I think Jack Marx perfectly summed up Rudd's Labor when he wrote:

"... despite my natural lean to the left, despite the fact I was brought up to root for Whitlam and boo Fraser - an inclination that continued with my knee-jerk admiration for Bob Hawke and Paul Keating and an equally automatic loathing of John Howard – I now find myself disliking the Rudd Labor Government like I’ve never disliked any before it. What irks me most about this is that I think I despise it not because it is witless, or arrogant like Howard’s Liberals, but because it is so clever - perhaps the first Government in our history smart enough to know how stupid Australia really is, bold enough to openly exploit that stupidity, and contemptuous enough of the intelligent minority to care not a hoot what they might think of it all."

Mark Latham was the last time, in a life, nay, generations, of Labor voting, that I voted Labor.

I handed out how-to-vote cards for Keating and Latham, but I wouldn't have wiped my backside with one of Rudd's.

Kevin Rudd is a popularist, he is like the 8yo kid who tries to be popular

Everything he does is to try to be popular
People worry about glocery cost -"let me help you" Grocery watch
People worry about petrol cost -"Let me help you" Fuel Watch
People worry about their mortgage and spending for Xmas - Let Rudd give you cash!
People worry about the environment - Let Rudd give you the ETS
People worry about their jobs - Let Rudd reduce the ETS

There is no real plan for Australia, there is no real plan to get us out of this crisis, Rudd just say the popular thing and does the popular thing. Rudd is trying to win the 8yo most popular kid at school contest, and he will romp it in at the next election.

On day 10 year down the track, Australia will figure it out, and will view him likee the Carr government of NSW .... they were popular, but they did not do anything for 10 years .... Australia will suffer

While reconciliation to me has been important for the country, and that I've also been deeply troubled by some refugee experiences, I've known for a long time that these are no longer the heart of the ALP, just the red herring to keep a lot of gullible voters on board, I say gullible because the only small-l-liberal party now in Australia is the Greens, and a hung parliament with greens holding the balance of power in the house of reps scares the hell out of our country's ruling class because they would no longer have any of their supplicants giving them their preferred policy or law outcomes on a silver platter.

We need to reverse media ownership concentration, reduce immigration, roll back Howard's welfare changes completely (grant the right of refusal without breach to any job that does not pay a liveable wage), and cease the exploitation of our youth by ending junior pay rates for all occupations except apprenticeships only (most traineeships were created to provide another avenue for cheap exploitable labor for predatory employers).

“If corporate Australia does not trust a Labor leader, as history amply demonstrates, then the media that it controls will prevent that leader from attaining office.”

I fear that Marko Beljac is right. And not just with Labor but with any candidate or party. Our system of governance does indeed seem to be this horribly corrupted, to the point that the type of leadership that this country desperately needs is just about impossible to achieve.

Vested-interest, profit-driven, continuous-growth-at-all-costs big-business forces are all-pervasive.

There have been some high points of the Labor Rudd government. The apology to the Stolen Generation - was a landmark in a healing process that we must build on, to 'bridge the gap' in indigenous health; and to ensure that the 'Australian story' is an inclusive and honest one.

In some ways, though, these issues are easier for Rudd Labor to deal with than the pleas of the ACTU for real progress im industrial relations. Reforms that threaten the interests of corporate Australia - we can be sure will be resisted vigorously...

Julia Gillard fails to see that wage austerity for Australian workers, and attacks upon the rights of organised labour. Austerity. in particular, will only fuel a 'vicious cycle' - reducing consumption, and then investor confidence, and so on and so on...

The $10 billion stimulus package was a move in the right direction - but comprised less than 1% of Austrealian GDP. Assistance for pensioners was also a positive measure - but only a temporary 'stop gap'... And in the aftermath of increases in the Cost of Living, pensioners and low income earners have 'felt the brunt'...

Most notable is the failure of Labor to provide anything for the unemployed... Threat of dire poverty,here, no doubt is meant to 'discipline' the labour market.

Rudd Labor has options - and certainly it is unthinkable that the Comservatives - with their neo-liberal and contractionary policies - could do better.

