As much as the Hewson/Costello stoush is good spectator sport, who noticed the article in Friday's AFR "Review" supplement, where Mark Latham systematically deconstructed Kevin Rudd's performance to date?

http://afr.com/home/login.aspx?EDP://20090220000030854756&section=review

Unfortunately, in typical Fairfax self-destruct mode, it is available online "to subscribers only", but I would strongly recommend it to anyone genuinely interested in the world of smoke-and-mirror politics. Don't go so far as to sign up, though, that would send Fairfax the wrong signals.

Latham - and I very broadly paraphrase - considers Rudd to be a past master at the art of flip-flop principles, a one-man policy vacuum, feeding us a diet of tawdry emotion and hollow sound-bites.

He presents the case however with considerable style, leaning towards observation rather than judgment, whereas my synopsis above works in completely the opposite direction. Nonetheless, the conclusion that he leads us to is quite worrying, and far more important to Australia's future that a schoolboy spat between two irrelevances.

Belly “Conservative replys in this thread are mirror images of the party at large.”

Labor responses in this thread are mirror images of the party at large

Out of their depth, trying to grapple with that which they do not comprehend.

In short, imagine Swann and Krudd wrestling a giant octopus…. 4 arms versus 8, the two bipeds hampered by lack of oxygen… the octopus wins…

The losers… the Australian electorate

Krudd and Swann will be forgotten soon, they will not become “yesterdays men”, because they were never “todays men”. They are an excuse for a party of incompetents who achieved power on a generational swing and promises to do the same as the then incumbent government plus a few faux-promises, most of which they have broken since or are pursuing without assessment or discussion (ET).

Krudds preferred, “see what the focus group says” strategy does not work when dealing with things beyond the gaze of the kitchen sink. This financial crisis is not as it seems, never has been and the remedies are not as are being applied (and what is being applied has never worked anyway)

So a government pursuing strategies which would not resolve the problem, even if they had read it right… if that had been what was done in WWII, 10% of us would be writing Japanese and 90% would have never been born.

Pericles post alludes to something “ripe” and insightful coming from Latham – not so different from Hewson/Costello but as it pertains to government (not opposition) of far greater concern

Butt out Hewson , when the spendathon is finished and we are down on our knee's flat motherless broke we need not look any further , Costello has been there before and triumphed .

The saddest thing about Costello is that he also believes the same drivel that his supporters do about him being some sort of economic guru.

It didn't take much expertise to raise money by flogging off everything that wasn't nailed down, introducing a new regressive tax system, cashing in our Gold Reserves and riding the crest of the wave of a resources boom.

He even managed to blow a billion on dud currency swaps on his watch and get away with it.

Now the world economy has changed and he's got nothing left to offer from his empty bag of tricks. Selling Medicare won't cover it.

If he wants the job and believes he can do it, what's he waiting for?

Even The Rodent could see he wasn't up to the job.

At least his memoirs had a spine.

Belly maaaaate,
The key issue here is that it federal elections in this country can depend on a very few votes. If 3% of voters (a very small number) change their vote that means a 6% swing away more than enough in most times to change governments. It all depends of where those voters are…Key Seats (swing seats) etc.

You shouldn’t under estimate the fear and self interest of the voter on average.

About 40% of voters will vote conservative unless the coalition screw up badly or continue to be publicly divided.
(This is why the coalition gnomes won’t allow 1st past the post or proportional voting because they would rarely win and their base would fragment into single focus parties under the latter e.g. ON)
Don’t under estimate the power of a perceived champion. Keep in mind most average conservatives tend to be seekers of simple answers. This is often expressed in terms of b/w i.e. if you disagree with them you’re a Socialist and nothing in between as for someone with limited left(ish) views is beyond their comprehension. Bearing in mind also most couldn’t give you a meaningful definition of either.
A logic truism says if you can’t define it, you can’t explain it (or argue intelligently against it).

I still stand by my request for the odds you’re offering.
If Turnbull V Rudd? How many seat start will you give me for a Rudd victory?
If Costello V Rudd, I predict it will 50/50? He is their best hope at least HE thinks he is. He’s like Keating but not as smart both full of Ego. He’s waiting till closer to the poll and then expects to be drafted.
Who else Hockey? (Puk as in Midsummer’s Night Dream) a light weight with a mouth.
Christopher Pyne? More ambition/ego than ability. 7.30 report debacle.
Deputy Leader never. Old boys club.
Minchin …has the same public appeal as a hungry salty. Best to know where he is but look after your children/granny? He’s a head kicker.
What’s left? Who can list the shadow cabinet? :-)

Pericles, surely no sane person can take any commentary by Mark Latham seriously! Mark Latham was a hopeless failure when presented with opportunity. Kevin Rudd's intellectual superiority and parliamentary performance speaks for itself. The rest of the Labour Party are woefully inferior to him. That's why he's the leader, and our Prime Minister. He streets ahead intellectually, compared to the two recent Liberal leaders, and has successfully demolished them both in parliament. The ONLY person in the Liberl Party who can intellectually match him is Peter Costello. The most likely scenario is that Peter will become Liberal leader after the next Liberal election loss; and there's also a possibility that he will become leader (if a leadership crisis exists then) just before the next election, but this would not be his preferred option.

The Liberal Party is a great party, and it deserves to be in power after it's fantastic job of economic management over the years under the stewardship of Treasurer Peter Costello. The Liberal Party has degenerated badly in opposition, and they have become an almost leaderless rabble incapable of effective opposition. This saddens me deeply, as I have been a supporter of this once great party for most of my adult life. My wife and I have been fundraisers for many years, and I'd feel much happier if the current Liberal rabble got their act together and became a "genuine" opposition with policies that could sweep them into government. Currently, they are simply ineffective and hopeless, and are opposing just for the sake of opposing, and playing politics just for the sake of playing politics, in the hope of gaining brownie points with the public. And it's backfiring on them time and time again.