Mirko Bagaric is a right wing appologist for Rudds right wing politics. Everything but Rudds real program and right wing attacks are curiously ommitted; that every assault on the social and economic position of workers may even surpass Howard's treachery. Everything is 'somehow a mistake whereby the lessons are learnt afterwards.' Howard and Rudd have been described as having the same "bear hug politics."
Behind the cruel and treacherous election facade Labor and Liberal have declared war on workers. When Rudd and Howard recently met with Bush both gave pledges that they will support every facet of Bushs' new war plans required for US global hegemony; there has been plenty of discussion and planned leaks to the press about using nuclear or dirty weapons against Iran with its abundant oil fields.

It seems to me that there are two possibilities:

Either Rudd is telling the truth when he agrees with Howard, or he is lying in his teeth and will follow a completely different agenda.

If he is telling the truth there seems little point in voting for him, as Howard has the advantage of experience.

If he is lying you can have no idea what he stands for and should not be elected.

The claim that both Rudd and Howard are anti-worker ignores the real issues of the day (which are usually not mentioned), and which are that we are facing the problems both of peak oil and climate change, which mean that the standard of living has to be REDUCED.

Moreover, because they use more petrol than average, due to the fact that they live further from their jobs than the more affluent, ordinary workers and those in debt will have to suffer a larger fall than wealthy retirees.

The coming debt crunch is something that cannot be mentioned, as anyone who does will be blamed if our debt is called in.

Lets face it: We have been living far above our means for years and the day of reckoning is nigh.

Despite the screams from all and sundry, the best news the reserve bank could give us on Melbourne Cup day would be a substantial INCREASE in interest rates.

Mirko Bagaric picks out four instances where the ALP has supported the Coalition:
- intervention in the NT,
- the pulp mill in Tasmania,
- the hanging of the Bali Bombers and
- plan to limit African refugees.

On that evidentiary basis, Bagaric rests a superficial case that "Kevin Rudd has flatly refused to take a stance on any social issue which would put him at odds with government policy".

Bagaric then suggests that Rudd is lying doggo, afraid to upset voters - presumably Rudd thinks they want more of Howard's policy but have turned off Howard.

Bagaric's callow argument omits any references to policy where there are significant differences which Rudd has articulated e.g.:
- troop withdrawal for Iraq
- collective barganing and unfair dismissal laws
- kyoto and carbon trading and emissions targets
- nuclear reactors and renewable energy
- housing affordability
- education (technical training, pre-school, tax refunds on laptops etc)
- child care
- hospital reform.

Bagaric then claims that "Rudd is prepared to disavow his own principles and those of his party in the singular pursuit of the principle: 'we will say and do whatever it takes to get into power'. Is that the problem, Mirko? That this has been Howard's standard methodology and Rudd should'nt go there? Think Aborigial intervention, think Reconciliation, think African refugees, think children in detention think Davis Hicks gagged until after the election, think tax cuts, think interest rates, think children overboard, think Tampa, think never-ever GST, think WMD, think...

It's a sick joke for Bagaric to conclude that Rudd believes in nothing but, by contrast, Howard is a man with "a transparent, and albeit sometimes flawed, social conscience".

There are Labor voters and there are Labor voters. Rudd's not going to lose the ones who vote on moral issues because the alternative is Howard, who clearly has the social conscience of a funnelweb spider.
No contest.

If anyone's in the long term habit of violating their principles for personal gain it has to be Costello. Rudd's been doing it for the duration of an election, Costello's been doing it for a decade. And he's the one most likely to replace Howard.
No contest.

I don't believe this is a political post! but a valuable post none the less.
I base this on his recent post
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6491
The cynical posters so critical need to read the above, perhaps a fair and just man.
fluff4

MIRKO, I felt just like you at the previous election, I wrote Beesley when he lost and critisized him for going along with Howard on refugee policy.I said you may still have lost, but you'd have been on the side of the good and just.Evil in the world happens when good men do nothing or a Party FAVOURS EXPEDIENCE. However we vote for Parties and their Leaders have to reflect the view of the Party.FRANK/GOL, you have set out the score on the issues so the balance is there. The TACTICS OF POLITICS, dictates- WINNERS ARE GRINNERS, SO, Rudd can expect my Criticism on some issues but I hope John H. ENJOYS RETIREMENT!

