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.