As I feel I have learned the hard way - Labor needs pressure both witin and without - for there to be any chance of it 'delivering the goods'.

Rudd's apology to indigenous Australia would never have happened - without a grassroots campaign which gathered steam over decades...

Rudd Labor today works within the confines of a 'relative centre' framed by corporate elites, corporate media - with talk of 'union bosses', 'irresponsible strike action' and the like. The jobless and the vulnerable, meanwhile, (in another form of 'wedging' are stigmatised as 'bludgers' - that the austerity they face can fuel corporate and middle class welfare.

More in next entry...

One thing former ALP figure Evan Thornley had right in'Coming to the Party'-was the idea that Labor needs a radical wing,and radical vocies - to drive debate forward-such that the Labor mainstream could be progressive-but appear 'moderate' in the 'bigger picture'...

The 'centre' is NOT absolute...Although as constructed by parties adopting the language of the 'Third Way'-formerly social democratic parties capitulated in the face of neo-liberalism...

But a TRULY 'radical centre' is another matter...I have thought about this as part of my rethinking of 'Third Way' politics...

Giddens abandoned much that is essential for social democracy...But a 'counter hegemonic historic bloc' - AND/OR an "Electoral Bloc'-needs to carry amd CONSTRUCT the 'RELATIVE Centre' to win government...

And so the struggle is more gradual...progress glacial...fought through popular culture...The broader cultural struggle marks the ground upon which the parliamentarists can fight...

Of course, even here, there is a need for truly radical forces-and for more militant outbreaks of class struggle... (take the example of France...)But assuming we accept liberal democracy-as well as social democracy AND class struggle...the key is to truly mobilise citizens - through unions, environmental groups, welfare organisations;to form a cultural bloc which an identity and a perspective - that can rival corporate power - and the 'culture industry'...

At least the ACTU is not currently allowing itself to be cowed into silence-as it was to a great extent during the election campaign...

Organised labour is still the potential hub of any bloc which could stand to challenge for a new kind of society...of popular and worker's power;an inclusive and particpatory public sphere-as well as liberal and social rights...

Parliamentary politics, by this reckoning, are still crucial....And the State itself is not some crude 'instrument' wielded by the 'ruling class' to supress dissent...It is itself marked by the logic-and the dynamic-of class struggle...

One issue of immediate importance is the issue of the National Broadband Network...see my article from OLO Jan 13th...

*Vested-interest, profit-driven, continuous-growth-at-all-costs big-business forces are all-pervasive.*

Ah Ludwig, but like many, you ignore the fact as to who drives
big business, ie CEOs of large companies. Just examine the
share registery of the top 20 shareholders. Most are Super Funds,
run by managers who want to impress their members with great
returns and those members are in fact Australian workers.

So the wheel comes full circle.

Why do these managers push so hard? Quite simple, they want
to do better then the next guy with whom they are compared,
so that they can ask for a pay rise, if they get results.

Human nature, at its very basic!

Labor under Rudd is no better nor worse than the Liberals. True he rushed off and signed Kyoto and said sorry to the "stolen generation" - token gestures that briefly, oh so briefly, raised the hopes of environmentalists and the left for a shift from this destructive big business as usual path Australia continues to follow and for which future generations will pay dearly.

I for one will never again vote for either party and have to debate long and hard with myself as to which of the two to put ahead of the other on my ballot paper. I think I will just toss a coin next time round.

Another dilemma that needs to be faced by those who genuinely see the need for a radical change in direction in our society is what to do with our superfund and other savings. I took the the first steps yesterday (prompted by the Wilderness Society) to withdraw from any fund portfolios that cannot guarantee they don't invest my money in Gunns Ltd (as an example of an environmentally destructive enterprise).

SOMETHING has to be done to combat the "growth fundimentalists" that have taken over our society and cast a heavy cloud over the future.

When Mark Latham bled fourteen percentage points from the polls in 2004, in seven weeks, it was not because he upset big business. The people he really upset were the 65% of real fair dinkum Australians who claim to be Christian. When he came out and claimed to be an atheist, seven weeks before the election, he handed Howard and the Liberals an opportunity to exploit the majority view.

