[Annoyance] Can we please end the Rudd-love?

[weemadando]

Rudd is a homophobic, racist, fundamentalist dork with terrible fiscal policies.

Now, no-one should be arguing that John Howard wasn't also a homophobic, racist, fundamentalist bigot with terrible fiscal policies and a dreadful case of the uncools.

But why the hell is Rudd still such a darling to so many? Sure Howard was bad, but just because he's not Howard doesn't make him good. And indeed, just because he managed to do what Beazely, Latham, Beazely and Beazely failed to do and get Labor back to power doesn't mean that all Labor-ites should mindlessly obey like they appear to be doing.

[loomer]

I gave up on Rudd about two months after he was voted in, myself. He's still better than the alternative in my eyes, but he's definitely not what we were promised or even what we needed.

[weemadando]

I don't think I had any hopes for Rudd other than him being "not-Howard". But then again, it was pretty obvious that even back at election time he was just Howard but in the Labor party. And what a shocking course of events has unfolded that we end up with our policies under Labor/Rudd in 2009 almost mirroring exactly those of the Liberals/Howard in 2001? Shock. Horror.

Turns out that a great many Australians are also racist, bigoted, homophobes and like it when people pander to them.

[Crown]

I gave up on Rudd about two months after he was voted in, myself. He's still better than the alternative in my eyes, but he's definitely not what we were promised or even what we needed.

Having been over seas for the better part of a decade now, I've really lost touch with politics back home, but wasn't it always the case that Australians (well the non-die hard party type Australians) would tend to vote for the lesser of the dickhead running for office anyway?

Sort of taking the Democrats 'keep the bastards honest' policy to heart if you will.

[Ford Prefect]

Setting aside the fact that two of your sources are The Australian, it should be pretty clear that Rudd mostly got in on the back of the fact that the alternative really was stagnating with more Howard. That aside, I don't think I've ever heard anyone actually say anything good about Rudd, even from people who voted Labour last election. Comparitively, I found it extremely easy to find people praising Howard's 'management' of the country. There's plenty of criticism around for both, anyway.

And indeed, just because he managed to do what Beazely, Latham, Beazely and Beazely failed to do and get Labor back to power doesn't mean that all Labor-ites should mindlessly obey like they appear to be doing.

This isn't anything new. Party members in Australia toe the line by default. For better or worse, Australia does have greatest amount of party discipline in the world on both sides of the fence.

[thejester]

Oh FFS. No-one should have been under any illusions about how centrist Rudd is when he was voted in, but to label him a racist on the back of current immigration policies is fucking retarded. And how can you call his fiscal policies (or Howard's, for that matter) 'terrible'? I know this will just elicit a long screed on middle-class welfare but given that we're pissing all over most other Western's countries performance in the GFC I don't think you can be too critical of how the ALP have handled the nation's money.

And I have to echo Ford: where do you see this love for him? The political media is scathingly cynical about how relentlessly political Rudd is. He has a high approval rating because the populace think he's doing a good job, not because he's particularly loved. Personally I find his Mr Sheen-esque unctuousness fucking creepy but I can't deny he's stuck to the policies he was voted in for - and where Howard used indigenous issues, asylum seekers and a host of other issues as divisive political weapons, Rudd has (despite how ridiculously on-message he is) not.

[mr friendly guy]

Rudd is hell better than Howard. While over in the Liberals Malcolm Turnbull shows what a mediocre leader he is by failing to keep racist fuckwit Wilson Tuckey in line. If Rudd has such high ratings its partly because the opposition are in such disarray that voting for the "lesser evil" automatically leads to Rudd scoring well. The other reason is he simply is considered to have done a good job. His stimulus package is credited for partly helping us avoid a technical recession (the other reasons quoted are stronger recovery from China and the fact our banks didn't engage in anything as stupid as giving out NINJA loans).

The Liberals did, and still do play the xenophobic terrorist Manchurian candidate asylum seeker card, while Rudd has chosen to target people smugglers instead.

I don't agree with his religious views and his anti gay marriage stance, however the Liberals played the religious card, even if Howard wasn't so blatant as American politicians, he wasn't above letting his underlings colleagues use it. Remember the Latham can't be PM because he is not religious. Unfortunately once that door opens it becomes hard to close, so I can't fault Rudd too much by trying to play the card as well, and even now he is less blatant than the Liberals.

Rudd is willing to try and tackle climate change, while the Liberals have a bunch of climate change deniers in their mists and expect us to believe they will negotiate in good faith.

All round its an improvement.

[Archaic`]

how can you call his fiscal policies (or Howard's, for that matter) 'terrible'? I know this will just elicit a long screed on middle-class welfare but given that we're pissing all over most other Western's countries performance in the GFC I don't think you can be too critical of how the ALP have handled the nation's money.

Australia's current good position post-GFC has nothing to do with Rudd, and everything to do with the state our economy was in prior to the GFC, and to do with the fact that our banks weren't mired in sub-prime debt unlike so many elsewhere. The fact his fiscal policies haven't completely thrown us down the toilet is because we started from such a position of economic strength, not because they're any good. He and the Labor party have essentially been claiming credit for placing an ineffective band-aid on things, and the only real impact they're having is that the masses are licking it up and going out and putting themselves further into debt than they were previously....which also means that their spending is going up (despite not being able to afford it), which in turn is increasing investor confidence. In essence, the GFC isn't over for Australia, not by a long shot. We're just a few years behind the other countries in our population falling so dramatically into debt, and the bubble will burst sooner or later.

Rudd's stimulus packages in particular have been a joke. Giving free money straight to people is not a bright idea, and it's no wonder that a measurable percentage went into gambling, tobacco and alcohol. A good proportion of the rest went into buying big ticket items by families who should really have been paying off debt. That money would have been far better spent funding grand scale, worthwhile infrastructure, where it would have supported several industries having problems, and subsequently allowed those industries to keep more people in steady employment.

[bobalot]

There are massive investments in infrastructure going on at the moment. The various railway systems around Australia (with the exception of NSW and its retarded state government) are receiving billions.

ARTC the federal body which took over the interstate lines is spending a lot of money. Right now they are building the Southern Sydney Freight Line and upgrading the metropolitan goods lines. They are finally separating out some the freight lines from the passenger lines as well. They are also doing numerous duplication projects. I have my issues with how these lines will be run, but the investment is there. (That's just NSW)

Other infrastrutcture investments include:

* $14.7 billion to be invested in school infrastructure and maintenance and bringing forward funding for trade training centres;

* $6.6 billion for to increase the national stock of public and community housing by about 20,000;

* $890 million to fix regional roads and blackspots, to install railway boom gates and for regional and local government infrastructure;

Source

I would argue, most of the stimulus should have been on infrastructure. However, a lot of the stimulus money is being spent on worthwhile infrastructure.

[tim31]

I agree, although it can lead to some retarded end-user ideas. The departing vice-chancellor of UTAS got two pages in last Saturday's paper detailing how he wanted t demolish the existing main campus and rebuild it all at a trendy dockside location recently vacated by what was left of our rail system.

Having been over seas for the better part of a decade now, I've really lost touch with politics back home

...*snip*

Skimming this, I thought you were talking about Rudd