PERHAPS the kindest comparison that can be made with the contemporary Federal Liberal Party is to note its similarity to the Federal ALP of the 1950s and 1960s. At the nadir of its fortunes in the mid 1960s Labor was hopelessly divided and philosophically irrelevant. Arcane personal feuds provided a more emotionally satisfying way of serving time in exile for Labor's senior figures. They engaged in self-destructive blood-letting with a relish and a competence that they could not muster against the alleged enemy, the Liberal Party.

Moreover, the cumulative effect of years away from power had drained the party of young talent and starved it of hope. But the emergence of Gough Whitlam as parliamentary leader provided a vital impetus in the party's return. Of course, John Howard is not Gough Whitlam - the contrasts between them are innumerable though captured perfectly by the sheer disparity in their physical stature.

But John Howard could well utilise Whitlam as a role model for an opposition leader seeking to unify a fractured party and end a long political drought.

The party Whitlam inherited as leader, like Howard's, had become a marginalised rabble, afflicted by poisonous divisions between factions based in Sydney and Melbourne. And like the Liberals of today many in Labor's ranks jostled eagerly over the spoils of opposition. In their hearts they didn't really want the discipline and challenge of being in government.

Whitlam's restoration of Labor as a political force was carried out according to a three-phase plan - the party, the program, the people. He set about modernising the party's structures and processes before developing imaginative policies as a precursor to taking the program to the Australian people.

It is still an excellent blueprint for an opposition leader. It is an approach John Howard should adopt.

Whitlam overhauled the Labor organisation. He put his leadership on the line and brooked no dissent. It took guts but he was vindicated and in the process became a leader of unassailable authority.

Howard has an opportunity to preside over a period of peace in the Liberal Party. Should, as appears likely, he be elected unopposed he will have a real mandate as leader. He must not be coy about using it.

His front bench is carrying too many passengers. It looks like a Bayeux Tapestry of previous Liberal leadership wars - too many people have been paid too much for their silence if not their loyalty.

John Hewson was right to point out that the Liberals have not got their best people in the firing line. Howard needs to rectify this. He should give Michael Wooldridge the health portfolio and find a serious economic policy role for John Hewson.

Bronwyn Bishop and Peter Reith, whose bluster and bellicosity exceeds their ability, should be demoted or dumped. He could tell them the night before the party room meeting. If they don't like it they can chance their arm in front of their colleagues. Fat chance.

Of those Howard owes anything to, Tony Abbott alone warrants promotion. He is aggressive, intelligent and is capable of better things in politics.

Howard's inheritance outside the parliamentary party is even more barren. Like Whitlam, he must initiate reforms of the party structure. As pointed out previously, the Liberals would benefit from a national conference structure similar to the ALP's.

Such a structure would institutionalise conflict and politicise the culture of the Liberal Party. By formalising the debate over policy the party may avoid the present situation where every dispute degenerates into a soap opera of personality clashes.

And this approach would help galvanise the Liberals' rank and file who are even more disillusioned than Labor's at being used as cannon fodder on voting day and then ignored.

The Liberal campaign apparatus is simply not good enough. Changes must be made and Howard should be calling the shots. The people who failed in 1990 and 1993 should not be running the next campaign. Likewise, he should jettison the hangers-on in and around the leader's office - the self-styled South Australian mafia.

A fresh start demands new people. Howard needs a shrewd political operator and a serious press secretary who has the respect of the Canberra gallery. The Liberals keep bleating about their dreadful treatment by the press but they are light years behind Labor in the politics of media persuasion.

Paul Keating treated the press gallery as a constituency in its own right. He worked tirelessly, courting opinion leaders and arguing passionately to shape the media terrain to his liking. It paid off for a long time, longer than it should have because the Liberals surrendered the field to him.

While the Liberal party organisation is a mess and short of talent, the policy area offers more hope. Howard is an ideas politician. And he is capable of formulating and defending policies. Hopefully he will not be alone in this.

Ian McLachlan is realising his potential as environment spokesman. The policy launch that sank with Downer this week contained credible, important initiatives with a capacity to draw votes.

Howard should encourage McLachlan to try to redefine the environment debate to suit the Coalition. McLachlan is talented enough to do it. His assessment of the next wave of issues, such as land degradation, water salinity and the threat to water supplies is far-sighted and will tap into community concerns.

However, the election will be won or lost on the economy and living standards. Howard must offer a plan to put Australia back to work. A Labor Government that is so sanguine about entrenched unemployment is vulnerable. And despite the Prime Minister's rhetoric about egalitarianism, income distribution has become more unequal under Labor than at any time in Australia's history. This is ammunition for a decent opposition, especially when the incumbent is about to ask for a sixth term.

When considering policy priorities, Howard should remember the Clinton campaign's mantra, "It's the economy, stupid." Australians across all demographics are bewildered at being constantly told they are entering an economic Nirvana when they feel apprehensive about their personal future. That's what Howard's pollster will tell him.

Again, if he is good enough there is a rich seam of anger and discontent to be tapped. He needs to offer policies aimed squarely at restoring living standards for middle and low income earners and offering hope.

Howard faces a big task. To a large extent his fate is not in his own hands. Self-indulgent, suicidal brawling that the Liberals have engaged in for most of the last decade may conceivably continue. The real test is whether the party is now desperate enough to bury internal differences for one last shot at government. But it only needs a voice or two to entirely discredit the claim of unity.

It comes down to this. The party is looking down the barrel of 16 years in opposition. John Howard is the only substantial figure capable of fronting a general election campaign. He is no Ronald Reagan, but his most trenchant critics simply must shut up and get on with the job.

And if the Liberals can't bring themselves to emulate Gough Whitlam they might consider what their founder, Robert Menzies, said on the May 26, 1941. "We cannot escape our responsibility for this moment by pointing either to the past or to the future. This is the present... We have a powerful foe to fight and we can win only if we are united in function, united in action as I know we are in spirit and belief." *