’re ready to do something.
  John Faulkner says that Labor has no future until the factions put the party first. Yeah, right; try telling that to Kevin Rudd, Eddie Obeid or Mark Arbib. I say the Party has no future until the Party gets rid of factions.
  Meanwhile, whilst the mining sector pirates $60billion of this nation's wealth; the banks pillage at will, supported by a taxpayers' guarantee; the environment goes to hell in a hand-basket; our nation's reputation as a fair & compassionate society is destroyed because we don't have the courage & decency to extend genuine assistance to a few thousand refugees, some of whom we helped create; contrary to overwhelming public opinion, we support anything that the zionists do, whilst turning our backs on the Palestinian people; no fundamental reform for our health system & not a skerrick of vision for the future.
  Let me tell you something John, you don't need a focus group to recognise what Labor has become: a 'club' for professional opportunists, whose sole interest is remaining in office & pursuing their own self-interest.
  Labor hasn't lost its values & principles; it's deliberately & callously jettisoned them, just as it jettisoned Rudd in favour of one of the least impressive & least imaginative politicians this country has ever produced.
  And Labor's one 'big idea'?
  Look after the big end of town better than the Liberals do: that way you get to stay in office.
  Neither Labor or the coalition give a toss about ordinary Australians, so why would ordinary Australians giv a toss about them?
  Sadly your report is worth nothing ... it's like preaching about virtue to a *****.

• 

  scoven from Brisbane , queensland Saturday, 19 February 2011, 16:19

  The Report is inspiring and encouraging.
  I do think that whilst the best intentions are in place that there are many who are prepared to watch Labor slide into a non descript party ... so long as their power objective is met.
  Branch stacking is at a high, my own branch has the four top positions all filled from the same faction. No representing everyone there ... ever.
  I must say that I am so pleased to see Recommendation no.5, it is one that I have hoped for for some time.
  Recommendation 10 ... I feel that correspondence can only be replied to in a timely fashion ... If it has actually made it out of the branch meeting and not "lost" or in "transit".
  My membership renewal sits on my desk .. I was not going to reup. Until now, with the Report in play I am now planning on sending my renewal in ...

• 

  TimDymond from Mount Lawley , WA Saturday, 19 February 2011, 11:19

  At the risk of quibbling - recommendations 16 and 29 of the report appear to contradict one another. Rec 16 wants to discourage new affiliated non-union organisations like LEAN from providing delegates to state and national conferences, while Rec 29 says 'campaign groups' like LEAN can be offered ex-officio delegate rights. How do those two recs fit together?

• 

  PaulBKal from Boulder , WA Saturday, 19 February 2011, 08:19

  Yeah, it's probably a nice earnest try, and the best crack anyone's given it in a very long time. BUT, there are too many factional czars with too much to lose for this to ever get anywhere. And it squibs the big change that has to be made - abolishing the block vote of union secretaries at ALP State Executives, which effectively gives one person 5, 10, 20 or even 30 votes. That is the great bypass of respect and relevance of the rank & file membership.

• 

  Jayson_Bailey from Bedford Park , South Australia Saturday, 19 February 2011, 00:19

  I hope that all the recommendations are prosecuted to the fullest extent, and that the more conservative powers that be are unable to bury many of the recommendations. Steve Bracks, Bob Carr and John Faulkner have done an excellent job. Good work guys!

• 

  denniallen from Seymour , Vic Friday, 18 February 2011, 21:18

  What about re-engaging former Members, who still love the party, have a lot to offer, but who are totally ignored by the powers that be. Former Members who care about the party more than they care about playing factional games...who care about steering the party on a responsible path instead of a direction dictated by the dominating faction. Now thats what I'd like to see. But I wont hold my breath.

• 

  rm6204 from South Yarra , Vic Friday, 18 February 2011, 21:18

  John Faulkner, Steve Bracks and Bob Carr have done the party proud with a report that acknowledges the problems that have been debilitating it, and brings forward specific and constructive proposals for remedying them, including some which have featured repeatedly in the reports of previous panels and as repeatedly been overlooked or ignored. The report's open acknowledgement that membership levels have fallen disastrously both in absolute terms and proportionate to population will be widely welcomed, as will also - for example - the recommendations for more effectively retaining, recovering, gaining and involving members, creating a training culture within the party, greater engagement by the party with local communities and interest groups, the replacement of the current National Policy Committee with a system of policy committees that reflect the Caucus Committees. of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party, direct election of National Conference delegates, three-year terms and as of right membership of the Federal Executive for the National President and Vice-Presidents and - subject to stringent safeguards against the intrusion of money power or other abuses - a tiered system of party primaries.
  
  The challenge for those who - like the authors of the Report - have the well-being of the party at heart is now to ensure that the findings and recommendations are not as on previous occasions overlooked or swept under the carpet. It is vital that there should now be a fully transparent process whereby progress in any consideration by the National Executive of the recommendations prior to their proposed referral to the National Conference is reported back to members on a regular basis, that where in such consideration recommendations are not endorsed the Executive states its reasons, and that recommendations not dealt with by the Executive or the Conference are retained on their respective agendas until formally discharged.
  
  Race Mathews

• 

  ericsnowball from Glebe , NSW Friday, 18 February 2011, 21:18

  Three talented party members have produced an impressive report with interesting and sensible solutions.
  My problem with it is not its analysis or content but that it nowhere addresses our party's lack of clear goals or, if you like, vision.
  The party for most of the past century offered a statement about itself that set a goal even if it was more honoured in the breach.
  Sadly it now it has only shifting political statements that reflect lack of purpose and certainly unclear longer term plans.
  
  People will not join or rejoin any organisation that is so unclear about its purposes. It can not seriously expect to attract new members.
  
  When we have some clear principles from which policy can be formed we will attract people of commitment and may in the future rebuild a solid core of electoral support.

• 

  Raybut45 from Muswellbrook , NSW Friday, 18 February 2011, 20:18

  I believe it is a very responsive report in recording the frustrations of the ALP members. As a life member I have observed the continual decline of party member relevance. I can't in good faith find a answer to the question of what do members of the party do?
  A word search of the report failed to find the word "rural" have we also given up on the rural vote?.

• 

  paulhas from South Yarra , VIC Friday, 18 February 2011, 18:18

  Rank and file ALP members will welcome the Bracks/Faulkner/Carr recommendation "that intervention in Party preselections by the National Executive and state administrative committees only occur as a last resort, rather than a first resort". Alas, the party bosses will do their best to bury this.