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)

As one who is regularly criticized for daring to quote from dearest Margarets august library of quotable comments, I feel entitled to suggest anyone who sees the false promises and the grandstanding of the incumbent Australian government is fully entitled to condemn the shallow philosophy and political policy on which we are being lead.

Doubtless had the current difficulties been faced by the current opposition, they would have produced the policies which would deal with the problem but without enslaving our children to fund the debt being produced from this socialist excess

I lived and voted in UK prior and during the Thatcher years. I can talk first hand of the incompetence and abuses of political power by the socialists at the time which ensured the British population elected Margaret Thatcher’s government in a land slide… similar to the one which is about to see the loathsome Gordon Brown kicked out of office.

As to snippets of MT… the whole quote is this
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

It was true then, it is true now.

And to balance quoting form Margaret…

Comrade Lenin..

“The goal of socialism is communism”
“A lie told often enough becomes the truth”

And MT was instrumental in bringing the inheritors of Lenins house of cards down too… good on the woman.

We need her more than an albino Chinese dental technician look-alike

I find it hard to understand why some posters feel the need to develop and display such passionate hatred for world leaders.

Like Pericles, I too found the Thatcher voice grated. I did not like her patronizing talking down attitude. I also admit to disliking Howard’s brevity and arrogance, Costello’s smirk, G.W. Bushes public blithering, Tony Blair’s schoolboy laughter. Nor do I agree with all their decisions but I do respect them for making and implementing tough, sometimes really tough political decisions.

I also respect the right of their nations to elect them, their authority to make decisions on behalf of their nations whilst in office and the right of each nation to replace them through the ballot box.

I have never felt the need to denigrate, vilify or demonize the leader of someone else’s country nor sections of the media because I disagree with their policies or position.

Mr. Denmore, <<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>>.

I made absolutely no reference to the ETS, I was actually thinking of the free pink bat insulation for some. I don’t find that “a matter of opinion”, I find it discriminatory to both non-recipients and people employed in other industries.

But since you mention the ETS, the green lobby has stumbled too far to the left to be appeased by our ETS, Kyoto, the next Kyoto or the Copenhagen gab feast. They are now beyond redemption.

The “Thatcher” era, like so many of those denigrated by some, is not typified by getting it right every time. They are typified by passion, conviction, tough decision making and implementation.

Australians are willing to give Kevin Rudd and the ALP a fair go and I support that, I might disagree and be critical of policies. What really worries me is that seemingly everything proposed is a compromise. No passion, conviction or tough decision making. Worse still is nothing significant has yet been implemented.

There is no Thatcher bite.

Well said Col.

The labor trend,

Promise everything, Deliver nothing, break most promises, splash the cash to buy votes and point to others in worse situations who are spending the same to get out of a dire situation which we don't share.

I am not happy at Krudd borrowing $60 000 on my behalf and spending it on his toys.

We don't need Thatcher, we need a firing squad.

I cannot think of a worse example than Maggie Thatcher to “sort out the mess we are in”.
She was the instigator of the so-called hands off government approach with a deregulate and sell off everything as touted by the Chicago school and originally put forward by Hayek.
Market forces will supposedly run the economy and stabilize it. A fine idea, but for corporations.
Their sole purpose is to squeeze the last drop of profit out of any business with no morals or accountability.
They have used their immense financial power to buy politicians and now virtually run the world through servile governments whose only ambition is to be re-elected and to hang on to power.
It will make no difference if the Liberals win the next election, it will only mean more of the same under a different label.
What is needed is a new type of party that has not been bought by big business and has the integrity to carry out real reforms.

Unfortunately it will not happen under the present system.
The only way that change could be effected is to change the constitution and bring in a Swiss style referendum government.
Then we could not be just taken into an illegal war, big coal could be held accountable for the pollution they cause and made to pay for it instead of being subsidized for it.
The oil and gas industry could be nationalized to stop our gas being exported for worthless dollars and saved for the day when we will need it desperately for our own public transport.
Money could be diverted to designing and building genuine alternative power sources instead of watching them depart for foreign parts due to lack of support.
Money could be spent to provide rainwater tanks on every house to provide a solution to the drought and provide employment for the steel industry, plus installation.
Can anyone see a liberal or labour government doing any of this?
Or Maggie Thatcher?

