Which explains why Mr Kerin works at the Melbourne Business School and is not in federal parliament.

The fact is that newspapers like The Australian (which published this screed) would hang a politician out to dry if they actually cut into spending in the way he advises.

There would be so many aggreived constituencies that The Australian and other reaches of Murdoch's loathsome empire would spend the rest of Rudd's term accusing him of "giving up on battlers" or "deserting working families" or somesuch.

The academic world is full of ivory tower dreamers with no understanding of real world politics saying "what we need is another Thatcher". What does Mr Kerin actually propose the government do without risking becoming a one-term administration??

We need another Thatcher? One was enough thanks! Take a drive through the devastated valleys of Wales, and note the present frantic attempts by Britain to get back into the industrial race now that virtually all of its fuel requirements have to be purchased elsewhere - just to mention one example. The 'trickle down' effect (a la Reagan) turned out to be a sideways torrent! The Rudd government is doing all that it can to reign in the profligate and populist cash spending and tax cuts spree of the Howard government whilst trying to keep living standards up across the board in the midst of what is said to be the worst international financial meltdown in living memory.
As to the so-called economically responsible opposition, I note the joke presently going around the traps:

KNOCK KNOCK!
WHO'S THERE?
MALCOLM!
IT FIGURES!

Gym-Fish,

Fair enough, but don't make out Rudd is any more responsible than Howard with his $900 handouts to people like myself (who earnt 70,000 gross last year), did not need it, and will not spend it, and then comes up $58 billion short in terms of the budget.

To be fair to Paul Kerin I think his thrust is to suggest “Thatcher” like leadership. For those of us who lived through that time, the realism, pragmatism and honest appraisal of the social/political situation, brought by Mrs. Thatcher was an absolute breath of fresh air. She earned her reputation as the “iron lady” and was widely respected for it.

Strong leadership does not seem to rate with many today however, there are many of us that have seen and experienced the consequences of weak, populist and tokenism from political leaders. Many of the social and economic gains delivered by Mrs. Thatcher were squandered by Mr. Blair.

GYM-FISH seeks to blame Thatcher for the present day mess in Britain, Howard for paying off the national ALP debt and for leaving a surplus and Reagan for being, well, dead.

Mr. Denmore blames Mr. Kerin for being a teacher, and not understanding “real world politics” like he does, and blames “Murdoch’s loathsome empire” for everything else.

To the question asked by Mr. Denmore, << What does Mr. Kerin actually propose the government do without risking becoming a one-term administration?? >>. Mr. Kerin no doubt has his own answer. My answer to this would be: Just keep on doing what the ALP is doing. Wishy-washy, populist, tokenistic policies, socially divisive handouts and Trade Union and Green lobby appeasement. With 66% popularity it must be working.

What it tells me, having experienced many such administrations, is that 66% percent of those polled are too young to remember, greedy or gullible

Spindoc, I'm not sure how you construe Rudd's total non-action on carbon trading as "appeasing the Green lobby". As to "socially divisive" handouts, that is a matter of opinion clearly. The fact is Rudd is curbing the naked bribing of asset rich, self-funded, tax minimising retirees that prevailed under Howard.

My point about Mr Kerin's wish for a new Thatcher is that this is the classic dictatorial fantasy of Platonic academics who feel democracy is wasted on the masses. Rudd - apart from his sellout on global warming - is simply attempting to stick to his election manifesto, which is what democrats do.

My point about the Murdoch empire is that just as it was a unashamed cheerleader for the Bush-loving culture warriors of the Howard regime, it has made fully clear it intends to use its editorial pages to undermine Rudd and bring back to power the ugly and narrowly representative reactionary right it is so infatuated with.

This is despite (or rather because of) the fact that Rudd is a conservative-leaning, unalinged centrist who has successfully commandered the great middle ground of Australian politics.

The ideologues of the right just cannot bring themselves to admit that their great libertarian ("there is no such thing as society", said Thatcher) economic experiment has failed miserably and that the people are reclaiming back the power that is rightfully theirs from overpaid and mollycoddled merchant bankers, single-issue think tankers and academics with no concept of realpolitik

It cannot be a coincidence, one suspects, that the current edition of The Economist runs a piece on Thatcherism.

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13610705

"The first charge [that Thatcher’s deregulatory reforms caused the financial crash] is true only in the way that, say, the Versailles treaty “caused” the second world war. There have been too many intervening years, factors and governments for the case to stand up"

What we are experiencing is probably just a hangover from the schoolroom, when the class is misbehaving and you wish that teacher would come and take the cane to the miscreants.

That'll larn 'em.

But don't imagine for one moment that Thatcherism was all about punishing the toe-rags and boosting the swots. She cleared out a lot of accumulated dross and wastage from the system - most notably the stranglehold of unions over productivity - and made individuals feel important again, rather than like storm-tossed peons.

Which brings us of course to Mr Denmore's regurgitation of that old chestnut.

>>...their great libertarian ("there is no such thing as society", said Thatcher) economic experiment has failed miserably<<

As he probably doesn't know, as it is most convenient for some folk to ignore reality in favour of the fable, this quote is inevitably taken out of context to show just how unfeeling the old dragon was.

The full quotation is here:

http://briandeer.com/social/thatcher-society.htm

What I would realy like to know, Mr Denmore, is which part of this statement, in context, do you disagree with?

(Acknowledgement: I left the UK during the Thatcher years because I couldn't stand the sound of her voice. Reminded me too much of Miss Hawker in third grade)