oz pollies don't have to be good speakers. so they aren't, save by accident.

they do their important speaking in closed session of the cabinet, or caucus. americans, by contrast, are elected directly. this doesn't necessarily get better government, but it does encourage better speech-making.

keating would have made a good dictator if he had the support of the army. he might have made an inspiring leader, if oz were a democracy. neither is the case, and now he is merely a feather duster who has not yet recognized his obsolescence, an egotist who confuses arrogance with competence. he's wrong about 'narrative' too: australia is going nowhere and needs no story beyond '12 o'clock, and all's well!" from the village watchman.

The trouble with "a fair go" as an australian narrative is twofold. First, it excludes outsiders - where was the fair go for boat people refugees? For Sydney Muslims wanting to build a school? For Hicks? For the Bali Nine? For endangered Murray-Darling towns and rural communities? Where is justice, a fair go, for them now? Secondly, it excludes the rights of our children for a future.

The narrative I would like to see for Australian politics is that it government is a trust, for future as well as present generations. Obama understands that. There isn't a great deal of evidence yet that Rudd does, eg his government's sitting on the fence on coal windback and GGE targets, and conversion to renewables. Rudd is listening to interest groups - but is he responding to the real public interest in transforming our economy to be renewable energy-based. Tony Kevin

Tony,

The people you mention have have all had more than a fair go; much more of a fair go than they would have where they came from.

As for Hicks and the Australian convicted drugs smugglers - well, you must be hard up for someone to stand up for these days - which is probably why we don't hear much from you any more.

So-called refugees, Muslims, Hicks, drug smugglers; it's all so passe!

John Tons' essay is basically a confused mishmash of pop sociology and readers' digest world history:

"Countries like the UK, France and the USA have a well developed political narrative, a narrative that has been forged in the crucible of revolutions. At the same time that narrative is not fixed, it is continually being reshaped and remoulded in response to changing conditions, but it remains the benchmark against which policies are judged."

'Political narrative' is a very slippery concept in this essay. On the one hand, it's 'forged in the crucible of revolutions'; but on the other hand it's 'continually being reshaped and remoulded in response to changing conditions'. Sounds like nationalistic ideology to me.

The German 'narrative', we're told, was forged in the crucible of the 'besmirching' of the nation's 'political honour' in the 1920s and 30s (what no 'narrative' before then?); but a catastrophic war later its 'narrative' became democracy (surely he meant capitalism?).

The Russian 'narrative (strangely unlike the other revolutionary nations cited) remained inclined to 'autocracy'. Yet Mr Tons, while assuring us that political narratives are 'continually being reshaped and remoulded in response to changing conditions', asserts that nothing's fundamentally changed in Russia since 1917. The tsar is dead, long live the scars?

The current global financial crisis, asserts Mr Tons, is 'another dimension of the role of a political narrative' - though he's not sure whether globalisation has been driven by the USA or was a joint venture between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

Now Mr Tons would have it that Australia demonstrates the problems that arise from 'the lack of a political narrative' - although moments earlier he seemed to be asserting that the USA exported its 'narrative' to us.

A very strange essay. If Mr Tons wants to be regarded as an historian let his narrative be focussed on the facts not the ideology of the popular press.

there is a lack of naritive [or more to the point a limeted narrative, as highlighted by the 20/20 political stunt.

thing is we hear from the same biased cources
from identical reporting of pr pieces by the limited media[half of which is the tribalism of sport and star's [and the wholesale use of american [or british] cops shows and murder ,then cooking shows and the booze culture ,and american sit com

how about a new narrative?
it is to be hoped obama does things differently

like the TOO big to fail get broken up so they are small enough to partly fail

govt helps by breaking up the corpse of the dead 'too big to fail'
and cuts it into pieces [re issues the shares [shareholders get the last price as credit [to rebuy bits of the broken up entity

govt dosnt inject lent funds [it takes possesion of the FAILED entity then busts it up
and sells it off [quickly ,broke one week[new companies next week

give any cash injection to the underpaid
[is preferable than draging the values of realestate down
ie no more top down trickle DOWN theories[let the big boys EARN our funds

reveal the real inflation rate [or declare the figures are fraud [designed only to drag down the wages of those not getting true indexation ,a justice would be to remove all personal tax #ation [below 66,666. ,and tax increase those abouve 666,666 [66 percent]

we well know that if christ himself came today [he would yet be called the antichrist because peopple have the tottally wrong idea about the christ]
why should he COME BACK?
he WAS offered this place [and refused it [get it?]

why should the peacemaker come in time of war?
last time he only tipped the money changers tables
this time he would throw a bucket of water at em.

anyhow the idea is we support our presedent [right or wrong]
but not big buisness or the money changers
too big to fail?
like heck