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!