Michael's article is a pretty good summation.

There are better leaders within the current Labor Party but one hopes most Australians don't just vote on charisma (or lack of). Mr Rudd is a bit lacklustre because he has been a bureacrat for too long and spent most of his years in Foreign Affairs - the pillar of bureacracy and elitism. Rudd is who he is, he perhaps is not aware of his public persona and sometimes tries a bit hard to be seen as chummy and thus fails on most levels. Perhaps the fact he tries is testament to some level of awareness.

Leaders need to be a bit creative and look outside the constraints of the global shackles with which we seem so keen on restraining ourselves. Creativity and outside square thinking does not generally come from someone who has spent their formative years in academia and in the Commonwealth Public Service. This does not mean that Mr Rudd's experience is null and void, quite the opposite, his credentials might make him a good Foreign Affairs Minister. Mr Rudd is not the only member of his party, albeit he will influence public perceptions as the leader.

In summary this article hits the nail on the head, and repeats what we all know sadly to be true, governments are not voted in but out. And they are only voted out when they step well and truly in it - as the Libs with Work Choices and a continuing series of faux pas' such as Tampa etc.

Work Choices was one of the big issues but not the only one, only high paid public servants and those in the mining industry were better off under this scheme. Those on lower incomes (hospitality, retail and unskilled labour) were not in a position to negtiate fairer working conditions and in fact were worse off under WC.

I’d have to agree with Peter Hume, there is much, perhaps too much, similarity in the two major parties. The difference is perhaps in style and execution, and that the Liberals have a slightly better track record in delivering sustainable outcomes which sadly, does leave us with “tribal allegiances”. That said what are the possible “show stoppers” in the next election?

It seems that the major policy platforms of health, education, economy et al, are destined to follow tribal lines, possibly because the major policy platforms are vulnerable to populist spin from both sides.

Climate change policy however, does offer a point of difference. Not so much in the acceptance or otherwise of the need for action, or even the response to climate change. The difference is in the depth of commitment.

Abbott has “wriggle room”, a shallow commitment with very low cost for the first couple of years. Rudd on the other hand has deep commitment; his ETS is on the line, possibly with a double dissolution as a consequence and at a time when the whole basis for AGW is being seriously examined.

In the UK this week a BBC poll indicates a rapid decline in public support for AGW, as one pollster commented, “The rate of decline is very unusual”.

If this sentiment is reflected in the Australian public, the ALP/Greens position becomes more untenable whilst the Liberal position becomes proportionally stronger.

In such a scenario, the electorate might weigh a complex, expensive and risky ETS solution against a softer, less permanent, cheaper option of direct action, particularly if public sentiment perceives AGW as requiring the application of “reasonable doubt”.

MSM heavyweights in the UK, the BBC, Spectator and even the Guardian have this week begun touch the post Copenhagen reality. Except for The Australian, this has yet to happen in Australia however, regardless of which entity breaks ranks, MSM or politics, there remains enormous and growing potential for differentiation.

We've all had our say - and after all's
said and done - I personally find it
heartening that despite our differences
in opinion - what comes through quite
clearly is our combined concern in building
a stronger future not only for ourselves,
but for future generations.

We may disagree on who to vote for and why -
but I firmly believe that the voters will get
it right in the end.

For me this discussion has run its course -
it's going to be an interesting year as events
unfold closer to election time - I wish you
all well - until then ...

Foxy, I am totally aware of KRUDD's past employment and still say he has nothing to qualify him to be PM. Never was a government minister and got thrown in the deep end as PM without any of the management skills necessary for the job. The way he has performed in the job confirms this. Enquiries and committees and no results or delivery on most of his promises. They remain just that PROMISES and the ruining of the Aussie Economy.
I'm no Howard fan either having resigned from the Liberal party when as Treasurer he introduced retrospective tax legislation which I believed totally immoral. I've not found an acceptible Party to belong to since then. However when you consider the facts Australia would be better off under a coalition government. First Whitlam wrecked the economy and the Coalition fixed it over time. Then the Hawke/Keating governments wrecked the economy and the conservatives fixed it and now KRUDD has caused more damage to the economy than any before him. Anyone can see that we can not afford to have another Labor Government based on this track record of when they are in power.
And in case you think I belong to some wealthy background I do not and am probably one of the lowest income people in Australia. If I can see what is wrong with Labor the all should.
I thought Malcolm Turnbull may have been the new leader for the Coalition but he somehow got fooled into accepting the Labor position on Climate Change and got the boot thank goodness before Australia got lumbered with an ETS. Tony Abbott seems to have the coalition in step with the wants and needs of the Aussie Public. So I believe he deserves a fair chance. He is not perfect but will have a better team than the current Labor one. I for one will vote Liberal and hope KRUDD gives us the chance to vote him out sooner rather than later.

