By the "standards" of Australian media, Bernard Keane's article is not only reasonably fair but in many cases spot on.

Of course, if the Prime Minister of Australia tries his gusts out, by all political means, to sell an ETS and is blocked by a obstructionist Senate - he would have to re-think wouldn't he?  After two efforts denied by that Senate he had the option of a double dissolution but - and I remember clearly, he and Malcolm Turnbull made a very Liberal compromise which, for its blatant use of "honor and integrity" cost that leader his post.  That should go down as another "Howardism" when he wanted to lead. 

Both Rudd and Senator Wong replied to D.D. questions that the Australian people expect Governments to use their full term?  How was that wrong?

So even with the worst sort of crap that the Opposition tries to use in their favorite newspapers, he has so far kept his word and has been unfairly abused for it. Little squeaky shadow minister Hunt is quick now to suggest that Rudd should have broken his word on a double dissolution or had an earlier election (after the event of course).  Not so very long ago Hunt was shouting from the rafters that Rudd wanted a D.D. trigger - and the Mad Monk thinks that Rudd's honest refusal is cowardice and has no place in Howard's sort of politics.  (I must agree with the latter).

The facts are that Rudd has had ample opportunities for a double dissolution on matters that he cares very much about such as, the ETS; Education and "My School"; and much more infrastructure to handle population expansion - and now - a Health scheme that because of its brilliance and size of its creation, is so easy to undermine.

So Bernard criticizes - albeit politely - the Rudd back off on the ETS, perhaps the most urgent of his reforms, which just happens to be blocked twice by the Senate, especially by the "my way or the highway" greens as well,

I quote Bernard as follows: 

Sadly, this is the perfect time to be implementing an emissions trading scheme, with the economy again poised to enter an extended boom led by the resources sector. Any negative impacts on polluters of the scheme -- and the Grattan Institute has conclusively shown that impacts will be almost trivial -- would be minor compared to the benefits of strong economic growth. Australia's emerging economic challenge is to manage high levels of growth. The introduction of an effective ETS would provide an additional tool for policy makers dealing with too much demand and unbalanced growth.  (But whose fault is that?)

COMMENT: My take on this whole issue is that the Rudd government is an efficient and honest (as possible) political party which will never use the Howard "core or non-core" or the Abbott "rock solid and iron clad" type of deception which the "new order" played so often to our disadvantage.

This Rudd government has, since its election to office, maintained an honest and up front attitude to the Australian people. In fact, I cannot think of one thing that they have done or proposed to do that would not benefit the majority of Australians.

In addition, I can only imagine the horror of the "Murdochracy" that - during the first two years of the Rudd Government of the people, by the people and for the people – was so unbelievably popular.

That would have made it very difficult for Murdoch to claw back the normal situation of the media electing the Federal government as it has since 1975.

Shades of "Sir" Frank Packer in 1975 when he overstepped all boundaries of decency to remove the Whitlam government - and paid an out of court settlement for it. 

Queen Elizabeth I Knighted the Pirates - nothing has changed has it?

God Bless Australia and increase our information before the next election.  NE OUBLIE.

Hi Ernest,

I must confess that I'm not interested in 'standards' but rather principles.

On that score, the Milky Bar Kid has proved to be just as reliable as Rattus.

The suggestion that the government abandoned the ETS because there was no point in pursuing it, because the government wasn't prepared to pursue a double dissolution, because the people expect the government to serve a full term is pathetic hogwash.

Apart from a lack of principle & a lack pf resolve, nothing prevents the government from going with a double dissolution in 6 months & it would have effectively served its term.

I'm afraid Ernest that our Kevin has been captured by the trappings of power, a little like 'aussie tony' before him. The fact that our 'independent' Prime Meanster is prepared to ignore the Australian people & do nothing to address the environmental disaster consuming this country & the rest of the planet is evidence enough of that.

Cheers.

G'day John, good to hear from you.

IMHO after Rattus as with Bushit, the principles of both countries suffered dearly but, it was a wonder to me that a well known Journalist would even try to be fair and, who knows, that could be because he has principles.