Oh my! Mr Kerin, what a sense of humour you have. I admire that in a man. I do. Honestly.

Can we all play this game?

Well!!: I nominate Adolf Hitler as head of the Jewish Orphans League.

(It is unnecessary to elaborate on matters Thatcher. Thank-you!: Mr Denmore/GYM-FISH/Chris Lewis-agreed!/sarnian. THAT'S why it is unnecessary).

For the truth about Margaret Thatcher why not Google: The First Post Neil Clark Dont Believe the Myth Margaret Thatcher Ruined Egalitarian

Rather than fully enter the debate, I present two snippets; the first, a letter to The Australian on 12 April on the NBN (not printed) re the approach of my former boss and current MP, K Rudd:

"Kevin Rudd does not have an "instinctive view that government knows best" ("Cable Guy," 11-12/4) - he thinks that he knows best. Unfortunately, he doesn't. The rationale for government infrastructure spending is that it provides returns to the community which (a) exceed those available on any alternative use of resources, including tax cuts, and (b) can be provided only by government.

Where are the cost-benefit analyses and economic modelling which show the proposed NBN to be viable? Nowhere, because it's not possible - there will be heavy losses, to be met by taxpayers. There are surely many potential infrastructure projects with much higher returns than the NBN.

But who should build them? The reason governments throughout the world privatised government utilities over the last 30 years was their demonstrated inefficiency and unresponsiveness to user needs. In the 1980s, the productivity of Australia's government-owned infrastructure was less than half of the OECD average.

Rudd has already mortgaged our future with massive ill-directed giveaways which will mean higher tax and interest rates for years to come. The $43 bn NBN will further exacerbate this ongoing cost to the community."

I'm sure this will be more valid after tonight's budget, further justifying Kerin's view.

As for Thatcher's comment on society, my archive shows (next post) ...

Thatcher on society;

"and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour"

and: "If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate."

I fully agree. Truth, honesty, integrity, compassion, effort and selflessness from each one of us is what counts, both for oursleves and for society. Smaller government and a greater onus on personal responsibility and development is surely the way to go.

Disagree? Then ask how Mr Rudd rates on the above qualities. Do you really want him running your life more and more, with his splash-the-cash deficits, massive restructuring and economic disruption through the ETS and union-driven IR agenda? Like Kerin, I am an ex-long term (UK Labour and) ALP supporter. Never again, I fear.

Thatcher nor Kevinomics is the solution.The problem is the Global Reserve banking system and their creation of inflationary money.If you create counterfeit money ,you go to gaol.If the banks create counterfeit money,it is called monetary policy.

Since 1969 we have had 1800% increase in the amount of money in our economy.Eventually it had to collapse.If you as an individual counterfeit $25 million in money,then you are stealing $1.00 from every person in Aust.The banks with their fractional reserve system of loaning out 9 times of what they have in reserve,steal many times this amount and our Govt let them continue this theft.

There is a better way but our Govts are toady boys to the Global Corporates.

Any comparison with the world economy and the political leaders of 20 years ago are useless and irrelevant.

To be honest, memories of the Thatch's legacy should also include her massive public asset stripping, a period of the worst poverty levels in Europe, the rising culture of greed and growing social division, plus a certain personal arrogance resulting in the attempted and outrageous poll tax that ended her career.

Haha! Sorry I doubted you Col. But where is 'Socialism by Stealth'? It's like I was attending a concert and the band didn't play their hit song!

Spare us all this tripe about Thatcher. Politicians and Prime Ministers who spout the kind of pompous, patronising platitudes that have been quoted above are invariably the ones who cut dole payments and social security, drive public schools' morale and funding into the ground, spend up on warships and bombers (to conduct a Mouse that Roared style war in the south Atlantic in order to win an election over so many dead bodies), and cut taxes for the well-off. Invariably. Those quotes reveal little but hypocritical cant, a prelude or epilogue to another round of bashing the poorer sections of the populace such as those who can no longer find the jobs that have been made to disappear. Britain today produces next to nothing except financial products and Scotch whisky. Thatcher's great dream was to turn a nation of corner-shop grocers and coal miners into a nation of shareholders and council-house owners. Both she and Reagan went ga-ga.

