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.