Who'll be wearing Rudd's Dudds when he forms these interminable committees that amount to nothing?Yes,one Julia Gillard.Julia may well be our first female PM when the Ruddster runs out of puff.A Ruddster is a car that expires,for fear of it's own impotence.

Chris,

I'll point out that I didn't associate either Labor or the Liberals with being either Left or Right. I simply said that the traditional roles that the Left and Right play don't exist in the Australian current political scene.

"by the left, including myself, that we are for everyone being equal"

I'll disagree with you on that. If you look at the article I linked to, and particularly the comments, you'll see advocates of both Pattern Bargaining and 'classless society'. While you may have moved away from those concepts, the 'Hard Left' certainly hasn't.

"in fact, I am a die hard supporter of capitalism and democracy (the collective will of the people). Are you?"

Indeed. If I had to put a label on myself, I'd almost (important word there) align myself with Objectivism. It, like most philosophies, has plenty of holes in it which is why I don't align myself with it entirely. However, it certainly places capitalism and democracy (and most importaly, property rights) as highest order ideas.

"The article was about highlighting why Rudd's rhetoric has not been matched by policy."

Here we agree. However, what is not mentioned is the volume of tokenism in many of the policies delivered. The First Home Savings Accounts are a massive failule, both in concept and implementation. And the Apology, while it has its heart in the right place, does nothing to fix any problems. It's all symbolic.

"I, for one, am most interested in battlers rather than the rich, although we must always be careful to ensure that the Aust economy remains competitive"

One hopes you're not targetting the 'rich' here. If we want this country to rank amongst the highest in a range of arenas, then we need to promote success, rather than our current tendency towards tall poppy syndrome.

Cheryl

The bureaucracy is a problem, particularly in education. The same crew that managed the Flagpoles for Funding scheme is still running the show. Witness the skewed funding under the initials roll outs of the Computers in Schools and Technical Skills Centres programs.
Adopting education policy from the USA is crazy when we finish well above the USA on most international education measures. It also ignores the tremendous capacity we have in this country. Still, it got Bolt, Albrechtson and Donnolly singing Rudd's praises. (Jesus wept!)
Caucus is cactus - they appear to be totally impotent and waiting for the next edition of the Australian for the next government announcement.
Trying to paint the AEU as the enemy is a bit sad. Teacher bashing is fastest growing blood sport in Australia. The AEU will stand up for teachers and try to get a bit of balance and fact into the debate

Chris,
Or should I say Brover Chris (channelling Normie)?
If I had 1500 words and the inclination I could either pick your article to pieces or write a detailed argument as to why the “left/right” labels indeed the concepts are no longer applicable or relevant. They are in fact either intellectual laziness or more specifically political expedience on behalf of the protagonists.

A quick way to
• Quickly reach the less thoughtful
• Appeal to the WIIFM factor (What’s In It For Me) of the less thoughtful, less altruistic. The very selfishness could be argued as an indication of the irrelevancy of the class war mentality you offer and the cold war symbolism of the CIS.
• Brand recognition and political product differentiation expedience.

I could show
• how people’s understanding in the western world has moved on. As evidenced by falling union support. When I studies IR unionism was around 50% to day it’s 20%.
• That politics has moved (tragically) from issues to personality.
• That current Capitalism, Unionism or even Democracy (in or out of unionism) as honourable concepts have been so corrupted as to be mere hand maidens to the attainment and exercise of political POWER.
• That these corruptions now form the basis for biased one dimensional reasoning.
• That the want of more reasonable terms today “issues” are left/right et al. and that people are no longer exclusively divided on those lines.
• To do so would be to deal in fictional/notional caricatures and as such simply decrease the ‘confidence’ level of the proposal.
• The litmus of this is the deliberately hung Senates.
• People just want better government better ideas regardless of their origins.
• Et al

Both your and Jerry’s article and response contained or based litany of ‘absolutist’ (unprovable) assumptions. I don’t either of your Commitment or Enthusiasm but I do challenge your Objectivity and/or realism.

Rudd’s actions didn’t match his rhetoric and that he’s involved in political tokenism I would counter by saying that today this is a reality of both political sides and assorted pressure groups

Chris Lewis

You claim that the point of your article “is to show why Rudd's rhetoric, as evident in the Monthly, was always rubbish.”

You then say: “…I try hard to be balanced and sophisticated.”

How can you possibly have amassed sufficient evidence since Rudd’s election in December less than a year ago to make the absolutist claims about Rudd:

1. “…a level of intellectual dishonesty greater that any Labor or Coalition leader of recent years.” And

2. “… the greatest con artist of all time in Aust politics…”

‘Balanced and sophisticated’? Your absolutism doesn’t sound like evidence-based argument to me. It’s more like a personal prejudice in search of cheap applause (not hard to win on OLO).

Your claim that Rudd "...has brought Australian federal political leadership to a new low in terms of promising the world but delivering little" is inane even on your own terms where you selectively list a number of Rudd’s significant achievements to date which Howard wouldn’t touch.

If you are going to mount a convincing demolition of Rudd (and you might give him at least one year to develop a record), you’ve got to be at least more consistent and intellectually rigorous.

Quote: “Though Rudd will move to the left of howard [sic] on many issues, he was never going to be dramatically different to howard [sic] who Rudd accused of being mean-spirited.” So he’s the greatest con ‘of all time’ but was ‘never going to be different to [H]oward’? The greatest con but no different to Howard?

Quote: “Of course, Rudd has made a difference, but nowhere near as much as he suggested with his 2006 and 2007 rhetoric.” Hello! Rudd was elected ALP leader in December 2006 and PM in December 2007. What do you think of Turnbull’s performance as Opposition Leader? He’s had a couple of days.

I wonder if a person claiming a Ph D in Politics is prostituting himself for more gigs with the right-wing "Quadrant"?

Lewis like many commentators has ignored that the Rudd government like many previous Labor governments has a 'hostile' Senate for the first few months in office. Rudd is powerless despite all the best will in the world to implement many of the policies 'he' was elected into office on. He is no 'dud'just frustrated in his role by an an opposition doing its job. Howard had the same problem when first in office, perhaps we should revise the constitution and be like New Zealand and have no upper house.