The mention of Rudd and Wong stating, reasonably early in the debate, that the people wanted governments to serve their full term is, as far as I remember, a true statement and one that could be construed as being borne of principle? Remember 1972/74/75?

The fact that there are several options for Rudd to call an early election or double dissolution fails to consider that he is the elected power that chooses the type of defense needed for its continued tenure in office, within the specific rules of course.

At the moment, just about every member of the dishonest media has had a go at him to do something or other, (especially all areas of the ABC) pulling in all directions so as to confuse a man (and the public) who, unfortunately, tries to please everybody.  But, in the end in each of these conundrums, Rudd has kept his sense of balance and the conservatives hate him for it.

As a matter of interest John, I was personally upset with Rudd for not taking advantage of his stellar popularity and hoped he would ask for a double dissolution on the first trigger of several – which I think was the ETS?  Now that would have been a slam dunk but, it was against what I prefer to believe are his principles.  He missed a Howardist opportunity which could have given him almost all he wanted.

As you say, maybe he is affected by the trappings of power and that certainly would not be uncommon but, all of his major promises were of a nature that could not be completed in a day or two or a year or two.  Works in progress – which each and every Coalition member has used to have credible exposure in their electorates as if it was their idea.

The never-ending (and still under investigation?) loss of four untrained people, employed by shonky “fly by night” opportunists is a case in point. The “New Order” hypocrites who supported Howard in not apologizing to an entire race, want Rudd to apologize for a political crime that doesn't exist.  Perhaps when the culprits are brought to justice, they should be locked up.

Simply put, IF the Prime Minister or the appropriate Minister or even the whole bloody government were to resign and “fall on their swords” for a legal judgment that cost lives, the change in the US would be like a revolving door.

The object to save jobs was and proved to be a good one but, no government especially the “I am for it and against it” Abbott, can  predict or even personally police the rules that were laid down to put the plan in motion.  They make the rules and others enforce them.

I make the final point that no member of the Rudd government committed any crime or misdemeanor which would in any way be a sacking affair.

Again we are victims of a media of which we can be thoroughly ashamed.  And I for one no longer consider that the ABC is anything now but a neo-con enterprise and is definitely NOT the people’s voice.

Cheers John.  Ern G.

Hi Ernest,

I think the thing about principles & whether someone has them & lives by them or not is that should be self-evident & not have to be the subject of debate.

Like it or not, our Kevin forcefully & repeatedly made the need for his ETS the most important issue that his government were determined to address. They haven't & have no plan to do so. They then insult our intelligence by trying to persuade us that it's all the Mad Monk's fault & anyway, they can't pursue a double dissolution on the issue because it's more important for them to concentrate their energies on staying in power. That's a crock Ernest.

In my world, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck & quacks like a duck, it sure as hell isn't the son of man.

And to further blur his failure, the little banana bender rushes out today & kicks the crap out of smokers ... what a hero ... such statesmanship ... just the sort of shabby shit I expect from used car or siding salesmen ... unprincipled rubbish.

A pox on all of them Ernest ... in my view, we haven't had a genuine political leader in this country since before World War II.

Cheers,

John. 

May I quote:

In my world, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck & quacks like a duck, it sure as hell isn't the son of man.

And to further blur his failure, the little banana bender rushes out today & kicks the crap out of smokers ... what a hero ... such statesmanship ... just the sort of shabby shit I expect from used car or siding salesmen ... unprincipled rubbish.

A pox on all of them Ernest ... in my view, we haven't had a genuine political leader in this country since before World War II.

Now who can argue with that?

If I live to be 100, it will be because that in part, people like you and Gus have a fabulous way of making your point by the use of inoffensive words, put together in such a way as to make a serious issue appear to be resolvable with a little bit of levity.

I do not laugh at you two - quite the contrary - I laugh with you.

And as an ex-sailor, I do agree with the last part of your issue of the pox.

Cheers John.  Ern G.