only because the party is no longer in power and its Constitution was structured for a party perpetually in government.

So the UBP has to do something about its primary system, which is predicated on being able to set the dates of general elections and by-elections.

Still, it should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some elements of the UBP Constitution, such as primaries, are far more democratic and open than the Progressive Labour Party. That is not only a politically advantageous thing, it's the right thing to do as well. And the UBP should be careful not to revamp things too much now; assuming that the Government's Constitutional changes go through before the next General Election, it may have to be revised again.

Still, the UBP should attempt to find a way to maintain the best aspects of its current system -- giving UBP members a say in who represents them -- while junking what is unworkable.

That is better than having candidates delivered to constituencies by a mysterious central party committee as the PLP does.

At the same time, the UBP is rightly knocking some other proposals on the head, most notably one which would see the party leader elected from the grassroots as well as the sitting MPs.

Development and Opportunity Minister Terry Lister used this yesterday to claim the UBP is undemocratic -- at the same time it is accusing the PLP of dictatorial tendencies over Constitutional differences.

But there are differences. Both parties are entitled to run who they wish as House of Assembly candidates. If they are successful, the Constitution requires the Premier to be the person who has the confidence of the majority of Members of Parliament; who the rank and file members want this week or this month is neither here nor there in Constitutional terms.

It is true that the system of electing a leader from a combination of MPs and delegates has worked relatively well for the Progressive Labour Party.

There have been reports that a majority of PLP MPs voted for Arthur Hodgson when he challenged Premier Jennifer Smith's leadership earlier this year, but no-one on the Government side has tested that in the House and an attempt by the UBP was rejected by the Speaker for reasons best known to him.

In the end, no-one is going to win or lose an Election on the basis of the perfection of their Constitutions.

A political party's main function is to get its candidates elected and that depends on the party's record, the quality of its message and philosophy and its ability to organise and get its supporters out canvassing and to the polls.

The UBP has shown that it can be an effective Government critic, whether it is on Government perks or on the PLP's "stealth'' approach to governing and Constitutional change.

What it still needs to show is that it is a Government in waiting with viable alternative policies and philosophies. It has yet to do this, even on issues like Constitutional reform where its ideas remain fuzzy. Criticising the process, no matter how well founded, is not enough.

That is where the UBP needs to devote most of its attention if it wishes to become the government again.