Another piece of R & R (rant & rave) piece by an Australian journalist - long of rhetoric and short on fact.

If this the best that can be offered as 'informed opinion' then you will understand why I no longer read much Australian journalism.

To present Kevin Rudd as a slight variation on John Howard is to miss an awful lot of very important differences which already are starting to emerge: signing on to Kyoto; planning to reduce Australian troops in Iraq; new policies in health and education; and so on. And this just after three weeks in office. Many switched their votes to Rudd after too many lies and misrepresentations from Howard, too many very careful usage of words to misrepresent and too much emphasis on economics to the detriment of other important aspects of our society. If Rudd turns out to be nothing more than Howard in new clothes then I for one will be severely disappointed. I do not expect this to be the case !

Drivel....pure and simple-minded twaddle.

The most surprising thing about that article is that it appeared in a highly conservative American publication, and concluded that the the Labor government was "right wing"! By American standards, even the Howard government was practically left wing, supporting as it did socialised health-care and tertiary education.
Of course, by northern (continental) European standards, even the Greens here would barely qualify as "left of centre".

A fair and balanced presentation in my view. Contrary to one comment, signing Kyoto has no practical consequence, and there is little difference in practice in Rudd's plans for Iraq. There will be a lot of (non-creative) tension between Rudd's wish to cement Labor in government and those left of him who hope to move the government leftwards.

Yes! fair and reasoned comment. It concerns me however that the most successful and stable government in living memory is tossed out in favour of a party touting all manner of indescript and vague polices whilst all the time purporting to be "Economic Conservatives". "Latent spendthrift tendancies" indeed. Surely all those under 35's 'Howard Haters' arn't expecting to be better off in 12 months. This election outcome is the wake up call you had to have, that you could of avoided, if you'd been around to learn from the past.

Drivel indeed! Adam Creighton surely cannot believe these rationalisations with which the Coalition rump is still deluding itself! This is not journalism, or informed commentary. It is propagandist pap. Rudd's careful, even forensic, choice of areas with which he chose not to differentiate ALP policy from the Coalition enabled him to be seen as a safe alternative to Howard. Had Howard and his ministers been trustworthy and pro-active throughout their decade plus in government of course the electorate would have returned them at a time of booming prosperity. If Adam Creighton cannot perceive a major contrast in policies and the timing of some of Howard's policy reversals then he is not an informed reporter on the Australian political scene. Climate change, broadband, health, education funding, commonwealth/state relations, and Australia's loss of moral reputation in its pro-Bush foreign policy were all major contrasting features of ALP policy. And that's without mentioning industrial relations which is universally acknowledged as the major 2007 election issue. The booming economy for which the Coalition takes sole credit, with no recognition of earlier structural reforms, international conditions and responses by resource rich states, has been left in an inflation threatened condition because of unwise levels of pre-election tax concessions and pork barreling, neglect of labour market skilling and poor infrastructure investment. Within weeks of their demise and with focus by Rudd and his new cabinet surely former Coalition ministers and their supporters cannot fail to see their own negligence of the environment, the dental health of young and old, underfunding of hospitals, aged care, schools and infrastructure generally. For heavens sake drop this mindless mantra about Rudd being a younger paler version of John Howard and the electorate just being in the mood for a change! Voters could see what Adam Creighton and his ilk still cannot see - that Howard's was a poor government of wasted opportunities, scandal ridden from the first and shameful in its departure from the Australian way of independence on the world stage and a fair go for its citizens at home.

Cheers and thank you to Patricia WA.

There appears to be another major area of cultural difference between Howard and Rudd. I refer to the use of race politics as a means to gain political advantage.

Howard from the advent of Pauline Hanson and his claim to have renounced "political correctness" did not hesitate to exploit fear of the "other" for political advantage. He did so in 1988 when he opined that the balance of migrants had shifted too far in favour of Asians, he demonised asylum seekers and shamelessly exploited the fear of terrorism. For examples see the Tampa, Haneef and al-Haque cases.

The Rudd government has given no indication that it will pursue such
unacceptable policies.

Senaca, "get over yourself girl!": "the use of race politics... blah blah blah"

Ask yourself how many times have I read in the mainstream media in the past 15 years about ALP branch stacking utilising ethnic groups to 'fix' preselection? Be honest. Both sides do it. And what are the implications?

Otherwise, this is perhaps the most perceptive article I've seen on the latest twist in Oz politics- time will tell.

