Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty. This tirade of party line nonsense could have been lifted directly from the corresponding commentary from the extreme right when Bob Hawke wiped Malcolm Frazer out, and the Hawke government went on to set the economic stage for the current wave of prosperity. For 'experience' read 'ossified bewilderment'. No mention in this article of the involvment in Iraq, no mention of the utilisation of the Hansenite childish and uninformed jingoism qua Tampa affair, no mention of the aborted attempt to introduce a churchman as governor general, no mention of the on-going blatant misuse of federal funds for party political purposes, no mention of the rorting of the republic referendum, no mention of the deliberate scare campaign re interest rates, no mention of the on-going impact of the Lyons group on the education of Australian children, etc etc - the list goes on. As to that grossly over-rated commodity, 'experience', business has woken up to that one. Try to obtain any sort of career position in the private sector when your resume lists 'experience' as its prime claim. Howard, as is most of his front bench, is past it, and his draconian all embracing industrial relation legislation has at last embraced the wrong people - the people who put Howard where he is in the first place - and they are the ones who will show their displeasure at the ballot box.

By the way, the only person who thinks Gough Whitlam is a labor icon is Gough Whitlam. The best thing Whitlam can do for labor - unlikely as it may be - is to keep his head down and shut up.

"The gravitation towards Rudd demonstrates an irrationality steeped in ignorance that flies in the face of logic."

What a convoluted piece of Party driven drivel.

It could be written in English as :

"Rudd's poll support is irrational, ignorant and defies logic".

But don't let me stop you adding in non essential language to pad out an item will you.

Apart from which. How on earth can you write this rubbish when the move to Rudd is simple and has little to do with him at all. He's competent and professional and that's all that matters compared to an old man who lies, cheats, bullies and does anything to keep "his" home at Kirribilli. Don't think for a minute it's about being PM as such. It's the luxury that he loves. And that's why he will fight on. He doesn't weant to lose his house. Well, our house actually John.

Simply pu mate the people have had enough of this rodent and it doesn't matter what he says or does from here on. He's finished so get used to it and try writing something that does not display your own irrational and ignorant views.

"Jonathan J. Ariel is an economist and financial analyst. He holds a MBA from the Australian Graduate School of Management." And is also off with the pixies.

Jonathan's got himself into an awful tizz. Poor thing.

Chin up old chum. Look at the bright side - you can spend at least the next three years venting your spleen. Nothing quite like a good spleen venting.

"Grand Old Party"

Quick somebody, pass the bucket.

The author describes himself as a 'conservative', or perhaps a 'liberal'. J.Ariel never once mentions what these terms mean. The author should read a bit of history or at least look up a political dictionary. No true liberal or conservative could support Howard. Conservatives have traditionally been concerned with accountability and the strict limiting of powers, while liberals have been concerned with the rights of the individual against the State. The Howard government has trampled both of these principles underfoot.

Australians have woken up to the fact that Howard and the 'Liberal' Party are neither liberal or conservative. They are powergrabbers and authoritarians which is why they will be turfed out at the next election.

J.Ariel should, in true liberal fashion, look after numero uno and become a Labor apparatchik. Just think of it as a career change - it doesn't really matter as long as you're on the winning side. :)

Some forum writers paint me as a Liberal Party apparatchick. That's not correct.

For the record, I am:

* not a member of the Party
* do not donate to the Party
* do not attend meetings of the Party

put simply, I have no involvement with the party whatsoever.