Rudd worked this out immediately after the election, and a comment on this site, dated 13 December 2004, expressed his views. 23 seats shifted camp from the coalition to Labor, due in no small part to Kevin’s confession of Christianity. On the 7th August 2006, KR addressed over 500 Christians at Parliament House, and told them the Labor Party had Christian roots and could be trusted.

His podcast with John Howard, explaining his Christian credentials, was taken by 200,000 people who went to their local church, to hear them both. He argues that the Conservatives have a rusted on 40% and Labor has a rusted on 40% but it is the little people in the middle who go to church, who elect governments.

Australia is controlled by lawyers. Lawyers are members of a secret cult of control freaks whose philosophy is to regulate and control everything, from cradle to grave. They may go to church but they are hypocrites, because they have fully integrated their power and abused their membership of all Parliaments.

The only monopoly that ASIC has not set out to smash is the legal monopoly. Since 1952, when Menzies organized the High Court to make Rules excluding free and unimpeded access to the Federal Supreme Court Australia has not been a democracy.

By allowing lawyers committees to write Rules of Court, just as Mohammed wrote Rules of Behavior Parliament has abdicated its responsibility. Instead of the Holy Bible we have the State Red Book, or the Federal Black Books, controlling our lives. Nine divisive Churches devised by lawyers, of which we must be members. Kevin Rudd has promised to restore the Commonwealth which means Republic.

“..you ignore the fact as to who drives big business…”

Yabby, I don’t think I’m ignoring anything.

“Human nature, at its very basic!”

Yep.

Governments are supposed to mitigate that constant push for expansion from the business sector where it is a threat to our future wellbeing. In fact, this is one of their most important roles. We’ve reached the point where it is very much a threat to our future.

So it begs the question; could any PM or government escape the ‘growth trap’ and survive the following election?

This really is one of the key questions of our times, as we so desperately need to stop rushing towards the cliff and to embrace a paradigm of sustainability.

The so called big business is nothing other than the typical Bureaucratic run and operated systems, they are but seemingly extensions of the Government bureaucracy , and the same intellectual incapability to function in any manor other than the to ensure their salaries and bonuses exceed their capability.
Like Government, Big Looter industries have the peasants to rob and milk dry. And when you realise that Government is the + 30 percent shareholder in the Loot gotten, that’s why the bureaucratic System Side with the Bigger Looting conspiracy.
You have to remember that there is Three tiers of Statutory thievery at work here ; Local State and Federal ; and the golden milk is running out.
The bigger the Sack of gold, the bigger distribution to fund the Government Bureaucrats; Liberal and Labour;

Perhaps a little unorthodox in an explanation , but when the real achievers and those with ability are substituted with useless idiots and morons , what more do you expect.

Thanks for that article ,Marko.Biff was a breath of fresh air but had no chance,as you explain.
It has been obvious to me for years that our 2 party system is just plain broke and is leading Australia deeper and deeper into a pit.

The only political hope is the Greens but short of a major popular movement for radical change they have no chance of having any significant influence under the current electoral system in the House of Representatives.The states,except Tasmania and the ACT,are in the same boat.

It is possible that only an economic crash and burn will wake enough of the sleepers to start a reform process.I'm convinced that nothing of any positive consequence will come from the current hierachy.

*Governments are supposed to mitigate that constant push for expansion from the business sector where it is a threat to our future wellbeing.*

Ludwig, that push for expansion is coming from the people themselves,
who want more. You and I might be happy with our lot in life,
but we are not the majority of people.

So its back to the tragedy of the commons. Short term, wanting
more threatens nobody and people by nature, act in their short term
self interest. Politicians reflect what people want, or they
are thrown out of office, they know that.

Long term, unless we address the constant global population increase
of 80 million or so a year, what Australians do hardly matters
in the bigger scheme of things.

I once looked at the demographics of Indonesia and they were
forecasting a population of something like 500 million in 50 years
time. With that kind of pressure from the our nearest neighbour,
Australia will have no chance of living in blissfull isolation
from the global problem.

