Insightful comparison between the known and unknown options.

But I suspect that since the Australian electorate seems to be strongly leaning towards a left of center government that Australia, under Rudd, with strong labor control will become much more transfixed on internal issues and mandates as most other leftist governments in the world.

This will probably mean resurrecting old tariffs and other impediments to trade as well as significantly improving the trade union control over the Australian workplace which will lead to a much diminished place in the world debates on anything meaningful - including Kyoto II. After all, how much attention is given Venezuela on the world stage?

But the end result may be what the ALP is after: a significantly reduced value of the Australian dollar which means imports are much more expensive. But, on the bright side, if our dollar becomes cheap enough major international firms will come here to have us make their sneakers thus saving, or even growing our manufacturing base.

A "left of center goverment under Rudd"?! Even the so-called current "conservative" governments of many European nations far more progressive than anything Rudd is likely to offer.
And the Greens must be completely radically left-wingers for wanting to propose things like...oh...I dunno, investing in masses of renewable energy to ensure we can all keep our modern convenient lifestyles, tougher sentences for drug dealers, pledging more money for pensioners, supporting private industries like tourism, wineries and housing developers in Tasmania...

Curious what you would consider a government that was offering genuinely "left-wing" options like re-nationalising natural monopolies (telecommunications networks, power generators, freeways etc.), decriminalising drugs, fully-subsidised tertiary education for all, etc. etc.? Irrespective of whether I believe these are good ideas, is it so unreasonable to expect that I might at least have the choice to vote that way?

As much as I hate labels, politically we have shifted to the far right of politics under the Howard government. The Liberals cannot claim to be representing the interests of small business or ordinary Australians, they are seated purely in the camp of the big end of town and have bought into the myth of 'economic growth' and free trade (particularly the one-sided US/Aust FTA) - to the detriment of our own industries and agriculture and increasing international debt.

We can only hope that Labor does not follow suit and shows some independence of thought and vision that would seek, not to serve one particular interest group, but serve the community fairly and equitably across the board. While there is nothing inherently wrong with one Party agreeing with some of what the other Party does, I for one, am hoping not for a carbon copy of the Liberals, but a different option (and hopefully a more honest, democractic and transparent government).

As far as definitions go ie. leftist or rightist in context of the post referring to a 'left of centre government', there are always problems. As a child growing up most of our utilities and communications were publicly owned even under conservative governments. Now if you mention public ownership you are labelled as a red even if you are just a pale shade of pink. Definitions are, in the main, meaningless and are influenced in the context of what is the accepted norm. Under a fascist government, voting might be seen as 'leftist'.

So while labels might help describe a 'flavour' it does not complete the full picture and sometimes I think we get too tied up in 'left' or 'right' thinking and maybe should look more at what works, better infrastructure, what is fair and what sort of communities do we want?

Looks like it is respectable language not always good policy that makes a popular PM?

Looking back on Mark Latham, maybe it was only the offensive language that had him pushed aside?

Latham was certainly right about Howard and Bush, but with language only fit for the shearing shed, as my wife always told our boys who swore in the house.

So where does the whole truth lie, with Lucky Johnnie Howard who unlike compatriot Blair, and with Rudd's too much - me too - could have Howard's Way in for another splurge, really sorting out our Schools of Humanities this time - like the Nazis only allowing the factuals that suit a ruler's own beliefs, leaving all the worrisome truesomes out, really favouring what we hear so too much lately on our OLO talkbacks, that it is mostly left-wing loonies who frequent the Schools of Humanities.

Could write much more because it has become a worry to one who spent his childhood in the wheatbelt watching plovers and wild turkeys in the paddocks on the way to school, with the mallee hens and fat-tailed dunnarts favouring the lowlands.

A worry because it is only in the Humanities where our young ones will learn such history, and a worry because those who are mostly concerned about such problems are the Greenies?

And finally a major personal worry because one has helped produce too many great grandkids, their parents the grandkids mostly more with too much a belief in Howard's Way?

A worthy commentary Reg.

Rudd is showing signs of doing what all Labor Governments do both internally and externally.