I have no quarrel with K.Rudd agreeing with Howard policies. Clearly these are sensible opinions over a wide field. Many in the labour party believe that K.Rudd is just sprouting “white lies “to get elected. They will be disappointed K.Rudd is not in the category of anti-nuclear nutters, greenhouse fanatics or trade union boss. K.Rudd is not of the loony left.

Greg Sheridan in to-days Australian paints a gloomy picture. The Federal coalition is likely to imploding as a consequence of a labour victory. In every State there is a corrupt and incompetent Labour Government in office. Nowhere is their State Liberal leader capable of winning government.

It has been variously reported in the media that K.Rudd is a control freak. On winning the election he will have almost unprecedented political power and a weak opposition. He will have ample power and authority to get his own people into the higher ranks of government and administration.

Thus will we experience the beginning of the Rudd dictatorship?

I am sure this is non sequitur but I can not help recalling that the Mussolini in his youth was a socialist

>>>This will require Rudd (unless he only wants to serve the one >>term) to continue to cater to existing prejudices and misjudged >>community values instead of making unpopular but fair decisions >which will enhance social justice outcomes in Australia and even >beyond our shores.

So, let's see. Dump the "community values" the majority of Australians believe in and which are validated at the ballot box and replace them with a minority view held by the wealthy, out-of-touch lawyer class who regard the majority of their fellow Australians, almost all of whom they've never met, as cultural cretins.

Now, there's an idea! Why didn't I think of that. Such a hymn to democracy!

It seems to me that the choices, at least as far as Prime Minister goes, in the coming election is between two right-wing liars - one of whom is a member of the Liberal Party and one of whom is a member of the ALP. On balance I think that the greater lie is for a right-winger to be a member of the ALP, and to be using the talent vacuum therein as the easier route to the Lodge.

In Kevin Rudd the ALP has chosen a leader who does not espouse the values of the party simply because it thinks that leader will get it into power. I'm almost a dyed-in-the-wool Labour voter, with only the occasional dalliance with the Australia Party and the Democrats, however this time I will be voting against the ALP.

I suspect that Queensland public servants who were around in the Doctor Death era (no - not Patel) are unlikely to support the man who did so much for morale. The politicisation of the Queensland public service is appalling, and this can largely be traced back to Wayne Goss' Chief of Staff!

Let me see, it is OK to 'pretend' to support the Howard Government's policies because if he wins, Rudd will drop all the bull and take Australia down a far different path to the one he promised the electorate.
Well forwarned is forarmed. And they call Howard a liar!

anti-green

You concede that it's a non sequitur but you point out that Mussolini was a socialist in his youth. Is that a very subtle but telling shot at Peter Costello and Brendan Nelson? As former socialists they would be most upset by the comparison with Mussolini.

What's more, you'll remember that Mussolini was a puppet in the hands of the dictator Hitler. What are you trying to tell us about Cossie's and Nello's relationship with the Great Man?

In the end it's the voters who have to live with the decision they make every thousand days or so, and they always seem to go for self-interest.

When either party sees that votes are for sale then they start bidding.

Morality and principle get thrown overboard (like refugee kids) very early on.

Considering that people are happy to not ony forgive but also to forget past lies and misrepresentations by their political leaders, maybe it's really the voters who have sold out.

Wobbles, as long as we keep letting them get away with it they're going to keep doing it to us!
Actually, we don't sell our votes- we just rent them out for the best deal on voting day.

I am so bored with both men that I refuse to waste my vote on either of their parties at the election on the 24th November. So lets all hope that its a hung Parliment with the minor parties ( no religious nuts ) holding the balance.

that's cute. lectures on principle by a guy who advocates torture.

I actually hope 'the religous nuts' hold the balance of power. It certainly beats 'the Irreligious nuts'.

I have never felt represented by either of the major parties and still don't . I vote from the bottom up. The conservatives go last and then I apportion votes in accordance with the policies of the candidates, ending up by giving my first preference to the candidate with whom I am most impressed after an examination of their policies.

I will not get the opportunity to cast a vote for Howard or Rudd so I have the obligation to consider that the candidate of my choice is someone to whom I can relate and who is neither a religious nut nor a right wing fanatic but a candidate who will work for constituents in my electorate.

