So with Kevin promising a 'new way' under what I can only assume is going to be a 'new labor' , is this an admission that the old labor, under Kevin himself, then Julia, was a failure.

There is little doubt that the massive amount of debt the old,and old labor has racked up supports this, but, apart from one person (Kevin) taking over, and the tossing out of the worlds smartest man, what has changed.

More importanely, why has Kevin waited so long to propose the changes, because after all, he has always been a part of the labor party, as a minister from his axing back in 2010, then as a back bencher until the 11th hour.

So does his plan to go in a different direction mean he has sat on this plan, 'tight lipped', until he regained the top job. The old, it's my baby and you can't have it scenario.

Now if he has done this, then surely he only has self interest in mind, as it would mean that he KNOWINGLY saw a better way, but sat back and watched the waste continue.

Is this really the type of person we want to run our country, one of self interest who puts the party/countries interests last.

I think the polls are starting to show that many are starting to see through him, thinking, here we go again.

I said from day one that the longer he delayed the election, the less chance he would have of winning.

Thanks Kev, you been given enough rope, and you've used it well.

A leopard does not change its spots, that is Rudd we have seen what he says and what he does can be 2 different things, in my case it is simply a case of he can't be trusted.

Saying - The evil you know is better than the evil you don't know.

In this election that does not mean I trust Abbott but with 50,000 boat people and then wasting over $6 BILLION dollars on them I would rather try the other evil.

I agree rehctub; a bit of simple analysis shows that Rudd’s ‘new way’ is a complete load of cr*p!

What a pity, because we do so badly need a new way. And as I have said countless times on OLO; it is staring them in the face.

A sustainable Australia instead of a big Australia. And all that goes with it, as espoused by Bob Carr, Kelvin Thomson, Dick Smith and others.

I have to admit Ludwig, you are right about a sustainable Australia.

When yo look at us now, about 30% of our population is in the workforce.

Of these, about 58% pay the bills and pick up the slack, paying the way for both themselves and the remaining 15 million odd, as 42% of workers (income tax pagers) pay less in income tax than they receive in benefits.

So it is obvious that unless/until something is done to address the hand out brigade, increasing our population, by any means, will simply increase the financial burden on those 52 odd % , of the 30%, in other words about 16% of our population who are currently carrying the load, and presumably will continue to do so, as it would be fair to assume that some 84% of those increasing our population won't be contributing at a positive level.

Luddy you've got no chance of getting that up old mate. Particularly as you think labor.

Having stuffed the mining boom, Labor are now looking to domestic & commercial construction to keep the economy going & the real workforce, as distinct from public funded people, employed. Unless population growth is maintained there is no basis for construction.

No extra people, not much need for more housing or shopping centers, & with a sagging economy, industry won't be interested in spending.

Employment is going to be the big problem. The mines already developed will keep the foreign exchange coming in for quite some time, only slowly diminishing, unless the entire world economy collapses. It is the mine building, processing facilities & port construction that is grinding to a halt.

Those are the job rich part of the mining boom, & there is nothing to replace them in the near future.

So mate, while I agree every immigrant adds just a little more burden to all existing citizens, I reckon our chance of weaning government off population growth as an easy way of maintaining a compliant population is virtually nil.

Not really grinding to a halt yet, Hasbeen.

Among our many friends who are working up north, one, an electrician, is working on a huge project in the Pilbara near Tom Price...and he's got thirty odd other electricians under him.

My son-in-law is sizing up an offer to work on a similar project - he's a soil technician.

Yes P, but these jobs are only for the construction phase and, once finished, what then.

These projects, although not directly effects by the MRRT, were instigated prior to any talk of such taxes ad, given that tax has to be on the agenda of any future government, any forthcoming ventures will be very cautiously viewed.

Furthermore, mining is very close to running their mines with mechanical operators, another huge worry as this technology has been driven largely by the uncertainty caused by the labor government.