I think it hilarious that peoples loathing of John Howard blinded them to the simple fact that Mr Rudd was by and large going to continue his policies. Any sensible person knew that his climate change promises were just that 'promises.' Now that more and more realise that climate change is a hoax Mr Rudd knows he really needs to do very little except show up at free lunches making out that Australia is somehow a leader in this hoax.

Runner,

I was not fooled by Rudd's rhetoric although of course a tiny bit of hope of some change to the business as usual scene was better than no hope at all which the Liberals offered. One of these two demons, has as I said in an earlier comment, to be put ahead of the other on the ballot paper.

In the recent WA election the Carpenter government was punished by many of those who sought some reasonable responses to demands for positive environmental actions to reduce the environmental vandalism that has been part of the culture at all levels of government and business in this state.

Carpenter did nothing - not even the easiest of things that practically all the electorate were in favour of such as to reintroduce a container deposit scheme along the lines of that in SA.

Guess why they did nothing! The packaging industry? Of course. WHAT a surprise.

The left still don't get it! Private enterprise creates the wealth in this country which the left succor.

Well this is odd. Ludwig, usually I agree with your posts, but the precise quote that you singled out and agreed with, is the quote that made me dismiss this article.

"If corporate Australia does not trust a Labor leader, as history amply demonstrates, then the media that it controls will prevent that leader from attaining office."

Before this point I thought the article had merit. After this point, I found it difficult to take it seriously.

Not because of the point in relation to 'corporate Australia.' Indeed, when a candidate is not approved by 'corporate Australia' then they generally don't have a chance. I'll get to why, later.
My disagreement stems from these notions:
a) the public are spoonfed through the media.
b) 'corporate Australia' is some kind of malicious entity that operates with any kind of cohesion.
c) That this ambiguous entity waves some kind of magic wand and the media falls to heel.

It doesn't work like that. As I've said in other threads, the media certainly will pursue the lowest common denominator, and yes, they're out for profit - but outside of the imaginations of conspiracy theorists, there's no boardroom of evil-money-hungry powerbrokers stroking white cats and issuing directives to their media lapdogs.

There is a reason why candidates who don't appeal to 'corporate Australia' fail and it's not to do with the media, (except for the fact that they're not competent enough to project an electable image to the media which happily pounce on any slip be it an actual slip or perceived one).
It's more the fact that as you yourself have said, our economic system is predicated on growth.
Those who don't have the nous and ability to provide for the corporate sector are doomed to fail this system. If they can't figure that out and they can't project an image that shows they're capable of assisting corporate Australia to achieve that growth, then clearly, they will not be competent enough to project an electable image.

Perhaps this link should be the preamble for Bureaucrats and their expendable vanguard- Politicians- For when the basic principle is lost , so is society.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/22/
And when you understand that principle , then learn ;
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/96/
I told you so.

“Ludwig, that push for expansion is coming from the people themselves..”

Yabby, the apparently insurmountable push for expansionism comes from the powerful business sector that has the ability to destroy a candidate or incumbent leader.

The general community both supports expansionism and complains about tis negative effects; road congestion, insufficient water supply, health and education that are not keeping up with increasing demand, etc, etc. They generally don’t like high immigration. People in high-growth areas that have all the necessary facilities generally don’t like continued rapid population growth. The right leader could convince them that population stabilisation, a steady-state economy and a paradigm of sustainability are definitely the fundamental things to strive for.

But the big business sector is interested in increasing profits far above any other concerns.

So it is not just a simple tragedy of the commons scenario. It is a case of the rich and powerful, who are inherently aggressive in getting what they want, accumulating huge power, ruling the roost and continuing to be very aggressive, one-eyed and careless about the future wellbeing of our society.

“Politicians reflect what people want, or they are thrown out of office…”

No, it’s not that simple, because the people who want continuously rapidly increasing markets and labour forces have highly disproportionate power compared to those who want it all to be capped or would support it being capped if they heard a concerted message from our politicians or from high-profile learned people like Tim Flannery.

Thus, politicians don’t necessarily reflect what the majority of the community wants!

“Long term, unless we address the constant global population increase of 80 million or so a year, what Australians do hardly matters in the bigger scheme of things.”

