An unrealistic view sharkfin after all Howard let us down in his first term yet is still in control.
If Labor wins it will be a far different Liberal party the face at the next election.
A return to true Liberalism is more than a chance after John Howard's train wreck.
However it will take time to bandage the wounds.
And once again while true differences exist between both party's voters are the fence that keeps them in the same paddock.
Australian voters are not prepared to go far from the devil they know.
Party's want to sell themselves to voters so do not get far away from them.
Those who support minority views must be content to forever be in the minority.

I disagree with what was said by steve on today on Lavartus Prodeo:

"As far as I’m concerned the Tories can have the Tasmanian seats and sit back and watch as the tory representatives become ineffective backbench bystanders in the climate change action unfolding around them."

My blog entry today urges Kevin Rudd to strive for a "pragmatic centre" position on issues generally, and probably with this particular issue.

My partner is originally from Devenport Tasmania, and keeps close watch on the local issues affecting Northern Tasmania, so I'm being given contrary information which suggests that Tasmania could once again be critical for Labor.

We currently have an unchallenged “dry economic argument”, while the soft-left try to convince us they can solve all the world’s problems by debating the hard-right on “social and cultural issues only”.

The early days of the war in Iraq, combined with the leftist economic evasiveness that resulted in the landslide election loss against federal Labor in 2004 and the continual hardline defence by the CFMEU over threats to the jobs of its forestry and mining workers, puts in major doubt the capacity of the anti-American, anti-capitalist, and anti-development synthesis of the small-l liberal left to argue reasonably.

On the other hand, the reason Kevin Rudd is right when he insists he’s “doing a Kevin” rather than “doing a Tony” (Blair) is because the conservatives have already hijacked the Tony Blair story and argued it as “reason for Labor to move rightwards” rather than engage in more complex (but not necessarily obscure) thinking.

In The Australian today, David Burchell resorts to using these words in his article:

“Despite his recent efforts at political philosophy, Rudd is not equipped or inclined to bring a violent philosophical transformation to Labor”.

This misunderstands what Labor needs to philosophically achieve.

However, it’s equally true that we don’t need the sort of small-l liberal evasiveness of economic debate that ultimately lost Labor the last federal election and gave John Howard his Senate rule to bring about many questionable changes to Industrial Relations and the way Australia thinks about productivity.

Bearcave, I would argue that Rudd IS articulating the pragmatic centrist position. It is just that Howard has swung his party so far to the right that he has lost touch with the middle ground.

As to your assumptions about the "anti-American" left, would this be the same left who stormed the US Congress to achieve Democratic majorities in both houses recently?

Opposition to the war in Iraq, agitation and calls for radical action on climate change are not positions held by woolly-thinking dreamers, but by enlightened, feet-on-the-ground moderates.

As to the economic debate, there is more than enough fuel for Labor to challenge Howard on his supposed supremacy.

The slump in productivity growth of recent years can be explained by the coalition's frittering away of commodity-driven budget surpluses on middle-class welfare, instead of investing it in growth-generating infrastructure and skills training.

Rudd can appeal to both old industrial wing of the Labor Party and the middle class urban professionals who support Labor by emphasising an economic agenda built around those principles - investing in skills, education and modernising the nation's infrastructure so that our resource base is used more efficiently.

On national security issues, no-one could accuse Rudd of being anti-American. Indeed, his positioning is remarkably similar to the Democratic majority which now controls Congress and whose represenative will almost certainly take over the White House next year.

Trying to work out why people vote the way they do is not as simple as many make out. Their are those who vote the same all the time. I believe the minority vote along moral or environmental or even philosophical lines. I am convinced that most vote depending upon what is going on in a persons life at the time. Governments of all persuasions are given to much credit or blame for peoples circumstances. We all know that very little will be different under Mr Rudd rather than Mr Howard. A few Howard haters might feel a little better but policies will not vary much. Private schools will still get funded, troops will remain in Afganistan and Iraq and we will still mine coal and eventually more uranium.

I think the interest rate and petrol price on the day of the election will influence people more than anything. Sad but true.