Like many others I am cynical because I am convinced that all politicians have to do whatever it takes to get elected or re-elected. Good policies and good government don't necessarily win elections. I do not blame Mr Howard, or Mr Rudd for this because we are all somewhat responsible for the way the game is played.

We need a creative solution. How to do less politics and get more good government? At present it is Politics 98% Government 2%.

One idea, though admittedly highly flawed, is to have a more permanent cadre of public servants who are skilled and knowledgeable enough about the important issues, and then committees or juries of intelligent citizens who review the pros and cons presented by the public servants and then make the decisions for the mandarins to implement. We could form the citizen juries using procedures akin to empanelling juries for criminal cases, so everyone could get a turn.

We would need, I admit, to castrate all the mandarin class and guarantee them an opulent life so that their highest motive would be to serve the country. But it would be better than the present system of hypocracies and briberies.

Actually, on this one, I'm inclined to agree with pretty much everything bagaric says, save for the last comment.

Rudd has determined that he has the votes from the Howard haters anyway, so he has ignored them. Instead he is going for Howard's support base.

A very logical approach, but lacking in leadership or spine.

The thing is, Howard is the devil you know - and I don't believe we're better off.

I know for certain I disagree with Howard's approach. Rudd's might be different, though certainly won't be worse.

Plersdus outlines the reasons why he thinks people can only logically vote for Howard, but he fails to acknowledge that many disagree with Howard's approach - so the second option, wherein Rudd isn't being open about his intentions, isn't a reason not to vote for him, if you're keen to avoid the policy of Howard.

Though I grant you, Rudd's approach is leaving an unpleasant taste in the mouth, and I'm not sure I can bring myself to vote for it, even though I strongly disagree with most of Howard's approach.

Odds are my vote will go to a third party. I'm distinctly unimpressed with what the major ones have been up to.

I want to know what deals Kevin has done with the left and unions.Why would you have a raving socialist as your deputy who outwardly shows her distain for private enterprise?It took Wayne Swan a couple of days to come with a me too tax policy.

Kevin Rudd is a show pony without substance.Bob Carr was very articulate and was a disaster for NSW.Labor has far less talent than the Hawke/Keating eras and Kevin is not a strong enough leader to keep them in line.I see economic ruin.

FrankGol,

Firstly let me state that I regard both Hitler and Mussolini as men of evil.

In the early thirties Mussolini regarded Hitler as the junior partner. There is a short film of a meeting when Hitler was welcomed at train station on a visit to Italy. The welcoming party was King Emanuel Victor III (Head of State) and Mussolini. None of the actors knew the correct protocol and so they so they seem to raise their hands (and arms) to salute each other at random. This was a good example of cinema comedy in real life?

You have named other gentlemen in your post. I can assure you that the life history and public record of both Mr. Nelson and Mr. Costello are well documented. No matter your private view on their politics, one can be very certain of their parliamentary democratic credentials.

According to Wikipedia, Plato described the “philosopher king” in book IV of his “republic.” Wikipedia gives several historical examples including the biblical Solomon. It is too early to know if history will place K.Rudd among those illustrious characters.

It will be no surprise to you that I will not be risking the future by voting labour.

TurnRightThenLeft, are you suggesting Rudd is employing(shock,horror) Wedge tactics? Thought that was the practise of the evil Howard only.

FrankGols list of differences,gullible Frank. Housing affordability? Computers for all kids? Kyoto? Real hospital reform? His much delayed workplace reforms? Wanna buy a bridge,FranfGol?

Rudd will win but so what. Govts- State or Federal, are largely run by career public servants; and fiscal policies are run fro Tresury/Finance Dept run by neo-liberal economists who advise and put before any Minsiter of any political persuasion documents to sign off on.
The silly adverts that scare some folk in the electorates during election campaigns are not worth commenting on. Only party hacks and the advertising companies devise these pieces of scare mongering.
The ALP and the Coalition are much the same, sad to say.
I invite everyone to view the DLP website. It is the true Labor of old anyway.
This is what Catholic Laborites subscribed to both before and after the Split.
The modern ALP needs to return to its better days. Traditioanl ALP and DLP people have the most sensible and non-faddish ideas that can stand the test of time as they are based on Catholic social teachings from Pope Leo XIII through to the present Pope.
Become a Catholic. It is your spiritual birthright; also join up and make a personal sacrifce as a Christian in your neighbourhood and nation by joining and promoting the ideas of the DLP
http://www.dlp.org.au/

Mirko,

I'm old, tired and fed up with an 8-month election campaign. In my view, no government should be in power for 10 years or more. It breeds arrogance bordering on hubris; cronyism, nepotism and quite possibly corruption (AWB).