Yes it does…to us! If our society starts to really crumble, then some other national force would be more likely to seize the moment and attempt to take us over. A population of 35 million in a struggling failing society is hardly going be a bigger deterrent than 23 million in a strong coherent society.

“the public are spoonfed through the media.”

TRTL, they pretty much are, aren’t they? I mean, how else does the public get to know what our pollies and big companies are up to?

“ 'corporate Australia' is some kind of malicious entity that operates with any kind of cohesion.”

No. They are just pursuing their interests, which is ok….and criticising decision-makers that don’t do what they want, which is also understandable. The problem is that they have vastly more power than opposing forces. They are a pretty cohesive force, and not particularly malicious….most of the time!

“That this ambiguous entity waves some kind of magic wand and the media falls to heel.”

Not in such simple or direct terms, but in effect it is not far from the truth.

“It's more the fact that as you yourself have said, our economic system is predicated on growth.”

Yes. Totally. To the extent that a leader or aspiring leader wouldn’t dare to question it in any way, for fear of incurring suspicion in the mighty corporate sector. And yet it is this very growth… or by far the largest component of it; rapid population growth, that we desperately need to be reigned in. The other main part; economic growth due to improved efficiencies, renewable energy sources and technological advances, is the bit that we should be encouraging all the way.

So, as you say, if a leader can’t figure out that he needs to “project an image that shows” that he is “capable of assisting corporate Australia to achieve that growth”, then he won’t get elected. That’s pretty much the same as the quote that you object to, as far as I can see.

Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard are an unlikely couple. Lawyers basically worship Temple made Law, and KR regularly goes to church, and identifies with thirteen and a half million other Australians.

The Big Business that KR and Julia should be reining in are the robber Judges, who run the eight other States in Australia. The Republics established themselves after the Australia Act 1986 was refused at a referendum. States and Territories are simply thieving Principalities, organized and run by Judges for lawyers.

Kevin Rudd is the first honest leader in nearly sixty years. He has picked some very good young Ministers. Chris Bowen, Minister for Competition Policy. Bill Shorten, Secretary for Disabilities, Tanya Plibersek as Minister for Housing. But unfortunately stuck with Robert McClelland for Attorney General.

Chris Bowen is hunting cartel behavior, and the biggest and most destructive cartel in Australia is the one run by Judges. If the Federal Court of Australia would compete for business, with the Supreme Court in each State, as directed by the Trade Practices Act 1974 and abide S 45 Trade Practices Act 1974 and include 12 ordinary people in every proceeding, as the “judges" mandated by S 79 Constitution, 300,000 badly put upon subjects of the Queen resident in corporate New South Wales, could get their driving licences back, and not have to fear the Police. Further enormous benefits would follow.

With few exceptions the only Church the lawyers attend are the Temples of The Judges or Magistrates, erected in 1970 in New South Wales and elsewhere in Australia afterwards, where they daily oppress the hapless citizens of the eight republics. These dishonest individuals, are unable to comprehend that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was legislated into law as Schedule 2 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986.

Likewise they accept the Australia Act 1986 though it contradicts itself. The Trade Practices Act 1974 should be applied, and State Sovereignty abolished. If Lindsay Tanner who would abolish the States, was made Attorney General taxes would be lowered and States pulled back into line after 60 years

No, Ludwig, they're entirely different.

So the media is easily wielded by the powerful to manipulate the masses?
This is a favourite theory in academia, but in the real world it's garbage.
The media just seeks whatever people will read to turn a buck. The 'manipulation' only ever turns in the favour of that media outlet.
Sometimes this will be in sync with 'corporate Australia'.
Sometimes it isn't.
Obama for example, has put forward a tax plan that will dramatically increase the taxes on the wealthiest few percentile of the American population, effectively returning it to the 37 per cent tax bracket that existed under Clinton. In return he will cut taxes for lower income earners. This will still provide a large boost of revenue, because the profits of the top few have skyrocketed in the last few years and taxing them that little bit extra will give much more to the government.

This tax is not in the interests of corporate America, however it panders to the masses quite well and thus, the media idolize Obama because more people will read it.
The interests of corporate America and the profits of the media do not dovetail in this instance, so the interests of the media have won out.

