New Party, New People New Opportunity.

The very name "Labor" is divisive. It immediately sets one group of our society against the rest. Similarly, as the 'Country Party' used to. "National" is a better term, even though the same people are driving it.

The day Labor is 'born again' from the 'flesh' of representing the interests of 'workers' (against the interest of 'employers'), on that day, I for one would take more interest.

The day of grace for the coalition is fading. The electoral results are probably as much a reflection of lack of decent alternative as anything.

Kim is a great bloke in my opinion, and would make a fine Prime Minister, he seems a man of principle. Its the party which is on the nose. Any idea the Bill Shortern can be quickly conscripted (seems to be going by a script at the moment) would be met with Latham like reaction. "Another upstart". Though I don't think Bill has been beating up taxi drivers or cameramen lately.

I think the only 2 people in the Labor party I'd be happy to see in government are Mr Rudd and Kim. None of the others seem to be anything other than opportunistic sleazes. Lindsay Tanner ? HAH ! There is one incident I will NEVER let die on this guy..how he suddenly regurgitated some sexual molestation issues of some obscure case in process and like 10 yrs old 'conveniently' at a time when it got his own name in print and tried to 'damage' Howard via the GG.
Sorry Lindsay.. that will haunt you to your political grave.

All in all, the 'Nobility' on either side will probably sell us out (or at least a large chunk of us), as Nobles are want to do. I take a rather independant line here... like to grow my own food as far as possible. The fellowship of the Saints is what gives me a sense of belonging far more than politics.
"Flesh gives birth to flesh, Spirit gives birth to Spirit... you need to be born again" (Jesus-John 3) personally and politically.

The problem of quoting Christianity is that it is secularism, and it is divisive against those who are not Christian in a multicultural country. This is where the whole arguement falls into a heap. All words are relative. For example, if you mention the word "liberal" in the US, they immediately accuse you of being a communist. Therefore, in US language, the word "liberal" is divisive. Are we talking "big L liberal" or "small l liberal"? With Labour, are we talking "big L Labour", "small l labour" or Blairist "new labour"? They are not the same thing but they are all relative. Playing identity politics is a dog chasing its tail. The words "liberal" and "labour" are not always what you think they are. Even the "Greens" are not just "green" anymore. They are no longer a single issue party. They have fully comprehensive policies on just about everthing all other parties do. If you are one of those poor dogs chasing their tails, this is going to really spin you out. The labels are not all what you think they are. If you don't like their policies or agendas, don't vote for them.

saintfletcher, the point of my post is that it is the ALP who spend the money on fripperies---the Federal government has nothing to do with it.
The Labor Party want fabulous stadiums, 200 million wasted on a convention centre that apparently no one wants. Children dying through a lack of beds at the childrens hospital. Can't you had two and two?
Billions on a railway that is going to cost so far over budget the Labor government must be having nightmares about when the true cost becomes public---if ever.
The facts are facts, not a figment of imagination.

Another in a series of articles making sweeping and erroneous generalisations about the attitudes of the punters.

If we look at e.g. the most recent Australian Election Study and other studies of public opinion, we find that:

(a) a large majority of Australians are very green on global warming and forest protection;

(b) the balance of opinion is far more pro-feminist and pro-choice (on abortion) than anti-feminist and anti-choice;

(c) a majority are more social democratic and collectivist than neo-liberal and pro-market on economic policy;

(d) a majority prefer spending on services to tax cuts;

(e) opinion is divided on issues of queer sexuality.

On the other hand majorities favour conservative policies on drug laws, sentencing, immigration, national security and school curricula.

The strategic question for Labor is: should it cobble together a collection of policies which simply aim to mirror what majorities are thinking on each issue in isolation, regardless of how incoherent the eventual outcome will be, or how difficult it would be to reconcile the contending constituencies? Or should it recognise (as Margaret Thatcher and her more astute critics did) that politics is about proactively constructing majorities, rather than reactively representing them?

If Dr Paul is accurate with the opinion polls assessment, then our Government can no longer pretend to be a conservative party at all. It does not even reflect the views of the majority. The Government is a reactionary right regime that is dominated by interests groups like churches, big business, and multi-national companies.

@ Mickjo, the point is the Federal government has simply privatised debt, and making this shift will not avoid the recession, it will make it worse. People can't pay their loans and more will declare bankruptcy after they lose their jobs. The international economy is overdue to collapse into recession. The Banks, are boosting outrageous bank fees to pay for low interest rates. After credit card holders go bankrupt, revenue loss will crush the banks' accounting balance.

Don't forget the billions wasted on the war in Iraq which is a sham, and the world knows this. Voters will punnish their governments in elections in the UK, the US, then Australia.

If the ALP doesn't isolate the majority, without giving us a "tyrrany of the majority" over minority groups, then takes responsible measures for infrustructure and environment, then we will have a real conservative government.

We don't have freedom of speech in Australia constitutionally. We have censorship, sedition laws, and expensive propaganda campaigns. Most people in this forum just argue against the ALP for the sake of it. Even the word "labour" itself. This is an artificial range of views, and I want to know how I can get on the payroll, so that I can promote this government using the ABC as well. Then to hell with opinion polls and democracy.

The ABC lost its independence. I don't believe half of it, and I know they are not allowed to show anything against their Government bosses. You cannot deny this, as I know some of the journalists and they are not happy. We either take the money or make a stand. You want me to slam the ALP? Pay me.

The electorate is stupid stupid stupid. There is a train coming down the track we are on, and within three years the bulk of the electorate will get hit right between the eyes. Workchoices will catch so many families in debt that they cant service. The reduction in wages will more than wipe out the miserly tax cuts, and low intrest rates. We will not recognise this country in 5 years time.
Then bring out the Drovers Dog to defeat Howard/Costello.
However it will be to late, the damage is done.
This stupid stupid stupid electorate can reflect for the rest of thier and thier childrens working lives on thier aspirations.
All this naval gazing and ruminating over the state of the ALP is pointless.When Howard gained the Senate majority the train left the station.
There is no stopping it now.