For those who think the formation of a Rudd govt. marks some significant watershed, good luck to you. A small moment of reflection should be enough; with some historical perspective it's soon seen that Howard's cultural and economic arguments, held firm for the 30 years of his public life have been embraced by Labor.

Once I read the sentence, “Howard's now-infamous WorkChoices laws were in fact extremely reasonable”, I knew the writer did not understand Australia. The Liberal IR laws took us back one hundred years and Australians rebelled. The misuse of Senate power condemned the Liberals to defeat, so perhaps we should thank Queensland for its choice of four Coalition senators in 2004, despair-inducing though it was at the time.

All governments leave their mark on the body politic. Even the short-lived Whitlam Government did so. John Howard has left a legacy which influences the Rudd Government, just as the Kennett Government’s success in changing the language in which people could think has constrained the imagination and the actions of the Victorian Labor Government for the past eight years. However, the differences between the two parties are real. In any case, the Rudd Government will influence the future of the other party in the same way, as no future Liberal Government in my lifetime will attempt something so disgraceful as Work“Choices” again.

"After all, it's what occurs that counts, not what we call ourselves - that's only important for the modern Left."

It is what people do that counts not their lies and spin... true and that is why the majority dumped Howard. And what did Howard do? An amalgum of attacks on the social infrastructure and all the social services. As well as, driving living standards backwards and driving the majority into poverty or well on the way. All accompanied by the usual lies which have gone on for some decades now "there is no money for health, education, water, housing, pensions etc., Let us not forget the politicians grabbing everything they can get their hands on and all the essential services and money spinners they sell to their cronies. The bigger question was, the ongoing slaughter in Iraq to loot the oil. Rudd has no intention of taking the troops out of Iraq or Afghanistan - he might shuffle the troops around the chessboard.In reality, the right wing arch conservative Rudd will take the attacks further - starting off with privatising electric power and putting the charges up. As well, Rudd is urging and backing Qantas to cut all new starters flight attendant wages by 25% and they will have to work an extra 30% hours. This will be a new benchmark for dismantling longstanding working conditions; not only in the airline industry but all transport and accross every industry sector. The strategy the Laborites are using is to pit one section of workers against another - those established against the new starters.

Rivergum - I could not have said it better - I too am disillusioned with what passes for 'informed journalism.' I have little problem with bias: in fact I expect it. What I can't get around is bias posing as non-partisan.
Patricia WA - well said. Rudd's carefulness as opposed to Howard's shiftiness I found impressive. Carefully considered policies, weighing as many outcomes as possible, rather than political expedience where policies are contrived to gain advantage, found some resonance with me.

He lived in Sydney for 20 yrs. importantly which 20? Year 1 to 20?
Lets hope he stays in England, his idea of politics apparently are needed there.
Our O/S debt has grown under Howard, he passed the debt to private industry thats all. Under his guardianship surplus tax was levied so he he could make a great fellow of himself,passing it back like he was doing us a favour come election time.
I'll bet while he wasted Australia's time working for news ltd he led the field in it's fast falling circulation.
Like one poster has said"drivel" lets hope he stays wonking in England.
fluff4

"lets hope he stays wonking in England."
fluff4

Hilarious - thanks Fluffy you made my day
JR

Changeless change as our author puts it is what underpins Australian politics - the data from the AEC highlights the fact the election was won on a handful of votes even though a large number of seats changed bums.

Rudd ran a more efficient and strategicaly targetted campaign - the marqee differences were well publicised - but the core of policy from both parties is/was/ virtually the same - and that has - with the excpetion of Whitlam - long been the case. And Hawke and Keating re- introduced the coalition to true market economy principles emphasising the convergence of the two major parties

There is a degree of consensus here that governs the swing of the political and policy pendulum to a very small arc indeed - polemicists like Akerman and Bolt would disagree but they just need to get out a little more often - even the radicalism of Whitlam has been either accepted by the conservatives in many ways or ameliorated by labor to make it more palatable to the population or to suit the economics of the day - viz Dawkins and HECS for example. HOwards experiment with Workchoices can be seen in very much the same light - Rudd will not so much "tear these laws up" as he and Big Kym declared as crumple them up a little.

Ratifying Kyoto is mainstream idea as is getting ot of Iraq - the first symbolic at best the latter like wise a symbolic withdrawal of a tokenistic gesture - nothing radical there even though it is at odds with Howards stance - but I suspect many of his one time followers were uncomfortable with his stance on those two issues anyway ..

- the back ground noise made by both parties is one that is far more harmonious than either side will publicly admit to.

