For Tough Reforms, Rudd Must Crash Through or Crash.

[Matilda]

"Now that an angry adolescent insurgency has taken control of the Coalition, does it mean that Kevin Rudd has to give up any hope of getting his signature reform: his climate change policy? More profoundly, does it mean the end of any sort of serious reform in Australia?

One of the key reasons Australia has been able to outperform the world in the global recession is that its national governments have managed to implement tough reforms pretty much continuously for a generation. Is that golden era of reform over?

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/for-tough-reforms-rudd-must-crash-through-or-crash-20100212-nxej.html


This is an excellent article by the Herald's political editor, Peter
Hartcher.

One of the things I like most about Peter Hartcher is that I really
don't know which side of the political divide he sits on. I suspect
he might be Labor, but I'm not sure, and that's because his writing
is truly bipartisan. He's not obviously pushing any particular
political idealogy, so his writing isn't unduly slanted either way.
He's capable of giving a serve to either side when needed, so he's
one of the few I can be bothered reading.

And I think he's summed up Rudd's position in a nutshell.

[Esra Star]

1. Kevin Rudd is a student of politics.

He knows that you must primarily sell your ideas to the people. Once you have them on board
the seat warmers will do what they have to to preserve their arses.
The science on climate change is so compelling. It is an education/time thing.