The ALP has wised up to the fact that there is no substitute for being in power. What annoys me is that the Howard-haters are sharpening their knives and pens for Kevin Rudd. At least he deserves a chance. The Howard-Costello legacy will be dissected and I am keen to see how their pack of admirers react when the grand tapestry becomes unravelled. I happen to be slightly more optimistic about Rudd but time will tell.

instead of worrying about which leader is more corrupt, why not work for actual democracy?

with open government and direct elections, lies and corruption would be obsolete, nearly impossible.

of course, instead of whingeing about your masters, you would have to rely on your own abilities to decide what's best for the country. that terrifies you, doesn't it?

go back to whingeing, children, the best you can hope for is the tooth fairy deciding to be pm.

The tooth fairy IS PM.

It's a sad indictment on the Australian public when the election campaign seems to be little more than a contest about who can outbid the other on tax cuts and and other hip pocket issues. It's to be expected from the Coalition but one would have hoped the so-called progressive side of politics could have shown some leadership and stood up on issues of principle.

I have no faith in Kevin Rudd. His politics are hardline and very much to the right of what you would expect from a Labor leader. He is as much an autocrat as John Howard, if not worse. His slap down treatment of Robert McClelland was appalling and very telling about the presidential style of politics he is intent on implementing.

Our only hope of decent government if Labor wins is to vote in a strong senate made up of Greens, Democrats and progressively minded independents who can be relied upon to pass the small amount of progressive legislation that does come their way. If the Coalition controls the senate, life under Rudd will be very little different to that under Howard.

".. we need to reduce cruelty to farm animals and Aborigines.." I know it wasn't intended but this jumped out at me as an unfortunate juxtaposition of words. A good article though. The Rudd sell-out definitely needs to be highlighted. I'm not nearly as hopeful as Mirko however that it's all just an election ploy. Unfortunately, I think we're seeing the real Kevin Rudd in action and just as sadly I think he intends to dominate Labor.

there are a couple of issues here.
1, The ALP desperately wants to get elected and so will do all it can to do this. If this means copying Coalition policies so be it if it is felt that voters like the policies.
2, Kevin Rudd is a technocrat he is not a risk taker, this will mean that my first point will be very attractive to him and his advisors.
3, If all this 'me too' politiking is a mere smokescreen hiding a move to pre-hawke (whcih it seems many ALP activist seem to wish for. then it is extremely well planned. And to be honest givne the ALP's factional landscape in my mind unlikely.

One thing that should be said - the strongest way to send a message to the ALP that you believe it has become too conservative and doesn't offer a real alternative to the Liberals is to NOT vote [1] ALP in the lower house. You may not actually want the Greens or Democrats to actually take your lower house seat (let alone form government), but if enough left-leaning ALP supporters put either party before Labor on their ballot paper, the ALP would actually be relying on those preference votes, and the progressive voices in the party (which still do exist, fortunately) would hopefully get a little more say.

The 83 and 96 changes in government were marked by hostility to the incumbents and a clear choice for change.Both are present now.

What's missing this time is a real feel for Rudd the man. He (usually) says the right thing, but for me there's a lack of conviction in him. Just one example. His wishy-washy IR reforms-no ripping up WorkChoices for him, but a gentle, half arsed response. He didn't even take Keatings bold advice to legislate minimum standards and rates, and let AWA'S stand.

At least we knew Hawkie, and eventually Keating; and Howard has been consistently Howard since the 70's. Rudd seems to still lack something against these leaders.

Palimpsest,that is an excellent observation about our Mr Rudd.He is not a person who stands by principal or seems to have any conviction forged out of life's anvil.It is all made up according to the changing political whims and fancies.At least the Coalition stood by their IR reforms,parts of which I don't like.

This makes Kevin a very unknown quantity in terms of what he really believes and will he be able to stand up not only to the unions but Julia Gillard or Peter Garrett.We are about to leap into the abyss with Labor.I hope they can supply us with a parachute that is functional.

