Dont think its 'need to be popular' that kevin has a problem with...its needs to work on his 'street_smart_excellence...and move up on the scale from where he is...and this involves taking calculated risks...

for any reasonable person in his job requirement constantly find themselves at complex cross-roads of varying organized vested interests pushing/powering/undermining to 'direct the action'(which aolmost always required by publicv-elect in a specific particular set of factors to situation that affects the whole of 'society in daily action') whether by support/criticizing all the way in scale to direct physical intervention in situation)...and some o'vested-interests' have been at it for so long that they are now highly effective organizations monitoring/influencing/and in worst case use 'common_public_power' vested in parliament/government/judiciary as their own tool...deceitfully/hidden of course...while misleading public to hide the 'truth'using media)...u know what I mean...(eg walk-out on Ahmadinejad's speech...look at video Raw Video: Iran's Leader Sparks Western Walkout http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmH6ns1rCjc ...pre-organized and walk-out with mass-clapping during just after he starts to humiliate...in place where varied opinions are there to be expressed without pressure/prejudice for discussion...UNo is a failure...

as a leader...kevin reasonably aware of above said...and skilled now...and his choices are basically 3...allow vested interests to buffet the direction, to skillful pleasing/appease all the way to stand strong and almost alone...

and this is where 'street_smart_excellence' comes to play...constantly know the 'society bigger picture' and where sustainable balance of interests lie in each situation...and most importantly where that particular situation he/parliament is dealing with lies in scale of importance to 'balanced_society_interest'...so really important issue, being used by vested interest to maipulate into usual 'us-and-them' tool for their own benefit...effect is against society balance itself...and have large manipulated-support say of parliamentarians(worked on long before issue is up for discussion...ie open discussion of relevant material facts fail per duty requirement of parliament...)then kevin should and must stand alone...with common_public firmly by his side...of course hoping tyhe public is also working on moving up the 'street_smart_excellence' scale...and also able to work through to where the general fact/truth is...currently this is what Imnot sure kevin can/willing to do...and so fails...

sam

There is only one reason for the problems of the Afghans today. Their choice of religion.

We the Australian people, & even our silly PM owe them nothing. We definately don't owe them the lives of even one of our defence personal.

With the Taliban now taking control of much of Pakistan, it's a fools errand being there, even more so than when we joined Bush going there.

The fact that that dill Obama wants to send more men there should have us running a mile.

Any compassion that Rudd may have can be much better utilised at home, rather than on this lot, who run away from their country of birth, wanting others to keep them.

Bruce Haigh would probably classify me as part of the “mad right wing”; but, who are these “thoughtful and swinging voters…” he talks of? People like him, one assumes.

Well, if polls are to be believed, he must be one of a very few ‘thoughtful swingers’ in Australia. Illegal entrants don’t seem to be of much interest to the Australian voter in general.

Rudd is a populist, and while self-interested and gullible voters are getting what they want, he will remain the most popular PM ever.

It is astounding that a politician can make pronouncements on the vileness of any other strata of society as Rudd did, but what’s that got to do with Bruce Haigh’s theme?

Nothing. Bruce is merely once again using his dislike of Rudd (which I share with him) to beat his fellow Australians over the head about illegal entrants. My dislike of Rudd, incidentally, doesn’t mean I voted for Howard at the last election; most of the illegals during his time were detained for a while, then allowed to come to Australia, too.

No matter what brand of government we have – and there is little difference between to two major parties – no illegals should ever be allowed to reach Australia. Border protection does not mean detecting illegals (eventually) then escorting them to Christmas Island for secretive measures to be used by immigration which will allow them to be transferred to the mainland where they will be allowed to stay.

Border protection means turning them back.

So, Rudd’s opinion that people smugglers are no better than politicians is irrelevant. It’s all Rudd’s fault for weakening Howard’s already weak policy, and not providing sufficient craft and personnel to ensure that illegal entrants could be turned back, towed back, or treated in any way that would prevent them from coming again. (The current lot, which have costs us a lot of time and money, were having their second try at getting here).

Continued...

...continued

I find it highly offensive that able-bodied Afghans are trying to sneak into Australia, and able-bodied Afghans are already here, when they all should be back home fighting the Taliban, instead of Australian soldiers fighting for them and being killed for their efforts. Most Afghans stay put; the cowards coming here are merely using the war as an excuse to get here and save their own hides. They are not worried about their countrymen or their country.

The fact that some Afghans have been on Lombok for 8 years, and are thinking of coming here – as the current lot who are on their second try were – clearly shows they were not in immediate danger, but I’ll bet my last dollar, that they will be allowed to stay here after fooling our easily fooled immigration officials (they are all coached in 2 or 3 set stories) and our stupid politicians who are, in fact, aiding and abetting people smugglers by finishing off the journey for them when they are taken to Christmas Island by their toothless ‘protection’ agencies.

Rudd needs to start acting like the Prime Minister of Australia; not providing “an alternative (to people smugglers) to meet the needs (!) of the minority groups in Afghanistan”, as Bruce the great thinker and swinging voter suggests.

Comparing the evacuation of Jews from the holocast to the money motivated boat burning smugglers today is a bit rich. And considering that the refugees are paying about $10 000 per person, it would appear that they are not really the ones in need.

Considering that Australians donate more per capita virtually than any other country, it would be difficult to call them uncaring.

However, the majority of Australians, (in almost equal numbers of labor supporters) especially in these economic times, don't savour the prospect of essentially unemployable migrants being housed fed and cared for at the tax payer's expense.

Given that there are billions of people in stressed communities around the world, the solution is to help them where they are, and not to decamp them and house them all in Aus.

The almost complete failure of any refugees in the past to settle in Aus is the prime and most effective deterrent, and while not a pleasant subject is vital to our way of life.

Given a choice between Eastern European crime gangs flying in on tourist visas to skim our ATMs and refugees who are prepared to spend all their savings and risk their lives at sea to remove their families from danger and give them an opportunity of a safe life, I'd go for the refugees each time. They seem to be brave, resourceful and committed to their families,and have the potential to make a contribution to Australia as long as they aren't sent mad by prolonged and brutal detention when they get here.

So what if they are motivated in part by a desire to improve their economic circumstances? Hasn't that been the legitimate motivation of pretty well everyone who has voluntarily come to Australia since 1788?