Jeez Dennis you write like one of those elites that Professor Flint keeps warning me about.

"Better dead than elite" and "Beware the elite under the bed!" sort of thing.

Gallows humour aside I congradulate you for drawing the comparison between Nixons Southern Strategy and whats been going on over here.

Do you think though that Labour and especially Kim are obsessed with emulating Howard's small target strategy used by him during the Keating election?

I am sorry but I see howard as a congenital liar, a thoroughly divisive deceitful politician. There is no doubt at all that he purchased the last election. He had his compliant bagman running around this nation with a bag full of bri- er sorry money to help worthy Australian people. This man is disgusting and I speak as one who was raised as a liberal voter and who has voted liberal more than any other party. Maybe unlike my fellow country men/women I cannot be bought and as well I can see howard for just what he is. numbat

Numbat, I'm sure that Dennis agrees with you. He's not in any way pro-Howard - his point is that if the ALP don't understand Howard's strategy and related changes in society, they will be unable to devise a successful counter-strategy.

Solgenitsin wrote about how groups of decent people can be socialised into doing anti-social things to their captives in the Russian Gulags. Its been the way with the Coaition government; Mr Howard promised high ministerial standards when first elected; now standards are appalling, the buck doesn't stop anywhere. The last election showed how the Liberals would stoop to any level to win the last election; meanwhile Latham was winning it for them.

Mr Howard has stated several times that he will govern for everybody; he doesn't offer the appropriate exclusion phrase "as long as your an empoyer." The proposed IR legislation is patently designed to work against working people. There are already AWAs that have been shown to be patently against working peope; eg Bakers Dozen.

While the Coalition may be at its' zenith at present, the large majority coud very well become unmanageable in the long run. The cynical manipulation of the electorate cannot be continued for ever, also.

Since when did John Howard say,"It is was alright to dislike Muslims?"He ,like most of us have disagreed with their religious philosophy and barbaric laws,but there was never any suggestion of racial or religious vilification.

John Howard is doing right what most of the politically correct don't have the courage to face,i.e all cultures aren't equal because of the process of evolution,and we have to be selective about whom we invite,or become like the depravity from which they are escaping.We will all then, have a no win situation.

Why are the left so idealistically stupid?

Dennis,

Exceptional analysis.

Forget all the politics students - this is worth a read for it's non-aligned neutrality even though I hear a hint of Howard dislike.

I am not sure I accept fully the analysis on how the ALP should face Howard but I do agree that the "l"iberals of which I am one are Labor's worst enemy.

I think this GetUp! website will prove once and for all that the "l"iberals are simply stirring up support for Howard.

Britain needed Thatcher to have Blair - I suspect the IR changes could help Labor's electoral position in the long run - so long as they don't remain hostage to Unions. Oops I just fell into that "politics student" trap.

Bring on ALP primary pre-selection as a means of creating better candidates with more of a finger on the suburban and regional pulse.

Brilliant stuff,
Corin

Dennis,
Now thats more like it ol son. Good one.

"Labor’s strategy abides by the old gentleman’s agreements - the unwritten rules that have stood since Robert Menzies’ time:

- you don’t talk about race;
- you don’t politicise national security or the armed forces;
- you respect multiculturalism and keep off the subject of immigration; and
- you tell the truth.
"

Which Labor is being refered to here? Clearly not the ALP. I'd fail them on all of the above. Not defending Howard with this post but I suspect some rose coloured glasses are being used when looking at the alternative.

R0bert

In this analysis, we find that Howard is to blame for just about everything other than the extinction of the dinosaur - oh hang-on, Dennis came pretty close to blaming that on the Libs as well:).

In this view Howard only works to stay in power. Um..I'd forgotten how popular the GST was when he fought an election on it. Clearly he only supported the GST because opinion polling told him it was a real winner.

And he gets the white working class vote because he has developed 'soft racism'. Here's a thought - he gets the working class vote because many of them recognise that Labor no longer has their interests at heart. Emblematic of this is the Tasmanian forest case. The Tasmanian loggers were abandoned because Labor wanted to prove its credentials to the inner city green vote – the workers went elsewhere to find those who were concerned for their interests.
Howard hasn’t said its OK to hate Muslims but he has made it possible to voice disapproval of that culture and religion. Muslims slitting the throats of air-hostesses and flying planes into building have made it OK to hate (some) Muslims without Howard’s help.

But my favourite here was the idea that he opposes compulsory student unionism because he wants to stop anti-Libs from being trained. Struth what a stretch. How about as a liberal he is opposed to compulsory anything and wants students to have the same rights as the rest of the community to join or not join whatever group they desire.

Maybe it is just possible that Howard operates on a set of principles that the majority of the community support.

Since when did a majority naturally represent truth?

John Howard lately has been looking like a winner, with Labor in retaliation, according to Denis Glover of Latrobe University, looking very much like a loser. Labor, according to Glover, has been too moderate, even prepared to go with the winners, as proven by their halfway support for the US attack on Iraq. Further gutlessness was shown during the recent election when Labor decided to let Aussie troops stay in Iraq if Labor won the election.

From one with a good philosophical knowledge of Machiavellianism, John Howard should be warned the way he is carrying on that he could wake one morning like Jeff Kennett of Victoria, and find all his political hopes dashed or crashed.

