Discussing our topic "Return of Kevin Rudd would be beneficial", we have naturally touched on variety of current problems experiencing by our country.
Unfortunately, we have not really attempted to consider whether return of Mr Rudd would help in dealing with these problems or, on the contrary, would make these problems unchanged or even worse.
Yet, this is exactly the topic of our discussion.
If return of Mr Rudd seems to be beneficial, it is natural to ask for evidence and arguments supporting such a suggestion.
If return of Mr Rudd seems to be unhelpful, it is also natural to ask for evidence and arguments supporting this assertion, and for suggestion of alternative candidature.
I am respectfully asking all the participants of this discussion to keep along the lines of our topic.

Ok AB, rehctub here, back to Krud.

He, after receiving expert advice about the dangers of his insulation program, still went ahead, resulting in at least four deaths and untold fires and billions wasted, houses devalued. If he were a company director he would be facing criminal negligence charges as we speak.

He then took us to Copenhagen, this was after he stole land from farmers, yet, against strong advice and the will of the people, he insisted to go, again wasted millions and achieved nothing.

To think that the person who stabbed him was in the labor's parties opinion, the better option, simply defies belief.

Now this thread is not about how good K rud is, it's about would it improve labor's chances and the answer is yes.

But you must also take into consideration what the labor party stands for, and that's to protect the worker at any cost.

Now I don't begrudge anyone wanting a decent lifestyle, I simply oppose the fact that the increased cost of living burden is always passed on to the employer, who by the way, are also struggling with the cost of living increases.

rehctub I understand the plight of small business and failures in competition policy especially in light of the growing corporatisation of business to larger chain monopolies (especially in relation to buying power).

However, you continually miss the point. Governments should be making policy that works for its constituents not against. Your angst should not be directed to the low income earners. For some reason you have a real tendency to point the finger at the lowest paid and completely ignore government policy as the greatest contributing factor. Governments are completely responsible for the state of the economy and compliance under pressure from big business and other global pressures. And your mates in the LNP are not better.

There is no leadership.

Do you really think with rising living costs the poorest paid should have to shoulder the burdens of the middle and higher income earners? Don't you agree that government policies should work for not against the citizenry?

Given your logic, failure to reply must mean that I am instantly right. ;)

Pelican, I am generalizing here, but in most cases, people are high income earners for a very good reason. They have a set of skills that attract the dollars to go with such skills.

Now in saying that, you can't tell me that a baggage handler at qantas is worth that of a policeman. Also, a policeman doesn't get cheap airfares or, a reduction on speeding fines just because they are a policeman.

The issue is quit simple. Australia is no longer surviving on the dollar spent by Australians and they have to compete globally in everything from pushing trolleys at the shops to flying passengers around the world.

We can't do that if we pay up to twice the wages.

I say again, I don't hate low income earners, after all, they make up the bulk of my customs ers, what I am saying is that business shoukd not have to carry the cost of living increases. That's it!

People are not spending money at the moment. Consumer is not confident in world affairs. Sit it out.

Fair enough rehctub we will have to agree to disagree how to attack this problem. I just don't think it is by exploiting the lowest paid, but much more about international economic policy. You are right about competing wages but that is exactly my point, why are we competing with standards we would find abhorrent in this country.

Back to KR. Kevin Rudd's return would not make any difference, even if he were to 'win' in the sport of election it would be only window dressing change - nothing of substance. Rudd may also have had to deal with a hung parliament and shared power but he would have been content to see the Carbon Tax which he pushed during his reign under the CPRS.

Rudd's value would only be in QLD looking at it purely strategically but the ALP would be better served returning to it's roots and in increasing transparency. It is more secretive governments that diminish democracy.