Chris Lewis,

Can I take it that you don't consider Australian politics to be richer now that we have a more robust contest this coming election?

Poirot, it is certainly much more robust now; it would not be good if Coalition smashed it and dominated both houses. I want to see a plularity of voices, always have.

I also like some of the topics raised by Rudd in recent days, I just don't have any faith in him to deliver or to negotiate. It is either his way, or the highway.

I'm glad Rudd has made it possible for me to vote LABOR at the next election.

I would've voted for Abbot instead of Gillard but now I don't have to.

It is unlikely that I'm alone!

Chris Lewis,

I suppose if Rudd has sufficient wisdom, then he will have learned from his failure to consult the first time around.

I think he'd be mindful that not many get a second bite of cherry in his position.

If he's wise, he'll succeed.

If he falls back into old habits, he won't.

If the new polls are declaring that Labor and the Coalition are neck-and-neck, I would suggest that, for all that, Labor has to win twelve seats to stay in the game - nine to replace ministers who have retired, two to replace the two Independents Oakeshott and Windsor, and one to replace Thomson, then we should be thinking of a current notional distribution of 60 to 84 or so.

And this may be as good as it gets for Rudd, unless the Coalition makes some monumentally stupid mistakes. But, very roughly, for every mistake Rudd makes, let's imagine that Labor loses one more seat.

So let's see - in four days, Rudd has:

* slightly irritated Indonesia;

* called a colleague 'anally-retentive', not guaranteed to win votes;

* you get the picture.

October 12 or 26 ?

Plenty of time to make some real beauties !

Coalition by 96 to 48.

Loudmouth,

"*slightly irritated Indonesia"

I think you'll find that the main party who was "slightly irritated" was Julie Bishop.

(You get the picture:)