Unfortunately John Howard is past his use by date, at 68 he does not have the necessary comprehension of what most Australians want, his ideas and ideology are stuck in the 70's.

He inherited an economy that had been modernised by Hawke and Keating and squandered the benefits by playing politics.

Costello, who has been a great treasurer, should have been handed the baton years ago. (I note he never held a ministerial position before he became treasurer).

If you look at the ages of the people who vote for the coalition they will be in opposition eventually and for a very long time.

Howard's personal ambition has eventually overtaken his once great party, but they know he is their best bet because of the paucity of talent in the party.

Sorry John the reduced for quick sale sign is looming large.

John Howard
Is Not past anything. Maybe the media gaints have shifted some loyalty but so what. You people can not be serious about putting Kevin in charge.
It wouldnt even be fair to Kevin.
Times are far too serious to play silly little games. Dont get me wrong I am NOT happy with Howard ovder live Exports and the shameful lack of Animal Welfare in Australia.
BUT We certainly cant put a baby in charge.
I think everybody will find the more mature people in Australia will be concerned enough about the worlds situation to return Howard- or Peter.
They want to feel safe.
Time will tell.
As far as I am concerned the older the wiser the better and Mr Howard
BAN LIVE EXPORTS!

I'm not even going to waste my time arguing with those who still think Howard is a good prime minister . . . he's a lying rodent and the worst political leader to grace our country(okay maybe not the worst leader in terms of our'economy', which as it seems to so many is better than human rights, workers rights, education and health).

But I'd like to comment on Ludwigs comment:
"But the really important thing is that the whole political approach is way past its use-by date… and Rudd is just going to continue on with more of the same."

I couldn't agree more. It's time more people thought outside the square of two-party politics, particularily when both are on more or less the same coin. The question is - how can we make more people aware of the fact that there are, and in fact needs to be, other possibilities? People are so stuck in the labour-liberal, Howard-Rudd ( slash Beazly slash Crean slash whoever they put up next) debate that they can't even imagine something different. The political contenders in the Labour and Liberal parties are not leaders. They both play on the politics of fear and not hope. We need politicians who can inspire, can lead, and can offer hope for a better future.

Because the fact is - if things keep going the way they are now - there will be no future. In order to preserve our planet and our humanity we need a radical shift, in politics, in environmental practice, in the economy, in the distribution of wealth and power. I'm talking revolution.

And it can be pretty isolating to be sitting on this side of the fence -when it seems even the most intellegent and politcally minded and active people in this country still can't get past the notion that the ruling hegemony (be it Howard, or Rudd . . . or Rupert Murdoch or Paul Wolfiwitz) is here to stay.

ana h, there is an alternative to pollie-rule- aristotle called it 'democracy'. the swiss use it, with great success.

unfortunately. democracy requires citizens, not subjects. ozzies are born with a capacity to run their affairs as the swiss do, but it is erased by cultural conditioning. by the time they are old enough to vote, they are unable to imagine participating in democracy. so they talk about politicians and parties, in much the same way as they talk about sports and celebrities- that's why the talk is superficial, because they have no real power to influence national affairs.

i think don horne put it something like this: australians are 3rd rate people, ruled by 2nd rate politicians. local pollies don't have to be much good: they only have 1 or 2 competitors, and no one pays much attention anyway.

but don't be too depressed, we are the lucky country still. however bad it gets, and it's going to get much worse than anything seen before, "she'll be right". compared to anywhere, australia's natural advantages are likely to keep more than half of us alive. keep your eyes open and try to be one of them.

Well we certainly got some different views, I found the one that Rudd is a Baby a laugh.
Robert Hawke remember him? his background in the ACTU did not fit him for the job as much as Rudd's background fits him.
And I think the bit about leftist mates was worth a grin, can I just get this out in public?
Rudd, like me, is no friend of the left, they would agree with both of us.
In both the party and my union movement a difference exists that is nearly as wide at times as the one between Rudd and Howard.
Now other paths other ways in politics, yes even I would like a different way at times.
It is not that Aussies do not care, each time another way is offered it turns out to have clay feet.
See the Democrats, gulp, one nation, greens a true disappointment to many .
Now a belly laugh! can anyone think truly that the Medea has taken Rudd's side?
All views have value but that one is so very wrong!
John Howard is past it has been for 4 years he has ignored the Westminster system of parliamentary accountability.
He neglects his duty in Iraq.
And his worst sin? he has stopped listening to the Australian people.

“Costello, who has been a great treasurer, should have been handed the baton years ago.”

Excuuuse me ruawake, I’ve gotta run outside and pewk!
.

Ahhh, that’s better.

The thought of Costalotello as PM was just toooo much for my lunch to handle!

People are fast waking up to the need to run this country in a very different way to Costello’s narrowly focussed continuous-expansion-based economic model.

With Tim Flannery as Australian of the Year and with critical water issues across the country, the need to STOP EXPANDING everything human is becoming obvious to one and all.

That word ‘growth’, which is so freely bandied around by Costello and his ilk, needs to be confined to the good development component, which includes technological improvements and better practices in all sorts of ways. The expansionist aspects of growth, especially an ever-increasing population, need to be considered separately, instead of just being lumped in under the same woolly word.

It is a crying shame that Rudd hasn’t embraced this sustainability imperative much more strongly. I reckon he’d gain overwhelming support if he did. But unfortunately it now appears as though he won’t need to in order to win.

This is very unfortunate because it will allow Labor when they win to basically continue with the same growthist antisustainablilyist agenda as that of Howard and Costello.