The only thing consistant with Kevin if he becomes PM will be his rollovers at the behest of the unionists. If he doesn't do their bidding he'll be replaced.

I think that is the great unreported threat to his leadership.

The likes of MacDonald, who have real and strong support in the Labor Party, and not just in WA, will look to get square. They'll also be looking to have their interests paramount. That includes the early change to IR laws.

Yep Kevvy will cave to retain his position.

keep up the scare campaign, guys. it's working wonders for you.

webby, since you're posting in response to mirko, maybe you can ask him whether nailing thieves to crosses is a legitimate use of torture. that should be an engagingly principled discussion.

“Either Rudd is telling the truth when he agrees with Howard, or he is lying in his teeth and will follow a completely different agenda. If he is telling the truth there seems little point in voting for him, as Howard has the advantage of experience. If he is lying you can have no idea what he stands for and should not be elected.” (Plerdsus 25 October)

No I don’t think it is as polarised as that. He’ll follow a somewhat different agenda. If he is lying and really does hold great concern for the future and wants to get us off the insane continuous growth spiral and direct us towards sustainability, then he should be elected. But of course we just don’t know.

What chance would he have had if he had stood up boldly for the things that really matter; first and foremost the most urgent effort put into mitigating the effects of peak oil, secondly, directing the nation strongly towards sustainability and thirdly and almost inadvertently, dealing with climate change while addressing those two much more urgent issues?

The fact is, given the current economic boom and the huge vested-interest business sector and indeed general community that are benefiting from it, along with huge pressures from overseas, it would have been suicide to have pushed for things that will obviously threaten it.

Within our system, an enormous schism exists between what we urgently need and what an aspiring leader can proffer.

So should we condemn Rudd for deeming the best strategy to be to basically imitate Howard and rely on a younger and more energetic image? No.

The real trouble lies with us not knowing just how Rudd will bend this imitation once he is in power.

Even if he turns out to be an arch advocate for addressing the really big abovementioned issues, he’ll still have to be very careful, for fear of alienating huge vested interests and being replaced at the next election by a rampant pro-development stuff-the-future PM.

Sh!t it is an awful situation when you stop and think about it!

Rudd agrees with Howard on many things. He is not lying and why should he be? The ALP and the Coalition have been similar for half a generation now. Neo-liberal economic policies on privatisation, criminalisation of trade union officials and members' activities started with enterprise bargaining in the 1980s and Work Choices is an extension of that evil. Peter Costello would give a new wave of industrial relations "reform".

Experience? Preferable to have the Libs you say? Come on now folks, let's be realistic. All politicians are experiences in policy, even those in Opposition for donkeys' years. They al work on Senate Committees with their opposite number from the Libs & Nationals ; also policies are drafted and ministers briefed by public servants; even Opposition members are parliament get briefs. It is everyday working knowledge of all of them.
This "experience" thing in the Liberal Party adverts is for the gullible public who fall for the campaign managers of both main parties who pay large sums of money to advertising agencies.

G'day my Fellow Australians,
Thought you might like to know about the Roll Poll we are running in conjunction with the marketing of our Limited Edition of The 2007 Federal Election Toilet Rolls. The site is self explanatory and can be viewed at http://www.allonaroll.com .
Have fun its the best way to relieve the stress of politics , and ensuring that our leaders are " Flushed With Success" on the campaign trail
Best Regards
Glyn Hannen All On A Roll 08 9351 9171

Ludwig

"What chance would Rudd have had if he had stood up boldly for the things that really matter?"

I actually think he would have had a good chance if he'd done it properly. He's articulate and personable and people are looking for a leadership that is different to Howard's. If he'd struck out on a bold course and really sold a definite plan for combating climate change and bringing back some fairness into the economy I think people would have gone for it, especially if he'd had a team behind him strongly enunciating the same message.

Of course the vested interests would have gone into overdrive and brought out every dirty trick to discredit him, but I still believe he might have pulled it off. Unfortunately, it's one of those things we'll never know.

We have to remember it's the people who vote, not corporations. In fact voting is the one and only time where people power should be able to outdo corporate power. The main problem of course is we have a corporately controlled media dictating the campaign direction.