The reality is people understand our system is predicated on growth. They understand that if a politician is so inept as to be unable grasp this concept and work with business, they will fail under this system which will hurt the hip pocket of the voters.
Plus, if they're inept, they'll look, well, inept.

They are completely different different. It's common to consider the media the mere tool of the powerful, but that's simplistic and intellectually dishonest.

If the people are conservative, they believe the media is controlled by the liberal 'elite'. The reverse is also true.
If they have issues with corporates, they think the media is controlled by those corporates.
You'll find the corporates think the media is too focused on pandering to the public.

It's just the most fashionable way to shoot the messenger.

It is difficult to actually explain the media, but it would be safe to assume that the Leftoid secular indoctrination is a guiding black hole.

The other great travesty of Socialist Ideology is the very basic tenant of Envy, but of course the calibres of persons who proselytise these idiotic virtues are far from being needy , quite the opposite ; and to appeal to the level of the already fractured and state dependant constituents to keep the morons in power.
The obvious lay in some practical application of mathematics, in record tax receipts taken by Socialist Governments in the last 12 odd years State and Federal , everything around us is falling apart, and services are near paralysed and it is quite reasonable to use language that describes Australia as nearing on Third world ;- but with First class Criminals who consider the Gravy train is their right , by paradigm shifts and simple manipulation of language , and it is deliberate.

If someone can explain how Tax payers can enter into a contract with supposed private enterprise – to build info structure at a cost of 5 hundred million , and the tax payer is compelled to pay 1 and a half billion dollars to compensate for the entities losses , it just cost the taxpayer 3 times more than the value of what it was to build it- and a repetitive scenario throughout Australia;- I would be writing million page books to describe the Tax payer funded Criminal conspiracy and incompetence.

Total collapse is all that is left and that be right. No turns available. The Looting must end now , at all levels.

“The reality is people understand our system is predicated on growth”

TRTL, this is your most fundamental point: that a leader simply MUST show that he will pander to growth if he is to be elected and stay in office. And yet this is the most fundamental thing that needs to be countered.

This absurd imbalance between humanity and nature is promulgated within our political system at this most fundamental level. Not only is this imbalance this entrenched, but a continuous worsening of it is this entrenched!

The media is part of this fundamentally entrenched growth ethic (or antiethic!).

If the people were told that our economic system didn’t have to be predicated on continuous growth, or that the only part of growth that we should be encouraging is the bit due to technological innovation, they’d be very receptive.

What is the average person supposed to make of the media that continuously toes the expansionist line?

Many understandably feel as though big business has the media wrapped around their little finger. I don’t it is quite like that, but in effect it is not far from the truth.

Sure, the media put out stories that run counter to the interests of individual companies or even to the whole show, indirectly. But do they ever put out the sort of thing that I espouse here and many others agree with; net zero immigration, steady-state economy, whole of society predicated on no expansion and genuine sustainability? Nope!

One of the great delights for me was discovering that in expressing this on OLO, there was a great deal of like-mindedness being expressed back. This was in stark contrast to my ten or so years of pushing the same sort of message through letters to the editor and articles in newspapers.

So, whether the media is actually controlled by the “elite” or whether they just go along with the dominant social and economic paradigm is moot. The effect is the same; the manipulation of the masses to unquestioningly accept never-ending expansionism instead of striving for a manageable size to our population, economy and society.

All- has a legitimate complaint against all eight State and Territory Governments. Being fully integrated from cradle to grave, as lawyer republics, with all decisions made by Judges for lawyers, with Parliaments misappropriating public money without any responsibilities attached to such appropriations, it is no wonder the robber barons rule.

In Section 83 of the Australian Constitution appropriations from the public purse can be made in two places; in the Court of Parliament and in a court of law. Under the paradigm established by the Constitution a Ch III “court” was empowered to determine whether the appropriation and exaction to cover it was “just”; Section 51 Placitum xxxi Constitution. After 1949, lawyers set out to abolish that accountability, by making lawyers, instead of 12 electors the judges of justice. Judges with a capital J, are not mentioned in s 79 Constitution.