Internally where there's a problem; throw money at it. He's pledged to fix problems of bed shortages, elective surgery waiting lists and abysmal operation of emergeny departments in our hospitals by giving the states, who created the problem, more money. He hasn't said 'change the way you do things'. He's said fix it or I'll take them over and I'll run them ... and the unspoken part is 'the same as you do'.

With trade it's Labor's intent, as stated by Martian Fergusson, to run with multi-lateral agreements rather than unilateral negotiations. eg To push the Dohar round. Another Labor tradition.

In Foreign Affairs it's Labor's history to run with multi-lateralism, particularly in dealing with the world through the UN. I haven't seen suggestions in this area of Labor being different. The personal backing Rudd are the same as backed Hawke and Keating in this area ... with the exception of Jovial 'Jakarta' Kym.

In addition to these predilictions, on a personel level, Rudd exhibits the classic trait of immaturity. An inability to learn and change. I am contradicting a small but vital part of your contribution Reg, and I am somewhat surprised few people are prepared to analyize Rudd in such a manner. The classic symptom of such an inability to learn, change and grow is the display of the need for attribution of blame when things go wrong. And Rudd has exhibited this on a few glaring occassions recently. Such character traits only become more accentuated as one grows older... as does the opposite ...an acceptance of responsibility for ones actions and a sensitivity to initiate the processes that see an adult change so similar errors can be avoided. These traits are with people from childhood and without dramatic self-appraisal are difficult to change at say ... 50.

I opine Rudd hasn't the background, the personal, nor the character to alter the way Labor historically faces and deals, or more exactly avoids dealing, with our country or the world.

Thank you Mr Little for such a well crafted article, it is about time that someone, anyone, took Mr. Rudd to task for appearing to stand for nothing except his own Prime Ministerial ambitions.

We have already heard that Mr Rudd prides himself as a fiscal conservative in managing the economy but he didn't mention that he was a social conservative supporting Howard's interference in Aborigine affairs. He also didn’t mention that he was an ecological conservative backing the wood chip plant in Tasmania, military conservative backing Australia's role in Afghanistan and Iraq only withdrawing our troops after consultation with our allies. And finally his support of Workplace legislation that he assures will continue as is for the next three years.

I have little doubt that Mr Rudd will be our next Prime Minister but I must admit unlike the vast majority of Australians I can't see one reason why

Keith

Unfortunately modern elections in Australia have become popularity contests. Surface appeal has become far more important and politicians minor missteps can cost them elections.

Rudd is displaying all of the political skills of an old stager in deflecting the attention onto Howard and his record rather than providing a case for why he should be Prime Minister.

Your criticism of labour throwing money at a problem to fix it is a massive over-generalisation. And given Howards’ pork barrelling over the last ten years there is no way this is a party political problem.
The problem with the hospitals and the states in general is that the states have most of the funding responsibilities but only a small portion of the fund raising rights. We should either do away with the states or allow them to raise the revenue needed for their expenses rather than force them to go cap in hand to a, often self-serving federal gov’t.

Your conclusion that trade policy under labour will be dominated by the unions is in stark contrast to the statements and actions of Rudd. Indeed the sacking of numerous labour unionists shows Rudd has the clout and the guts to force through the policy’s he is campaigning on.

The conclusion that Rudd is immature because he won’t take the blame when things go wrong is hilarious, there is a group of people who fit this description and they are called politicians. I’m not sure what mistakes you think he should be blamed for. Perhaps you could supply some examples.

It is unfortunate, but I believe we are not seeing the real Rudd, because you can no longer win an election from opposition any other way. Rudd clearly has a lot in common with Blair’s New Labour and I am sure we will not see a labour gov’t of old when Rudd takes office next year. I think we will see a better Blair.

personal - pertaining to the person
personnel - manpower, workforce, team

Peter Garrett has revealed that a Rudd Government would enact their own policies, not their 'me too' election policies...

[quote]"Mr Price said Mr Garrett told him the "me-too" tag would not matter if Labor won government because "once we get in we'll just change it all".

"Mr Price said he was so surprised that he asked a third person present, Nine Network entertainment presenter Richard Wilkins, if he had heard correctly.