I still feel though that Rudd would never have it in him to strike out on such a course anyway. I don't think the real Rudd is much different to the real Howard.

Howard is simply pathetic.

K.rudd is simply a pathetic COWARD.

Voters get the government they deserve.

Vote 1... the K.rudd.

Bronwyn

Yes if Rudd had had his heart in it, he possibly could have gone down a strongly different path that would have appealed to a winning majority, and beaten the massed vested-interest forces that would have mounted against him. Possibly.

But I doubt that even if he did have a strong conviction to strive for sustainability and tackle peak oil head-on, he would have gone down that path anyway, because he would have seen the huge difficulties that it would have generated for his campaign.

Anyway, if he’d shown any such convictions, he would never have been elected leader of the Labor party, would he!

“I don't think the real Rudd is much different to the real Howard.”

That’s the bottom line.

Stop giving this guy oxygen - he is an idiot.

Having got that off my chest I will turn my attention to the matter at hand.

There is not now nor has there ever been all that much to separate the major political groupngs in Australia - the myth of me tooism is born out of a culture of relative consensus that characterises the Australian psyche - only in the past decade has there been a drift to more extreme expression of racial intolerance and general mean spiritedness - and it is that more than anything else that is driving the polls

Each of the parties has flirted with a degree of socialism - Black Jack McEwen was a agrarian socialist with great influence, there are still remnants of that today - Keating embraced globalism with more enthusiasm than his conservative predecessors - and Hawke deliiverd brakes of wages growth and over saw the progressive reduction in tarrifs

- there have been few if any "politcial visionaries" with great new ideas - some might elevate Whitlam to that status - but most of his initiatives have been wound back or undone - and much by his own party.

The pendulum of political policy ( or the PPP as sneekee likes to call it - feel free to use it in general conversation )swings through a very small arc here - so it is of no surprise that Rudd mirrors Howard and indeed vice versa.

Australia is a very conservative nation - the conservative commentariat would have you believe that the barbarian left controls every social agenda you can name - but in spite of their dire warnings at the end of the day we remain a conservative bunch - and are destined to do so for a while - dont expcet a revolution anytime soon.

Ludwig,
I love your reference to the bottom line, It's why we exist. We exist to assist the informed public, proving that you can wipe away the Election Woes, and whats more you can do it with a smile. Cutting the crap is easy with us .
We will change forever the myth that nothing can be changed, except by removing the incumbent Government at election time. Why wait until an election , you can register your disapproval of a governments actions but indulging a few of your own. Its great for morale . And great for frustration. Join us at www.allonaroll.com Have fun . Politicians exist to serve us, not us serve them
Cheers

Mirko, you see a conflict between a morally-based society and economic growth (“If Rudd can urge the nation to move towards such morally uplifting ends, even if it means a small reduction in our economic well-being, …”). I don’t think that there is a contradiction, a country with a stronger moral base and greater harmony is likely to prosper.

You comment that “the community does not know the man well enough to make an informed assessment,” and Palimpest comments that “What's missing this time is a real feel for Rudd the man.”
Kevin recruited me to the Queensland Office of Cabinet and 1991, and is now my Federal MP (while our former OoC colleague Anna Bligh is my State MP and Premier). In my experience, Kevin is a control freak. He kept a barrier around himself; he had occasional staff meetings, ostensibly for broad-ranging discussion, but his approach completely shut out the opportunity for constructive criticism or other comments. I worked with Goss and several ministers, and I found that Kevin applied the same attitude to most ministers – he called the shots, and ministers knew that without Kevin onside, they had no hope. Whether he can exert such control at Federal level is dubious.

On the positive side, Kevin’s intelligent and often supported good public interest policies. But he also gets bees in his bonnet, e.g. his push for national teaching of Chinese and Japanese in schools (stitched up with his NSW equivalent) led to many children wasting time on a trivial introduction to two very complex languages. Kevin’s argument that we needed fluency in these languages to do business was nonsense – the years spent to master those languages would be better spent developing business skills – and we have done wonderfully well in our business dealings with Japan and China.

Kevin’s campaign literature in 04 showed him explaining the ALP’s tax policy to two “battlers.” The “battlers” were two long-term party members and Queensland public servants who got rapidly promoted (in one case middle management to department head) when Beattie became Premier.

Howard? Should have done better.