Things look pretty bad for Labor at the moment.

Indeed most commentators say defeat is inevitable and it's just a matter of time, with pokies early next year as the possible alliance-breaker.

For true believers like me it's heartbreaking. Much has changed in party politics but it still matters which party is in power. As Paul Keating said it defines the nation.

One thing is for certain, every Labor MP will be on edge and full of advice for party and faction leaders. Those of a conservative disposition will be calling for calm and the risk-takers will be contemplating if not advocating change.

Add factionalism and ambition to the equation and you can see why the journos are as keen as mustard.

Those who comment on these matters have plenty of theories.

Some say it's about leadership and the failure of communication in the face of an aggressive opposition and sections of the media. Some say it is a case of incompetence whilst others point to a lack of conviction.

Those with a more academic approach see long-term decline in ALP membership and effectiveness and a nation that has moved to the right, and in ways that weren't so obvious when Kevin Rudd won in 2007.

This raises the question: Is Australia a right-wing nation with Labor being squeezed between the green left (a minority) and a populist right (a majority)?  Such squeezing has been occurring but is it inevitable?

Can it be reversed?

Certainly in 2007 Labor had an effective political strategy.

It was based on the case for restoring balance in the relationship between employers and employees, the Commonwealth and the States (and Territories), economics and middle-class welfare, border security and human rights, the economy and the environment, and Australia and its alliance partners.

It was a social democratic message that went like this: "Too much inequality is unfair. Too much middle-class welfare is unfair. Social, cultural and political exclusion are unfair by their very nature, as is too much centralisation and concentration of power whether local or global. Collective bargaining is a right not a privilege. Global climate change will be bad for us all, but particularly for the world's poor".

Both directly and indirectly fairness can contribute to productivity. Among other things social democracy is about ensuring that the burdens and benefits of necessary economic and technological change are shared throughout the community.

The social wage developed in the Hawke/Keating years was a good case study. It was good in itself and helped ease the way for economic reform.

These proved to be powerful and effective messages in the build up to the 2007 election. To what extent, then, was the strategy applied in government?

We've seen progress on workplace justice, a more rational mix of tax and expenditure, and reform in Commonwealth-State relations.

Sadly a continuing addiction to Commonwealth power and vertical fiscal imbalance has limited enthusiasm for the last item on my list.

More attention to federal realities would certainly have helped when planning more revenue from the booming resource sector.

In relation to the long-haul issues progress has been made on health reform, education and research have been given more emphasis and more coherence is being brought to the effort to tackle social exclusion.

Labor has been bolder on aid, nuclear disarmament, and climate change.

However, in response to more boat arrivals they changed tack on asylum seekers and post-Iraq have been pushing Australia even closer to the US.

This has meant that Kevin Rudd's call for reform in the political architecture for the Asia-Pacific hasn't generated support.

If we want our neighbours to think and act beyond their traditional interests (for example West versus East and China versus India) we would need to practise what we preach and take up the role of honest broker rather than deputy sheriff.

Labor did backtrack on climate post-Copenhagen but came back on board post-election.

All governments mix their messages to some extent - but some more than others and some in ways that are more significant than others.

Distrust among voters can be a reason for unpopularity and, as experience teaches us, government needs to be about conviction as well as politics - not one or the other.

Strategy in government needs to be based on good political judgment and can't be inflexible if events require it but does need to be applied with a high degree of consistency if the electors are to be kept on board, even when they disagree with some areas of policy.

Strength of commitment matters.

The strategy Labor developed to go from opposition to government in 2007 was also a good one for government.

Indeed the "fair go for all" approach provides glue for the connection between government and people. Indeed it's the only hope for Labor when it comes up against the right wing mix of nationalism, social conservatism and economic reductionism.

Somewhere along the way Labor lost confidence in what is had said in 2007. The hard heads of the ALP didn't believe the strategy could be sustained without significant compromise and amendment.

Labor began to look like all politics and no conviction. The opportunity to nail down climate and the mining tax was lost and since then it's been hard work all the way, even after the successful negotiation of an alliance following the 2010 election.

In some areas further policy reversals would not be good politics - as tragic as that is- but in respect of the social wage (the precondition for further economic, social and environmental reform) and in the area of party reform that is not the case.

Certainly Labor's model of tax/expenditure fairness needs to be the subject of more development and focused campaigning.

In fighting back, Labor also needs to make it clear to the electorate that its own organisation and approach to politics is not out of bounds when it comes to reform.

It is simply unfair that the unions (in fact only some unions) have so much influence. It is one of those situations where Labor's short term and political interests are linked to future-oriented party reform.

Remember Gough Whitlam and his battle with the faceless men.

The deeper fear I have is that many in the party don't see the future in this way. They don't want the commitment to the social wage to be connected to a broadly based fairness agenda but rather to protectionism and/or political and social conservatism and this means the status quo in party organisation.

The first is out-of-date and economically harmful and the second is out-of-date and politically harmful.

I plead guilty - if only it was that simple.

If only it was that easy.

But perhaps it is and failure to recognise this is the problem.

A Labor Lament ....