But the problem, Martin, is that we voters say we want our politicians to be "real people" and prepared to stand up for what they believe in, yet we keep voting in shallow media tarts like Rudd. We hate spin, yet we reward it. We want our leaders to "tell it like it is", yet we keep falling for the weasel words. I doubt politicians like Thatcher or Keating would become leaders today. Too many rough edges. Not enough "image", too much substance - which is seen as a negative nowadays. I hope Abbott does well simply on the basis that he is in stark contrast to the "hollow men" that currently choke the political system. Problem is, the rest of the Libs have yet to show they are electable. They should use the forthcoming election, and the preselections, to flush out the eternal underachievers - Tuckey, the two Bishops and so on, and get more talent into the Parliament. Abbott will give Rudd some stick and I think it will soon dawn on folk how shallow Rudd really is. But that won't be enough to win the election. The Labor front bench is awash with talent - and the Liberal Party isn't. And that's the bigger challenge for Abbott.

I think it's a great point and the wider issues of the level of talent on the Liberal side are all fair game. But the central issue is whether the battle between authenticity and spin is always doomed to fall the same way. if you are right, and we are unable to escape the allure of spin, despite the awful disappointment it leaves, then I guess we only have ourselves to blame. My bet is that we are rapidly reaching a point at which we simply can't absorb any more spin. In the end, a diet of pure white bread and sugar simply makes you sick. The instinct will be to reach for something a little 'rougher', with some edge and a feel of reality. Wishful thinking?

“A successful society such as Australia is unlikely to be improved by radical change,” Abbott argues.

So it looks like easy as it goes, well I couldn't expect any more from Mr Abbott.

Look around, farms are going to ground daily, take a drive through the Upper Hunter, see the holes our power is leaving in some of the finest country in Australia. The Murray/Darling System is near death, country towns are turning into ghost towns, daily Australian Companies are moving offshore, salination, droughts are devastating our rural sector.

Families, have they ever been so dysfunctional, divorce is at approx 1 in 2, youth alcohol abuse is being fueled by parents, violence is erupting even at local club level football games.

Everyday the crazy land prices are pricing more and more Australians from ever owning their own home.

Jobs and production are being shipped offshore daily, soon we will not be capable of producing anything except the raw materials.

Pollution levels are rising, land is dieing, rivers are drying, young mothers are crying and Abbott is lying. Or is he just ignorant?

I think you miss the point,Wybong. There is nothing in the book or in his more general approach to policy issues that suggests Abbott is either unaware of, or not concerned about, the kinds of issues and problems you have mentioned (and others besides, I imagine). What the book makes clear (and my original piece is a book review primarily)is that he has views about the best way to tackle these kinds of challenges.

It's an interesting, and understandable, exercise in reflexive stereotyping to suggest that because someone claims to be a conservative it means they don't care about issues or think that a 'do nothing' approach is always the right thing to do (and in some circumstances, of course, a conservative will indeed advocate that doing nothing CAN be a good or even the best choice). They will tend to adopt, however, a response that is both measured and realistic (as they see it) and will usually insist on some exploration about the consequences, including those nasty unintended ones, that tend to crop up with any given response.

Abbott's strategy, based on what we've seen so far (environment, Aboriginal issues, ETS etc)will presumably be to contrast what he would doubtless describe as the empty and ultimately ineffective spin from Rudd and his team (talk, review but fail to act)with a more prosaic, but robust and practical policy response from his side.

I agree with the initial comment that, if this is indeed how the year works out as we head towards the election, we might have an interesting experiment on our hands of contrasting political styles. Which I think is a good thing

I quote: Abbott suggests “there are few problems in contemporary Australia that a dysfunctional federation doesn’t make worse”. He explains that “the state governments have legal responsibility for issues that only the national government has the political authority and financial muscle to resolve … the state governments tend to wield power without responsibility while the Commonwealth suffers responsibility without power” (p 113).

KR promised to be a National Leader, but when push came to shove, he wimped out. We, that is the Christian Centre expected Rudd to keep his word, and assert a strong Constitutionally correct Federal Government. Our system is firmly rooted in Christianity. However when a politician has a Holy Bible on his desk, but admits the Satanists are in control we have a problem. The Satanists are in control because the lawyers are in control. What Tony Abbott has to convince the Australian people of is his honesty. If he honestly holds his Christian views, his one vote win, can be turned into a landslide.

I have attended a few Catholic Church Services, and was not uncomfortable there, now the service is in English, not Latin. The them and us mentality is breaking down, and it is time. Its Time again for Christianity to be recognized for what it is. It is a political system, that has only two laws. Firstly there shall be only one God. The Muslims can live with that because they believe in the same thing. Instead of One God, in Australia today we have about 1500 local Gods, created by the New Religious Organisations since the Australia Act 1986. These Local Gods are the Judges and Magistrates.

If Tony Abbott will just come out and admit there can be only One God, represented by the Governor General, and that no State Governor can substitute for Her, and shames the Australian Federal Police into effectively being Her Delegates, so that they keep all State Judges and Magistrates firmly within the Constitution, the federation will flourish, and he will replace KR. All Judges and Magistrates were until 1986, representatives of the Queen

There are some passionate people in Victoria. The Chief Magistrate in Victoria, and a Council of Magistrates, has drawn up Rules of Court that can and will fix Australia. In Reliance on the Australia Act 1986, the Parliament of Victoria enacted a Magistrates Courts Act 1989. Since 1986, it does not comply with the Australian Courts Act 1828 as it has not been registered in the Supreme Court and has no Royal Identifier on it, and in S 100 (2) it makes Magistrates into criminals, because they cannot test the laws of Victoria against the Australian Constitution.

However the Magistrates in this State are fundamentally honest. They understand that the Royal Prerogative, is a prerogative of Almighty God. One of God’s prerogatives exercised by the Queen, was the injunction.

In the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 and Trade Practices Act 1974 the Parliament of the Commonwealth has provided that injunctions may be sought to restrain anyone who breaches those Acts. This is a Royal Prerogative without which the government of Australia is impotent.

To obey that law, even though prohibited by Victorian Laws from doing so, the Council of Victorian Magistrates, has provided a Rule 35.04: Injunctions, A form 20A Aplication, supported by an Affidavit of Facts, under Rule 20.03 (3) and a Magistrate can hear it. This is the Magistrates Courts Civil Procedure Rules 2009. God Save the Queen.

If a clear conflict emerges between Laws of the Commonwealth, and Laws of Victoria, the laws of Victoria must be overruled. The Victorian Magistrates appear to be willing to do this. TA needs to extend this sensible conduct to every State.

It would have stopped the defeat of the Liberals in 2007, if in force then, because an injunction lies to prevent a State Government breaking the law. It also lies to prevent the Crown in all its capacities breaking the law. That includes the Commonwealth, defined in the Evidence Act 1995, (Cth) as a Business. Funny Business must end. The Trade Practices Act 1974 ended the lawyer’s monopoly by allowing any other person, to seek an injunction