What I like about Kevin Rudd

is that he's taking the fight to John Howard. In Parliament and out, I have a feeling that a
bayonet is being pointed straight at Howard's gut. This is what I've waited to see from Beazley
and never did, not even over IR - there was always a feeling that Beazley was only reacting to
something Howard did or said, but Rudd is now setting the agenda.

I also think the idea of running a team in tandem was inspired - it's the Rudd/Gillard combo that's
so potent - they're such a good contrast to each other, and there's a great balance of style there.

I want to see more issues tackled instead of just the economy, but now that he's announced the
portfolios of his front bench, perhaps we can look to them to start making the runs on other issues.

Instead of this 25% nonsense! While I concede there is still a honeymoon going on for Rudd, 2007 is going to be a very interesting year. If he can keep this momentum up next year, expect doubts to start rising in the coalition's ranks over Howard's leadership.

The thing I like about him is able to give both the impression of a fresh, younger alternative to Howard, while still maintaining an aura of knowledge and experience. Something a Labor leader hasnt done for ages.

Still, expect the usual smear campaign from the Nazis next year. Count on it.

They didn't even bother trying to smear Beazley; he wasn't enough of a worry.

And somehow I think Rudd will be able to handle it. Replying to Howard's comments about Labor
in-fighting:

"I seem to recall six months ago Mr Howard and Mr Costello at it like Kilkenny cats over the future of the leadership of the Liberal Party."

And when Howard goes, there's going to be one helluva fight between Costello and Turnbull.

Costello will probably only contest the leadership if it is to become PM. If it's to become opposition leader, I honestly think he won't bother - as he knows he'll have very little chance to be elected and it's too much work for someone like him to bother with...

If dreams come true and Howard is ousted next year, Costello will likely opt out of the leadership race. Costello knows (1) that most oppositions spend at least six years in the political wilderness (unless there are dramatic circumstances such as was the case in the Whitlam and Scullin governments) and that's a long time to be leading a party with no guarantee of victory and (2) the party leader who takes over the party after the loss of an election is very rarely the one who will lead it back to victory. Costello's stint as Treasurer and a Liberal cabinet minister has undoubtedly opened up lucrative opportunities in the private sector and he'll probably take it. I think the race to lead the Liberal Party in opposition would be between Turnbull and Brendan Nelson. Tony Abbott's ego may have him as a contender but I doubt he'd have a serious chance of winning -he'd probably be better competing for deputy against Julie Bishop or someone like that

the initial Opposition Leader didn't end up winning anyway. John Latham was opposition leader against Scullin, and ended up resigning in favour of Joseph Lyons and Billy Snedden was opposition leader against Whitlam and ended up being overthrown by Malcolm Fraser's faction.

This from new climate change and environment spokesman Peter Garrett today. Love it! This is the
kind of catchy phrase that will stick in voters' minds.

Thank you, Mr Rudd. Unfortunately, the last few Labor leaders have being ignoring South Australia's voters, considering the small size of the electorate makes it irrelevant. This is why, in a state which has traditionally been left leaning, only 3 of the 11 seats are Labor (2 of those barely.) The number should more be 6 ALP on an average election, and 7 or 8 on a Labor heavy election. Despite the small number of seats (not enough to win an election) SA is still an important state, because with minimal effort, Labor will gain 3 seats alone here.

Kudos to Ms Gillard too, for reminding folks here that she is an Adelaide woman. I know it sounds shallow, but that will help them here...

I don't remember anybody on either side of politics doing this before, except just before an election
when it's a bit redundant.

And Rudd is from Queensland, which Labor lost big-time in 2004, so the recognition factor should
help a bit.

I'm feeling quite positive at the moment .....

probably remember his slash and burn days in the QPS and tend not to look upon him too favourably because of it

forestry policy, which is in reality open slather for loggers.

And Peter Garrett is forced to keep his mouth shut on it - how long can he keep it up and still
retain any personal credibility?

I'm trying to recognise that Rudd can't afford to alienate all those people who've voted for Howard
for ten years on economic grounds, and can only hope that he might make some changes once he gets
elected. He's indicated a willingness to embrace the issue of climate change, but forestry is a very
important part of that - does he really know or care?

One of the biggest problems about Labor is its support is, for better or worse, dependent on the backing of unions. Tasmania is often pure red when it comes to the federal election maps. Losing those two seats was a real kick in the teeth for Labor in 2004.

My hope is, if and when in power, The ALP government will backflip and implement some kind of sensible policy about Tasmania's forests as opposed to the current government, that see all trees as future furniture and as obstacles in the way of the future car parking lots and shopping malls!

I realise Labor has to be pragmatic - pie-in-the-sky politicking won't get them re-elected.
Latham's policies cost them dearly in Tasmania, and they have to tread carefully.

But I wouldn't want to be in Peter Garrett's shoes right now; damned if he does and damned if
he doesn't say what he really thinks.

Edit: typo

The "forestry unions" don't actually have as much power within the ALP as people often think. The CFMEU does which encompasses forestry but their piece of the pie is held pretty firmly by the construction arms who detest the forestry arms.

Gunns has FAR more influence over ALP forestry policy than the unions do.

It was an embarrassment for the ALP to lose those two seats in Tas. However your statement is closer to the real truth.

For the record, I am not happy about this policy, and I am getting annoyed at Kevin Rudd's relentless shifting of the party even further to the right. I mean I knew he'd be no leftist, but it seems to me he sees the current Labor platform as a radical socialist one or something. While right now he is definitely light years better than Howard, if and when the Libs replace him they choose to run someone more moderate, the lines between the two parties would indeed be very blurry...