It’s not good enough to say that the Liberals do it too, but it’s important to do so, and you should have done so yourself in your first post.

Decay in the branch system is not limited to either major party and there are reasons for that, and it changes the whole “what should be done”, compared to if it was just one party or the other that had a problem.

To suggest that branches should be abolished misses the point in a couple of ways.

Firstly, while branches aren’t as healthy as they should be, neither they are as sick as you claim they are.

Second, without branches, you don’t have members. Without members, you don’t have a political party.

Third point: the weakness in branches is actually a symptom of other changes, some of them actually positive changes that have had negative impacts.

We’ve seen a shift in the decision support processes that the major parties use. There’s been a move away from branches being the eyes and ears and think-tanks of the parties. Instead, we have the rise and rise of the class of full time professional staffers and other professionals. They can respond much more quickly to issues than branches can, and they have other advantages as well. So they’ve largely taken over the traditional tasks of branches.

But - that has made branch membership less rewarding - less opportunity to volunteer, less ability to influence debate, a less meaningful contribution all round. So branch membership declines. That further reduces the capability of branches, which is compensated for with further centralisation, completing the vicious circle.

There is another vicious circle as well; weaker branches are more vulnerable to branch stacking. (Look at Wentworth.)

But branches are still necessary. Without them, the parties have no political legitimacy. And while staffers have many many strengths, they have a few weaknesses. They do not have the breadth and depth of knowledge that a large membership body has. They are more vulnerable to group think. And, being financially dependant on the party, staffers are restricted in their ability to raise issues and give frank and fearless advice.

So yes, there are problems. But terminating the branches would be worse than what we have now. What is needed is repair: stronger anti-branch stacking measures, and finding ways to make the most of both branches and staffers.

The Labor party can say that it is trying to do those things. For the sake of Australia, I hope the Liberal party is too.

End result is Iemma, Costa, Rees, Tony Stewart et al.

End end result is a bad loss at the next election.

It is the antithesis of a rules-based community that these governance breaches are allowed to continue with no shame.