This approach to political "leadership" - do nothing but promise everything with great flourishes of non-meaningful activity - is the same script being followed by Obama. Both elected leaders desperately want to be loved by all and to please everyone.

Both have very thin skin and consequently will go to great pains to avoid criticism but have no problems handing out great gobs of it particularly to the previous government. Apparently they both have a very juvenile attitude where they believe they will raise themselves up to look better the more crap they throw on their critics.

This is not surprising since Rudd and Obama share the same left wing political consulting firm in the US.

Rudd is a polititian, like ANY other polititian from ANY party. They all promise the earth to get elected then give nothing but spin in return.
So what's new? Haven't you worked that out yet? DUHHH...

I am not an economist, but I have read Orwell. Even so, I feel in need of instruction to decipher the real meaning of "stimulus". As a term in the vocabulary of economists it is very recent. I suspect it is feel-good word covering something a little less attractive. But no-one I've seen has had anything to say about this. Surely in a nation where paranoia is a normal personality trait, somebody somewhere must also have felt this to be a suspicious technical term. My first efforts at decoding go somewhat along the following lines. If the government runs up an enormous debt, that debt is guaranteed by the general (tax-paying) public. That public will therefore have to work very hard and pay LOTS of taxes, in order to meet payments due. The government is therefore in a strongly augmented power position, because it can crack the whip and we must jump.

Much the same virtue seems to inhere in the ETS. My understanding of the ETS is that it will not reduce carbon emissions by one jot or tittle, but it will increase the price of everything, with the government poised to market energy resources in order to obtain the revenues from taxing them. with the profits from carbon emissions a new source of government revenue.

Veritas you are 100% correct.It is a con job.Both the Corp and Govt want it.It is just another derivative ponzi scheme.If carbon is so toxic then leave it in the ground.No! They want to mine increasing amounts of it and add a tax and establish a new share market derivative to profit from.

I bet they won't agree to my proposal.If we are going to have a tax on carbon,then all the money collected goes towards developing alternate clean energy and giving cheap solar to all tax payers.

Watch them cough and splutter at this proposal,since the minority elites won't benefit.

TO Arjay and Veritas "Hear Hear "

Thus is the nature of politics.

For interest, the GetUp site runs PromiseWatch and keeps a tally on some of the promisies made pre-election.

http://getup.org.au/promisewatch/

Rudd has made a decent effort in some areas but has failed on some big vote winning promises to veterans, pensioners and minimum wage earners. Very un-Labor like. I am not sure the ALP is much better than the Coalition in some areas of IR and yet still rides on the claim of supporting the working class and social justice.

A sign of our neo-Liberal times which includes the privatisation and transfer of ownership of public entities to the private sector in the naive assumption of better service and efficiencies. I drove down to the East Coast yesterday and could not get coverage with Optus on various stretches of road for about 40 or more km in NSW - not in the outback. Despite mobile towers in sight - just not my provider. What a waste of resources when we could all benefit from better service rather than seeing one hill with three different mobile towers - madness.

Agree with veritas and Arjay for a change on the impotence of an ETS to actually have any real effect on emissions.

susssssh ... don't say aything about whales or boat people.

Being and Nothingness.

Or demented Howard lovers who still cant accept the little liar and cheapskate is gone,keep dreaming on boys, hopefully the libs will be destroyed at the next election.
What are you lot going to do then,import Russ Limbaugh and those other bone headed fools Hannity and Beck.

As I recall it, Howard was pretty much electorally on the nose at this point in his first term too and was looking a lot like a one-term Government. I believe that Beazley actually got more votes in the following election but not in the seats that mattered.

Howard had Martyn Bryant and Rudd has the GFC.

Howard had a long time to dismantle much of Keating's reputation and the same thing will happen to Howard as the negative consequences of some of his stewardship start to reveal themselves - some aspects of the US Free Trade Agreement for example.

PM Rudd is certainly going down the usual Australian politician's road of bluster and promise, and is selective which promises he keeps based on populist gains.

I'm a little confused by the references to PM John Howard though, and this comment from John Ryan "hopefully the libs will be destroyed at the next election".

John, do you mean you'd like to see no opposition at all? Would you then like to suspend democracy and just have the ALP run Australia?

Who would provide balance, or is that the problem, you don't want any balance? I'm constantly amazed at the kind of intolerence in Australia politically. After the last election I heard an ABC morning presenter in Melbourne question whether any conservative journalists at all should remain employed, now that the ALP was in power. (it's not like any non conservative journalists lost their jobs for their political views during the Howard stewardship)

I don't particularly like PM Rudd, but I don't hate him. While some people hate PM John Howard so much they are prepared to have a dictatorship instead of the party he no longer leads providing some balance to Australian politics.

People who call conservatives extreme need to have a look at some of the comments this forum produces.

No but I can remember Howard wining the senate then we had no opposition and he did what he wanted,the opposition here is just a joke.
Its OK if the Libs are in Power we dont need an opposition the Howard lovers Johnny knows best.

John .. let it go, let all the hate just go away, and the pain will stop - if it doesn't, get help.

John

Sadly you your behaviour exhibits a lately growing intolerance that is starting to infect many segements of multi-cultural Australia.

Many people I interact with, like myself, whether liberal, conservative, labor or further left have the common old Australian attribute of being level-headed, tolerant and 'persuadable'. Added to that is a widespread attitude of settling our differences in all aspects of our lives with reason and civil debate and including a desire for equiblity and decency.

Your behaviour is the complete opposite of those values.

For the record I'm liberal minded, detest conservatism and loathe socialistic attitudes ... equally. I'll always listen to reasoned argument presented civilly without rancor or raised voices. I don't mind passionately held or expressed views so long as the 'tall poppy' syndrome of envy is at least held in check.

I think most Australians are similar in outlook but more importantly are impressed by such.