On this subject there is one poster who made a serious error. That was linking Hawke and Keating. Hawke a Pastors Kid, spent his whole life taking revenge on Christianity, and his father. Keating enacted all the Christian and Democratic principles into the Trade Practices Act 1974 and Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth). Howard as a lawyer spent his whole time opposing those reforms. Rudd should insist they are applied. He will be defeated because he has not done so. He will say this third sorry, after the next election. It will prove meaningless, but so have the first two.

I will detail the amendments:

Keating in S 4D Trade Practices Act 1974 ; made a law making it illegal for any business to exclude the ordinary people from participation. In the Evidence Act 1995, (Cth) he defined all Crown activities as business, including the courts. You the people are absolutely, by S 45 Trade Practices Act 1974 entitled to be present in every court, as the judges of S 79 Constitution. This franchise has been stolen from us by the Parliaments of the States and Commonwealth, but restored by Paul Keating’s government.

As any other person, Paul Keating’s government gave us all the right to seek an injunction when our rights are infringed. This phrase was enacted by Howard’s Government in the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 so when a bank acts unconscionably, an injunction should lie as of right.

Paul Keating’s government made it a criminal offence carrying 17 years imprisonment for a Judge to deny the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a law. S 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth), but Howard told the Australian Federal Police never to prosecute them. Rudd has an ineffective Australian Federal Police too. He appointed a Queenslander as Governor General. She is a good country girl and former Law Professor, but she takes no steps to execute and maintain the laws of they Commonwealth. S 61 Constitution and S 8 Australian Federal Police Act 1979 read the same. Rudd still has a little time

In these responses, as in the article, one finds little but the expression of tribal loyalties and a large dose of confirmation bias. Laborites rail at Workchoices (what an oxymoron that was), Tampa and so on as explanations of Rudd's victory (but forget that Rudd's done bugger all about them), while, laughably, the Libs insist the election was only lost because of Howard's hubristic linger-too-long presence (here we see the born-to-rule mentality expressing itself).

For my part, as a citizen who hoped for some action on the Education, Health and Climate-Environment fronts, I am bitterly disappointed in Rudd. The developments in Education will be counter-productive until the competition-choice paradigm is dispensed with; in Health, progress (towards what?) is glacially slow and there appears no enthusiasm at all for ending the iniquitous private health rebate; and on Climate the government has almost completely spat the proverbial dummy while Wong monotonously intones the mantra of whatever is the party position at the moment. The Rudd government stands, above all, merely for the continuance of middle-class welfare in all its perfidious forms.

So what has changed? So little. A few symbolic apologies and pronouncements (yes, they were needed) perhaps, and a barely watered-down Workchoices system. Blather, mostly punitive in tone, about accountability of schools. Lots of triumphalism about avoiding the recession - tragically premature. At least (or at best?) Smith's replacement of the appalling Downer to improve our image internationally.

But actually, the ability of either political party to make any substantive changes to the hegemonic consumerist ways of a massively indebted nation - with its strong sense of entitlement - is virtually nil. The Libs got Turnbull, who for all his arrogant, narcissistic, irascible, impatient ways did represent a sort of enlightenment in the party; but quite soon they engineered his demise in order to resurrect Howardism, some of the most incompetent and pernicious ministers of the earlier era, and fools like Joyce. With this regression, Liberal and Labor loyalists alike should be able to see that the infinitely bland, and false, Kevin07 will survive at least until 2013.