Hi Chris,

Curtin was wartime PM. It led to early death. Chifley really was the most impressive of all Labor PMs, in my opinion. He accomplished the things working people needed at the time. His legacy still exists in their basic contribution to many of our institutions and attitudes in many areas. Only some, notable, dismantalling has occurred over the past 60 years.

He should be Australian working peoples greatest hero. The rest just don't rate in comparison.

I disagee with many of Chifley's attitudes but accept how important they are to contempory Australian working people and how they still impact on our overall society... and importantly on Liberal Party attitudes.

I think many of the Labor learderships have tried to emulate Curtin. Admirable, but most don't have his life experience of true working people and therefore miss the element of understanding acquired from a workingman's/womans life. Most wouldn't understand what it mean't to watch others kids grow unhindered while yours suffer from proper diet, secure tenure of residence, substandard medical care and education, inferior clothing etc. They wouldn't have watched their spouses struggles with all those things plus much more. Employment differences in their formulative years were truely horrific, and were similar to today, in what I call today 'longterm casual underemployment'. These are things that todays labor leaders couldn't possibly know.

The older generations of Labour Leaders understood that background experience, most had lived it.

Politically very little will change policy wise but I do think Liberal governments will be acutely aware of the need to perform in health and transport. And I believe they will for many years but eventually if they don't get the economic settings right they'll then fail. Yes probably opposite to state Labor governments that got the economy right but stuffed infrustructure and health services.

I agree with your final paragraph utterly.

Nice to chat. My e-mail is kennelly.km@bigpond.com if you ever wish for such an exchange of ideas again.

I haven't read Janet Albrechtsen's article but did she also describe the Greens as anti-environment? Pity if she didn't because my experience with the WA Greens over the past 15 years is that the environment is an expendable commodity for them if they see potential for electoral or political gain from doing so.
While most green voters are genuine and well intentioned people who look to the Greens to improve the environment, the reality is that a core group of activists (normally we'd call them powerbrokers if we were discussing the Liberal or Labor parties) have no hesitation in using the environment as just another political tool - and being prepared to have adverse environmental outcomes - if it suits their power-hungry agendas.