Now we can all dream on as much as we like, however, the stark reality is, we are screwed and I will bet it will take some type of miracle for us to not be in complete dire straights within the next ten to twenty years.

Now if you don't agree, I suggest you cast your mind back to where we were just six years ago, and where we are today.

<< Luddy you've got no chance of getting that up old mate. Particularly as you think labor. >>

Yes Haz, especially under Rudd.

But under Gillard, or Carr, it could have worked.

The key thing about it is how much it would potentially have appealed to the voters.

A new way, based on the immediate large-scale lowering of immigration and sold as the first move towards a sustainable nation, in which we would be able to steadily improve our infrastructure and services instead of forever duplicating them for more people, would have gone down very well.

It could easily have been sold in a manner that would have garnered huge support.

I don’t think that it as politically untenable as you make out. And indeed it will have to happen sooner or later.

I agree Ludwig. A sustainable economy is not just desirable it is inevitable.
The only question is do we get there with planning or does Mother Nature
force it upon us ?

There is no new way! We would do much better to return to the regulations of the Bretton Woods era which provided 45 years of global economic stability and growth which remains unprecedented in history.

When Australia de-regulated its economy, thanks to Hawke, Keating and Howard they joined us to the resurgence of the global freedoms which led to the 1930's depression and which have historically always underpinned the boom and bust cycles which have bedevilled capitalism.

We do not need constant reform, what we do need is for government to re-establish the control mechanisms which can isolate us from the instability of the current global economic dynamic.

Currently our political leaders are powerless in the face of the enormous financial power of the huge transnational corporations. The rhetoric of either Abbot or Rudd will make no difference to the country, they are merely arguing over which way to handle a contracting economy over which they have little control and are utterly powerless to improve.

Our politicians seem blindsided in the belief that we now have a modern economy; they are wrong! we have merely been sucked in by the repackaging of a worn-out and historically disproven economic model.

Our workforce has been undermined by the influx of cheaper product, our tax base has shrunk, our social security bill has blown out and we cry out for foreign investors to give us the crumbs from their table. We are being gouged by the resources sector and bled to death in the retail sector.

When we see a few of our politicians acknowledging some of these simple truths then we might have cause to hope. In the meanwhile with Rudd we'll get much of the same and with Abbot probably a bit of austerity, take your choice.
Den71

There will be no real employment growth in Australia until we throw up the tariff barriers and slow down the imports. Block the bogie work and study visas and give our kids the jobs they deserve.Until we get back to manufacturing and making things here in Australia and that will never happen while we have union dominated governments.
Get rid of the foreign owned cash economy and reintroduce Australian history and heritage back into the school system.

Rechub,
It is not just the mining itself being automatedit is even the
big dump trucks that are often featured.
They will be removing the drivers.
They are almost ready to make them driverless.
The whole operation from digging it up to loading the ship will be
controlled by the site computer and overseen and programmed from an
office in Perth.

We will get back to local manufacturing either by being forced into it
by the cost of energy making imports too expensive or we restrict
imports deliberatly to encourage local manufacture because we manage
to convince the politicians that there really is a sustainabilty problem.

There already is a very significant movement in the US for "Insourcing" as they call it.
A little while back there was a BBC TV series on "Insourcing" in the US.

For exactly the same reasons we could expect the same to happen here,
but the government will have to improve the IR from the employers view.

I don't know how many of those here saw Dickie's $10 a litre on
ABC TV. He only got one thing wrong, it was never about running out
of oil, it was only ever about the maximum level ever of production.
All the new oil is expensive up to $90 per barrel.
As it is mixed with a declining amount of cheap oil prices must rise.
It will affect mundine things like food and whether a new Sydney airport is justified.

It is already affecting me in visiting my son & family in Melbourne.
The car is more expensive still and the train slightly cheaper.
I think the train fare will rise more slowly than the air fare.
The rise in video conferencing will affect business travel also.

These are just a few of the sustainabilty areas to which Ludwig refers.