It is said we have the best legal system money can buy. The only legal system money cannot buy, is the one established under Ch III Constitution. With that system, lawyers had to be honest, they could not plunder the public purse, and had to answer to the people represented by twelve electors, for all their actions. If Kevin Rudd can be trusted then he is going to abolish lawyer rule, and give it back to the people who have had it stolen from them by the Liberal Party.

Business takes a risk, and loses, the public should not have to pay. If that business is a State or Territory Government, S 64 Judiciary Act 1903 makes them accountable to a Ch III “court”. To avoid accountability, except every three years, lawyers have made members of their monopoly State Judges and Magistrates. This allows the legal profession a monopoly to sell indulgences to big business, just like the Pope used to do, and build basilicas to enrich themselves in with public money.

The Rudd led Labor Government has made a start, and Chris Bowen will smash this monopoly before the next election. Even the majority lawyer members of the big business Liberals will not be able to stop this

Great article!
There is no doubt that Rudd has more in common with Howard than traditional Labor supporters would like. Alas, both our parties have molded themselves to the times and are following the path to victory: Glib non-intellectual sound bites and back-room deals with big business.
There is a hint that ideology is intact but well hidden...but traditional media makes it very hard to tell!
I remember having a laugh at Indonesia's "democracy" where only one party was allowed: Some democracy! Then I realised we have a "two party" democracy. Yay, the supplicants have to pay off two groups instead of one. I really think it is time for a new grassroots party to be formed: Secular (not pretend secular) and based around a balance of Goverment/Business/Environment: No ambit philosophy allowed. (Left/Right, Communist/Capitalist). This is a tricky thing as almost everyone has been given a "side" at birth by their parents so will tend to see, at least, one side as "the enemy" and one side as "the corrupted good". I don't think anyone but the odd loony approves of either side of politics unreservedly.
Get rid of all welfare that is not income and means tested, get rid of the "private" companies taking both profits and taxpayer handouts, then nationalise the industries that cannot survive as private companies. (OK corperatise them but keep transparency and profits)
The left and right are so intermingled for historical reasons, I don't think there is even a clear line anymore!

Marko- Labor has for decades now followed policies that seek to include the working class in as part of the capital class. Keatings super scheme made most of us in some small way at least 'capitalists',the perennial accent on home ownership and Lathams belief that every aussie child should be the recipient of funds invested at birth, collectible on maturity, for instance.

Hawke and Keating defanged the ACTU when they got access to running super funds etc and invited them inside the tent with the Accord.

Your right in saying that Rudd is a sell out in this area of traditional Labor/socialist ideas but he is pretty consistent with the modern party.

Tristan Ewins wants a bit of French style radical action. How many burned out cars would he like to see? How many shop front windows smashed?

Palimset,

When necessary general strikes or other political strike action are effective means of protest...But should not be undertaken lightly...

Mass mobilisations...maintaining picket lines...Even the kind of occupations we've seen recently with Melbourne University students...are reasonable means of protest and resistance...

And if people were being threatened with being thrown out onto the street - as occurred during the Great Depression - then I think it could be justified to resist eviction...

Burning cars haphazzardly - and directly hurting their innocent owners - as occurred in France - no I don't support that...

In an earlier article of mine - on 'liberal social contract' I make it clear, though, that I don't want to see 'escalation' taken too far...

The question, though, under such circumstances - is that of how far the apparatus of state will go to quash civil disobedience...and thus how far resistance must go in order to resist oppression...

Strong civil disobedience is not to be taken lightly...But liberal and social rights are just as important as democratic representation - and even when a democratic government violates social and liberal rights - resistance can be justified...

I would concede that Mark Latham had a lot going for him and he was treated appallingy by the Labor Caucus. Also, my disillusionment with the Rudd Government grows by the day,

However, the Rudd Government still has a long way to go before it manages to reach the depths stooped to by the former Howard Government and I consider the fact that Mark Latham effectively endorsed John Howard over Kevin Rudd during the 2007 elections to be inexcusable.

I wrote of this in "Mark Latham's political gift to John Howard" at http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2195