Though not showing it, Howard should be mentally on the edge, his new-found Macho’ mind somewhat like Richard Nixon’s when he was trying to extricate himself from the Kissinger-caused Cambodian nemesis of the Vietnam War.

One thing that has been worrying our political thinkers or middle of the roaders, has been an episode of SBS with George Negus to do with our much-disputed bi-lateral trade agreement with the US. It is to do with a shipment of Brazilian carcase meat landed in Australia, but now apparently secretly buried somewhere in Queensland because it was found that Brazil meat exports had been banned to Australia owing to strict regulations on “foot and mouth” disease. However, some arrangement had been made apparently that if Brazil innoculated their cattle against foot and mouth our ban on such exports could be lifted. The critical question is who allowed such a dangerous arrangement to be made, especially as the SBS video showed uninjected animals from an unfenced neighbouring state mixing with the Brazilian stock.

Yes, a study of Machiavellianism does show that if a formerly honest man takes it on and gains by it, his honesty will be put to the test when he starts to lose, then his new Macho’ mentality will having him acting too much like Tricky Dicky and the impeachment and dishonour that followed

RObert claimed that Labor had kept to the Gentlemen's agreements since Menzies time, one of which was not to talk about race.

Even I can remember Arthur Calwell, Leader of the Opposition, and his famous saying "Two wongs don't make a white".

Fair Go, RObert

plerdsus, I was quoting the article with a purpose of pointing how silly the assertion was that Labor has stuck by any of those principles. I've been disheartened that Howard appears to have picked up a Labor like approach in the spin and misrepresentation (lies) he is willing to go with.

The idea that Labor has kept to any of those items is something only a "true believer" could hold.

R0bert

Although 70% of the Australian community do not want the Government to sell Telstra, Liberals and the coalition seem to have lost there hearing.

This is big bickies and our government is taking off the asset register with regard to futures lending potential.

This asset can only go up in value.

The first line of defence for any countries security is its communications and its sources.

We already see a media empire controlled by so very few and information is controlled and buried so it is not bought to the attention of the public or doesn't get to see the light of day.

We can only conclude the rural issues which have held up the sale of Telstra and the potential price in which our government can pawn it, and the character called Barnarby Joyce who's latest parliamentary speech include a large dialogue on "Abortion".

Abortion, one of Tony Abbotts time wasters for the community to take the bone and knaw on. He has been quieter since learning that the child that was adopted out, was not his and his girlfriend had been unfaithful during a fit of passion with another man.

Barnarby Joyce the entertaining sideshow put on by the coalition while the main boobs get on with the carving up and sale of Telstra

What a sell out, even if the rural Australia get the funds for the future the Australian Asset will be gone.

And what of the 4 billion dollar surplus it made this financial year?

The biggest in the whole life of the Australian Telco?

Who will make up the shortfall of profit that normally comes from it?

Anything that has been privatised has not caused competition and a lowering of costs once it privatised. The price has normally gone up and we as the consumer has less in our pockets

Dennis' piece of investigative journalism is one of the most accurate and incisive I have read. If one can get over the dinosaur analogy, he has revealed the truth of Howard's success and Labor's failure to capitalise on the many excessess of the Libs.

I feel, at present, that Labor may only return to power more by default than by offering a viable alternative. The IR reforms may well prove too inequitable for Howard's 'battlers'. While the selling of a profitable concern such as Telstra is foolish it is part of the idelology of privatisation. Never let common sense get in the way of a quick buck. With so many people to gain in the short term this sale won't become a major electoral issue.

Howard is a fascinating politician. Able to remain viable throughout his years on the back bench, emerging as not only leader of the Libs in 96 but to gain the office of PM is extraordinary. It takes a tenacity and cunning that only the truly ruthless can achieve. I guess he proves the rule "good guys finish last". I have never observed a PM look so infuriatingly healthy - where is the haggard pallor that usually afflicts leaders who care? Well what Howard cares about is not the long term welfare of Australia - he does not carry that burden, hence his troubles are confined to that which he can control and he does that very well indeed. Any one with a heart would have been crushed by now.

Look how he is milking the upswing in born again christianity - we never heard a single bleep about Howard's religious POV prior to 9/11 but since his unholy alliance with George W. we get to hear about his religious 'convictions'. I suggest Howard would put those beliefs away immediately if they threatened his hold on power.

Where does all this leave Labor? Perhaps one should ask instead; Where is the Labor Party? Haven't seen them for years now.

The Liberal party under Howard are doing a better job of working the compulsory vote . It's as simple as that .

Dennis Glover "I’ll leave it to you to determine which metaphor best suits John Howard - the fiery comet that promotes the survival of the fittest, or the humble rodent, gnawing away at future generations of potential Labor talent."

And such a statement displays a paucity of innovation, intellect and leadership - characteristics shortcomings, seemingly common among the "left".

Since Glover expresses a particular distain for a view of politics contrary to his own but for which the electorate voted overwhelmingly in favour of, I feel it fitting to leave him with something appropriately "biting" from one of the greatest and best known decimators of the socialism, someone I am sure John Howard looks up to and something for John Howard to take comfort in

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."

When the best Glover can do is refer to John Howard as a "rodent", it appropriately examples Margaret Thatchers response for such detractors (above)...

Footnote - the "talent" is not labors to claim - the "real talent" made up its mind and has ratified that decision over the past 3 general elections - count 'em and weep!