Changeless change is the order of the day. Once the state Liberal parties get their act together we will see them mimicking Rudds approach - mechanistic controlled and calculating.

Palimpsest it might be advisable if you thought before you posted comments.

Then you might consider the difference between "stacking branches" for pre-selection and the targeting of ethnic and or religious minorities.

At a national level not since the 1960's has anyone other than John Howard resorted to use of the "race" expedient.

I note JDS's reference to the frequently-used conservative term, "Howard haters". This term must have been invented by Howard's blind supporters because it completely misses the point. I, for example, never hated Howard at all. I just wanted to see him and his backward-looking policies gone. Now he has gone, I couldn't care less about him. He is at long last irrelevant.

The coalition will never regain power if it and its supporters perpetuate the myth that the Howard Government lost power in one of the biggest swings in the history of this country accidentally.

Adam C seems to be maintaining that 'we didn't really lose'. Adam, get used to it - you did! And this is partly because most people were never interested in the culture wars. They did go for the border protection con for a period, but became increasingly turned off by the former (yes, former!) government's harshness towards refugees. No-one is interested in the war on the ABC or the history wars or political correctness, except the minuscule band of Australian neo-cons, who are even smaller in number than the originals in America.

The Libs need to invent a new story and leave their baggage behind, or they will end up talking only to themselves.

I voted for change and I expect to see it, and not in the mainstream election promises which seem to be the darling of the media, Kyoto, Iraq, but in the foundation such as a more open and accountable government, more responsive to the people it should be representing, not dictating to. And as I did with the Liberal government, I will hold the Labor government account at the election.

Despite everything, it is not about Howard and Rudd, they are but representatives of their respective parties, it is about government and its actions!

Just to leave one small thought. Liberals claims of being good money managers. Yes the goverment was in surplus, the country is in the biggest deficit it has ever been in. What's good for government might not be good for it's country.

Myth: Australia is in excellent economic shape due to Howard government.
The reality is that private debt is now completely unsustainable and the public debt was reduced (in amazingly quick time for what was sold as a Labor led disaster) solely by asset sales and running down public infrustructure.
The economy's health is a subjective thing, and most Australians over a certain age and who owned assets (OK for capital) did well for 10 years. The young and the on-the-up (ie. in the process of using education to improve over thier parents) were effectively disenfranchised by the Howard era. One commenter put it well: The older Australians were aided in stealing the economic growth from the younger generation. At a time when we should be getting more civilised, Howard took us back a step toward Lords and peasants.
Combine blatantly regressive economics, social sabotage, lies and spin and "conservative" (Spin-speak for extremely radical selfishness!) policies: Add nepotism, public service corruption and anti-science bias to the mix and you see why Howard had to go.
It's just a shame that the Right will blame next years recession on the Left, rather than taking any blame for unsustainable debt and inappropriate spending.
Cats and dogs I guess...

I'm not all Australians, but I don't know anyone who voted for a changeless change and the hope that the Howard culture would continue. Anything but. People I know mostly voted ‘against’ the Howard government, rather than ‘for’ anyone. The hope was that the culture would change but the economic prosperity wouldn't.

I haven’t heard of Adam Creighton, but from his article, ‘apologist for the Howard regime’ seems to be a good description.

Just so you know – I’m not unbiased either. I think Howard was a mean-and small-minded, self-serving, dishonest and racist ideologue whose narrowness and look-out-for-number-one mentality created a government culture that almost made Australia a homeland to be ashamed of.

Adam Creighton does us a disservice if he tells the world that a large swing in public opinion was just a bunch of yobs, a bit bored after 11 years, but even so only took a risk of change because it was hardly a risk at all.

At least he noticed that Australians’ famous hip pocket nerves took a back seat on 24 November. He might have given space to what other matters might move us. There was discernment in the electorate.

What about Kingston (SA)? They went counter to the trend because voting for a ninny was not as bad as voting for the status quo. What about Liberal-held seats with smaller swings? Several locally respected Liberal MPs just held on, but some lost because of Howard, not their own actions.

A possible reason for this unusual election result is that at last, the weight of mendacity, back-flipping expediency, selfishness and lack of charity or compassion just got too much for a lot of nice, ordinary Australians to stomach one more time.

And perhaps the last nail in the coffin was the callous opinion expressed by Howard that on average we've never had it so good, so everything was OK. Perhaps nice ordinary Australians wondered if it wasn't OK to live in a society that not only didn't look after its weaker members, but victimised and preyed on them.