As for Rudd? Fabulously disappointing.

Rapscallion “Thatcher's great dream was to turn a nation of corner-shop grocers and coal miners into a nation of shareholders and council-house owners.”

I suppose those who were not there might consider her in that manner but, as someone who was there at the time, the facts and the truth was entirely different.

But even if those were her goals, they are better goals than us all to be merely the vassals of the state ruled through the yoke of socialism.

Lets face it, private ownership works better than state ownership and Australia still aspires to being a nation of home owners rather than a bunch of tenants.

So none of what you claim would stand even passing inspection..

but then that is also the Krudd agenda.. prepare a grandiose budget based on fraudulent forecasts of future growth and ignoring interest rate increases, whilst he continues to ham-string employment opportunities and business with a debilitating Emissions Trading Scheme…

policies which mean we will all share equally in socialist poverty

The same sort of policies which Margaret Thatcher was elected to overthrow back in the 1970’s.

As for the Falklands war… initiated by a south American dictator.. I suggest you back up your spew by justifying his claim to the illegal military occupation of the Falklands as easily as you criticize Thatchers opposition to it

Pericles, "It cannot be a coincidence, one suspects, that the current edition of The Economist runs a piece on Thatcherism." No coincidence, much of the Uk media wrote articles on the 30th anniversary of Mrs T's accession.

Rapscallion, "As for Rudd? Fabulously disappointing." Not to those who know him, he's living up to my extremely low and negative expectations. Though the GFC is, unfortunately, giving him more scope/excuse to wreak havoc than I foresaw.

It will be a long time before we recover from Rudd's depredations.

Let it go Col, your dealing with an intelligent, articulate, well read and sometimes funny poster however, it is clearly sufferning the "Croaker Syndrome". Those with a despondent, defeatist, grumbling, rumor-mongering enmity that prevents facts ever replacing a stubborn ideology.

Well Margaret Thatcher won't be back but there is a new Kid on the block who is brillaint.Daneil Hannan.Go to youtube and see him tear Gordon Brown to pieces.

Over 2 million people have viewed this video.
Daniel will be the next conservative leader who believes in the free markets,small Govt and personal liberties.

....and then dearest margaret introduced her poll-tax.......

In wanting a Thatcher type, Paul Kerin apparently wants someone who was deeply involved in causing this mess. Good news, Paul: that's exactly the type Obama and Brown have been using.

Sarnian, I agree.
I have never been a fan of Thatcher, or her Guru, Hayek. That isn't to say the Austrian school has nothing to contribute.
The true causes of the massive inflation we have endured to cause the current crisis are not unionism or high wages, but simply too much money in the system; largely due to borrowed monies through the fractional reserve banking system, and...
All the proponents of 'small government' are right, but I think they miss the core point.
The other major cause of inflation is too many people for the goods produced.
Where once the accepted wisdom was 'for one in the office, 7 producing on the workshop floor', now every genuine producer in this country has to carry 7 in the office. Successive governments have done nothing to reduce the bureaucracy; they have merely outsourced the bureaucrats and in so doing, cost the Australian people some valuable cash cows.
We still have virtually no manufacturing industry, our primary producers are still hammered by drought, and our minerals exports are too reliant on fickle markets.
Time to dump this globalisation nonsense, and concentrate on being self reliant. A healthy economy uses the international market as a dumping ground, for surpluses.
www.avasay.com

This clamour for a 'strong leader' to sort out the 'mess' is a barely disguised call for a dictatorship.

As in 1996, when were lead like sheep by Paul Keating into the arms of the vicious and unconscionable Howard Government, Australia's elites would like to see us delivered into the arms of an equally nasty coalition Government to make us pay the cost of the mess they have created.

Let's not fall for it again, this time. If people feel disillusioned with the Rudd Government, as many have good reason to be, let's, instead, vote for the Greens or any other minor party or independent candidate who stands for policies better than those of either Labor or Liberal.

Let's put Labor second last and the Liberals last on the ballot form.

Why stop at Margaret Thatcher?
What this country needs is another war. Or better still another depression.
Then when we've all taken our medicine we'll feel better.