"And he said, 'sure did, he said it all right'," Mr Price told his Sydney audience on Southern Cross Broadcasting."

http://au.news.yahoo.com/071014/2/14o4y.html [/quote]

Why are we so desperately short of news from Iraq? We know Howard has proven to have the media hold back news he doesn't agree with. But why Rudd?

Read below part of reports from the New York Times et al.

Desperate Bush apparently forgives Saddam’s Sunnis.

General Petraeus orders his subordinates to offer amnesty in Iraq. Money and local political power offered to Sunni tribal guerillas who agree to cease their resistence to the American occupation. Most are ex-members and sympathisers of Saddam’s Baath Party.

Prime Minister Malik, and his Iraqi Shiite establishment have become increasingly perturbed as Petraeus pushes ahead. Deals are now being struck with Sunni groups in Baghdad and Sunni majorities in surrounding areas. The New York Times has also reported that American troops called in helicopter gunships preventing Shiite soldiers from rounding up former Sunni terrorists.

PS Looks like Bush, Blair and our Johnny H going illegally into Iraq to save the Shias from Sunni persecution was a waste of time.

Apparently this news is nearly three months old, can anyone explain?

From a mystified BB, WA.

The news below is three months old. We know Howard has proven to hold back significant news. But why Rudd?

Desperate Bush apparently forgives Saddam’s Sunni's.

General Petraeus orders his subordinates to offer amnesty, money and local political power to Sunni tribal guerillas who agree to cease their resistence to the American occupation. Most are ex-members and sympathisers of Saddam’s Baath Party.

Prime Minister Malik, and his Iraqi Shi-ite establishment have become increasingly perturbed as Petraeus pushes ahead. Deals are now being struck with Sunni groups in Baghdad and Sunni majorities in surrounding areas. The New York Times has also reported that American troops called in helicopter gunships preventing Shiite soldiers from rounding up Sunni terrorists.

I believe the parallel between Kevin Rudd and Tony Blair is a chillingly accurate one, indeed, I would add another comparison between Rudd and the recently departed W.A. Premier, Geoff Gallop.

All three are, in my opinion show ponies and good front men capable only of making an incompetent bunch of politicians look appealing. If Rudd becomes our next P.M. look for a bloated spin machine pumping out Labor propaganda, an emphasis on feelgood photo opportunities, plenty of easily remembered slogans and little of substance. Oh, and, of course, a return to 1990's style labour relations with trade unions once again in the box seat.

Realistically, we are being offered the same Government we twice rejected under the far more intelligent and genuinely decent Kim Beasley. Why elect them now just because the new guy is younger and prettier and has a better media profile (whatever that has to do with anything).

The reason why Rudd will be PM is simple: he has won not by winning, but by Howard's losing.

Why then has Howard lost? Simple: he has implemented right-wing idealogy in the work place without teaching the people what right-wing idealogy is all about. That is, he has made the mistake the Liberal Party has now made for decades: he has forgotten to teach the people why it is he has done what he has done.

Unless there is a fundamental change in the idealogical understanding of the Australian people, unless there is a return to understanding the sacredness of individual liberty as a stand-alone concept, Australia will continue to spiral irretrievably into socialism, with the result that right-wing parties will eventually exist only in the nation's memoirs.

The Liberal Party has now decades of teaching to implement: it will take at least 50 years to teach the people comprehensively what it means to be right wing, what it means to be free, why Socialism is evil, and why the Liberal Party exists.

But unfortunately, it will first of all take about 15 years to teach the Liberal Party why they need to do this, as most Liberals understand little if anything of their own purported philosophy: they are cultural liberals, not idealogical liberals.

A return to idealogically-based politics is essential for the preservation of right-wing parties, Australia, and the free world. For without the presentation of right-wing idealogy, the average man is, by default, left wing. For the principles of individual liberty are not as readily apparent as whether or not one is provided with safety shoes and a tea-break at work.

Trade apprentices learn two ways:
1. On the job
2. Night school (where the theory is taught).

Similarly, people learn about individual liberty (the ethos of the right wing) two ways:
1. 'On the job' (experiencing the result of government policies in society)
2. Being imparted with right-wing idealogy through the mouth of right-wing politians and educators.

No.2 is missing in Australia, and disappearing in the United States also.