The media continues to criticise Rudd and his party for too much of the "ME TOO" philosophy and thus does not stop very often and actually ask what the differences are.
Is it such a bad thing to have both of the major parties actually agreeing about basic and fundamental economic issues that are destined to safeguard the economic prosperity of the country?
Would it hurt anyone to actually have a look at the differences instead of focusing on the similarities?
Let's look at the local issues concerning Industrial Relations, at the differences between the parties for the Health System and Education, affordable housing and while we are on the subject superannuation and the future for those Australians who are no longer part of working families.
Internationally, let's look at the extent to which there are differences in the way that the parties see themselves supporting the alliances that are in place and at the same time acting to preserve and enhance Australia's contribution to the international scene.
The Liberal and Country Party coalition comment that some 70% of the leadership of the Labour party has come from the union movement. Well what's wrong with that?
At a time when the union movement has been decimated by the policies of the Howard led government for some 10 years any sensible and astute person who supports the basic rights of Working Australians would recognise that simply sitting around and waiting to be picked off is a stupid policy - so senior members of the union movement have taken up politics on a different front and actually want to demonstrate to all and sundry that the only way to achieve change in some areas is to enter the fray where it counts - in party politics!
Let's not forget that the people in the Labour party who come from these union backgrounds did NOT just get to the parliament by appointment. They were ELECTED by the people who KNEW their union background and who thus showed through their voting behaviour that they WANTED people with the knowledge about how to deal with management and industrial matters as their representatives!
It's all very well to recognise that those people who are in employment need to be protected against a variety of ills that have been introduced into being by the current government.
On the other hand, neither party should not forget those people who are in the so called "baby boomer" group that have or are about to retire and so become "former" working families.
These are the people who have managed to survive the vagaries of life and have worked for the last thirty plus years to make Australia what it is. Now as they get older and wish to be able to take their retirement and live off the proceeds of what they have accumulated, they do also require that the parties take them into account.
Each day this group or retirees becomes more and more numerous and as such their interests should feature in the policies of all the parties.
The current government CAN claim that it has managed in the last ten years or so to increase the number of people who now have superannuation and who thus will be less likely to require a pension. However all parties need to recognise that the savings that these people have invested into the Australian Economy through their superannuation schemes are the backbone of a lot of the prosperity that this country now enjoys - it would NOT be a smart idea to to introduce any policies that threaten that future of what is still the majority of people in the community.
So what's in it for us?
As someone so wisely said "Show me the money!"
After the great "debate" last night on the ABC and reported by some aficionados of the Packer media empire as "How the worm turns" I think it is time for some real focus on this aspiring leader of Australia.
