Bob Hawke was/is 'agnostic'.

Even 'the bosses' thought he was OK.

The masses loved him.

Even the Roman Catholic trades unions loved him.

Australia did not suffer at all from his 'faith' position.

Hawke never sought to impose any hint of his agnosticism on us.

In this regard, I think Gillard will probably do the same.

Howard actively used 'religion' to impose his sense of 'Australian values' on us, ably assisted by swathes of the population and media, of course. It was a 'willing imposition' more than a coerced one... except for those who resent the overt role of religion in politics.

Rudd continued the Howard model, but magnified it with his own unctuous flourishes and his close friendship with the church.

With luck, Gillard's statements yesterday will free us from the underhand relationship with the church that has been cultivated since 1996 by the Commonwealth Government.

And let's not forget Kim Christian Beasley during his time as ALP leader, prior to Rudd.

Apart from being a very poor political leader, while still displaying many signs of being a pleasant person, Beasley was a determined Christian like Rudd, and happily went along with much of Howard's policies....along with the rest of his caucus camp followers.

Julia is about to deliver an increased majority, shadow minister is shuddering but its clearly true.
She will be much loved and respected on both sides of the house.
A defeated Liberal party and by then its new leader will pass a much reduced ETS.
She will be much more inclusive than Kevin, but in time fall to the same sword as him, to controlling too much self confidence and surrounding herself with yesterdays failures such as Creepy Crean.
Next ALP leader? Bill Shorten.

Come on Belly... you would suggest Bill wouldn't you?

Actually, he might well fit the PM template later...and appears preferable to Swan, who should never have been treasurer over Tanner.

I think you are a bit harsh on Crean though.

He should have been a better leader than Beasley but, as I recall, the media hoed into him for being the ACTU head honcho, and that was his card-marked.

He is rightwing enough to suit most voters who are not locked into the Menzian view of unions.

I think he was a bit indecisive in caucus too, but now I'm dragging the memory vaults, so that might not be correct.

Foxy referred to polspeak. When you can fake sincerity you have it made.

Foxy:
<Dear Squeers,

I wish that I could see things your way...>

Dear Foxy,
sorry been a while getting back to you. Busy week!
There's nothing enigmatic about the point I was making above. We live under a 'representative' democracy, although very few of us are accurately represented by the government, just as nobody fits a statistic such as that Australian families have on average 2.5 kids.
Our representatives are obliged to give their policies broad, rather than particular, appeal; that's why left and right both occupy the middle ground. That middle ground, or ideology, is completely removed from reality; it is of course a diverse pool of opinions, self-interest and belief systems that have to be catered to more or less. Very few, if any of these people are happy with government policy because it's trimmed to leave everyone dissatisfied but cajoled, to achieve the largest possible catch. The only way to change the pollies is to change the dominant ideology, or to 'atomise it,' thus I argue that politicians accurately reflect or 'represent' us en masse.
I've recently been reading the work of one Takis Fotopoulis and his idea, derived from the ancient Greeks (who else?), of 'inclusive' democracy, and the classical notion of 'paideia'--an education beginning in childhood that tutors a lifelong commitment to the ethical administration of the State, and to the individual's own character development. There's lots of material out there on this guy for anyone interested.
'Representative democracy' is a cop-out, as well as a failure if all our complaining is any indication. What we need is an 'inclusive democracy'; but crucially, it has to be predicated on a science and ideology of 'ethics' rather than self-interested economics.

Dear Squeers,

A science and ideology of ethics? That sounds to me as though one can generate an objective morality which would serve for all societies. The physical and biological sciences are independent of the societies that generate them. I don't believe ethical considerations can be.

eg. Peter Singer is a vegetarian and advocates that others become vegetarians. I believe his reasoning is sound for our society.

However, Inuit living in tribal conditions would starve.

The assumption that we can have a science of ethics depends on the assumption that all societies can be made enough alike so that the same ethical considerations apply to all of them. I think that is not a reasonble assumption.