With the return of Kevin Rudd to the Labor leadership and presumably the Prime Ministership, Australian politics is worth talking about once again. A couple of observations
* It’s worth watching Rudd’s press conference today, and his last couple. More policy substance in a few minutes than Gillard and Abbott between them have provided in three years
* I saw the Libs YouTube ad with Labor figures attacking Rudd – the list included Richardson (the single person most responsible for corruption in the Labor party), Conroy, Latham, Swan and of course Gillard herself. It’s hard to see that being attacked by this crew can be regarded as a bad thing.
John Quiggin 
On the Lib ads, they’ll be pretty ineffective because the only people in them will be either backbenchers or not even in Parliament – ie not part of the “Rudd Team” (a bit of an oxymoron if it’s anything like last time 🙂 ). Which should have been foreseen when the ads were prepared – they needed to select quotes from people who were likely to still be in the ministry in the event of Rudd getting up.
I think the caucus got it wrong again – the man’s a “me first” wrecker. He won’t win the election, and his legacy will be an utterly divided and demoralised opposition. A possibly smaller but definitely more cohesive opposition would have more chance of making Abbott a one term PM.
@steve from brisbane
Why is it bizarre to suggest that plutocratic capitalists should have their holdings in mining (and other) corporations nationalised? It is not in the least bizarre. What is bizarre is tolerating enormous wealth in just a few hands and giving these few people the power to control the totality of many other people’s entire working lives. Now that is truly bizarre! Why stop there? Why not bring back slavery? Indeed, Gina Rinehart wants to bring back $2 a day slavery. Of course, being brought up in this system and having succumbed totally to its indoctrination, you think this set up is normal, equitable and reasonable.
@steve from brisbane
The point about Rudd being seen as nicer from a distance was made years ago by Mark Latham, when they were both just backbenchers. The conversation is supposed to have gone:
“I’ll go a long way Mark, because people like me”
“They do, Kevin, but only those who don’t know you”.
It’s my experience that senior politicians of whatever ilk usually have considerable powers of personal charm, which is something that’s rarely possible on a consistent basis unless they actually are decent people. So what democratic politics mostly consists of is decent people given incentives to act indecently – and for that you should blame an ignorant and disengaged electorate that creates those incentives. If you’ll only listen to pleasant lies then pleasant lies is what you’ll be told. Though of course Winston Churchill’s comment about democracy applies here.
@Hermit
Both government failure and the perception of government failure are common enough events. It’s quite likely that an Abbott government will perform badly and will fall in the estimation of people who are Abbott supporters now (not all of them, but a significant number). Those who would prefer not to see an Abbott government may derive some consolation from such developments. But they won’t in any way moderate the concrete effects of an Abbott government on the country. My point is the same as before: you’re foreseeing, possibly correctly, developments which will have a redeeming effect on the story, but the story is not as important as the reality of people’s lives.
@derrida derider
It’s hard to disagree with this assessment. The bargain is Faustian, but without a significant initial upside — merely the presentiment of one.
@derrida derider
I don’t really understand this or Fran’s comment, but I just heard on TV there’s 26 million unemployed in the EU. Can either of you apply your insight to this reality? What are the incentives created by the ignorant and disengaged masses for this to happen?
@kevin1 spain has 25% UNEMPLOYMENT BECAUSE THEIR labour laws make it unprofitable to hire new workers.
Union represent the interests on insiders with jobs so they opposed the recent reforms
Probably more to do with massive tax dodging by the oligarch elites.
@kevin1
The ignorant and disengaged don’t need or get ‘incentives’. They can be ignored or conned as the moment demands.
Was it wise for rudd 2.0 to back down on the carbon tax in favour of carbon trading?
Concedes that the cost is too high.
@Jim Rose
As if governments and employers are disinterested representatives of “the general interest” and unions should therefore give way. The Spanish labour law was changed in Feb 2012 but unemployment continues to increase. How absurd to think that unions are happy with 27% unemployment.
Moving from a carbon tax to carbon trading has long been Gillard policy.
If some one wants expert view regarding running a blog after that i recommend him/her to pay a quick visit this blog,
Keep up the good work.