What's Wrong With Rudd
"Put not your trust in kings and princes. Three of a kind will take them both."
Piers Akerman says that Kevin Rudd is a failure as a Prime Minister, evidenced by the fact that the Kevin 07 crowd has disappeared. This overlooks the reason why we've dissipated: because Rudd has turned out to be so much like Akerman's hero, John Howard.
Maybe it would help if Rudd were actually in the country more often. No doubt he'd argue that he's furthering Australia's interests overseas, but isn't that what we have a Foreign Minister for? Even if Stephen Smith has to stay in and wash his hair, surely we could accomplish the same with a few trade delegations.
Because there's a lot for Rudd to be getting on with back home. They have done good things - signing the Kyoto protocol, apologising to the Stolen Generations, and getting the Australian troops out of Iraq.
But whilst these have been commendable, they're also laregly tokenistic (espeically since the apology was structured to preclude compensation). The Howard legacy has left gaping holes in the social fabric of this country and it's hard to see what the Ruddites are doing to fix it, except for denying us the drink we all so desperatley need.
We want a government that will attempt to change public opinion, not merely respond to it. The Rudd government's lack of fortitude on petrol prices and the global warming issue has been disheartening. Wouldn't it be a nice change to hear a Minister say, "look, high petrol prices are a pain, but we do all need to drive less?". If only they had the courage.
The group most entitled to feel let down though is old age pensioners. It's hard to witness their disappointment as they speak of their excitement that maybe they'd get a better deal out of Rudd, and having those hopes dashed.
Am I wrong or right? Are these opinions fair, or is it to soon to judge? I throw this open to debate, ever the tool of the lazy blogger not sure how best to finish a post.