Nick, the ABS stats in fact show that in 2004 75% of Australians earned under 50k a year. In light of that fact, I wonder how Beazley's position can be described as "claptrap".

Dear Sir,

I believe Kim Beazley's problem, as is most of the ALP's problems right now, is related to the free-market and subsequent economic rationalism, which though a Labour leader, Bob Hawke, introduced it to Australia and made good use of it for a number of years, an enduring belief in economic rationalism was still no good for Labour's long-term future. Indeed, the economic rationalist doctrine, although said to suit both conservative and social democratic politics, actually has proven to mainly suit extreme right-wing conservatism, similar to modern American republicanism and, of course, hard-core big business or corporatism. It is believed that if Labour took on its true role at present, it would be better now acting more like the Greens and Democrats. These two minor parties, however, are not popular with voters owing to their smallness and negativity in regard to our Australian political consciousness.

The main purpose behind both economic and political rationalism goes back to the old theme when globalisation first arrived here in the early 1980s - "big is better" or "get big or get out", and which is now well with us after having joined America in the illegal attack on Iraq. Indeed, the "big is better" theme has become especially receptive to a "dumbed down" public which would doubtless prefer each of our oneselves to be looked after by a big and better power like the US of A.

Labour in its true social democratic role therefore should never have joined the attack on Iraq, and should still take note that "big is better" is not the answer for the problems in Iraq. Nor an erzats guided democracy, as it surely will be under Pax Americana, but better for a genuine justice through a better appreciated multi-powered United Nations.

Is it just me or are others tired of reading pre-fight opinions on the Bomber? Having lost two elections on would think that Beazley would have enough knowledge to know that a third contest under his leadership will fail. But alas, like a punch drunk never-was, he’ll weigh in and make all the right noises.

I dread hearing his words of electoral concession in 2007; indeed, I'm already hearing them every time he appears on TV. But it’s not all the Bombers fault.

The machine men who designed and created the failed Latham ‘Frankenstein’ campaign are still in the backrooms and they
enjoy being in opposition because it more aligned to their political strategies and skills base. Its what they do.

Beazley the Bomber may well have learned enough to be a threat in the next election but you have to be more than a threat. You have to win the hearts and minds of the people. He failed twice, he'll fail again and Labor will continue keep going around and around, around and around...like a numberless chook wheel...where it stops, know one will ever know...or for that matter,care

rainier

I agree w/U 100%. Beazley has had many opportunities to discredit the Howard government and he has let them trickle away.

A possible threat? Yes, maybe, but only due to that fact that Howard has no true heir.

An election based on mediocrity is the election I predict for 2007. We will have a change of government but not a change of vision.

Perhaps I'm totally wrong in stating this but I don't think the poor envy the rich and if they do the media are not highlighting this as a matter of urgency.

Where is the evidence that the poor actually think about the rich 24/7? If politics is about perception what are the 'perception' lines of demarcation between the rich and the poor to warrant envy and a shift toward Labor? I'm not questioning the social and economic indicators, but rather, how these are being positioned in our national discourse.

Howard has won the middle ground over and over again and warded off any stark comparisons between rich and poor that would be detrimental to his party. Labor has often followed suite with conservative projections about the need for the working poor to ‘get off their arses’ [rugged individualist approaches] over the last 10 years so as not to risk irrelevance with middle and rich Australians. So this threat that Ferrett signals has no precedent to rest upon.

Beazley will have to think about more than just being a threat in the next election; he will have to think about how to win the centre ground where the hearts and minds of middle Australia are preoccupied. Remember, oppositions don't win government, incumbents’ lose office.

How Howard loses office will be crucial to how Beazley wins. So I think being a threat on the basis of traditional richVspoor dichotomies just won't be enough.

It’ll require the kind of political chutzpa that Beazley, Latham and Crean have not been able to conjure up. Australian’s are now well aware of conviction politicians and politics and have proven that they would sooner vote for a liar with conviction than a someone without.

The question is not about Beazley having ticker, its should be about if he has a ticker at all!

I think you all miss the point, Kim hasn't got a hope in hell of getting the ALP over the line. If you actually look at it, there is no one that can get them into office until they have policies that suit the people and not their elitist vested interests. It is all well and good to wonder if the so called poor think about being rich, they mostly think about how they can survive tomorrow. As to the so called average wage being nearly $1000 per week, look the statistical facts and not the manipulated figures used by academics to try and cover up the reality. Firstly, how many people are on some form of welfare, I don't really know but I beleive it is about 8 million. They receive this because they either can't find work, are not able to work for various reasons and they get payments so that they can survive. These people struggle on just a few hundred dollars a fortnight. Their income per year is about the same as lots of beaurucrats and the business elite get in one month. The reason why people voted for Liberal, is becuase they were lied to about everything and now see that they have been mislead. Labour is just the same, there is no difference between any of the parties, they all have the same agenda, more power and money for them and their mates. There is nothing that Labour has said that is of any interest to the average person and when you see the scenario between the states and federal politics, you can see that the reason labour is in power in the states is because the people realise that there is no difference between the major parties. So unless society collapses, we will have liberals running the show. Unless someone comes up with a change of direction that satisfies the majority and not just panders to the elitist agenda.