not too much

As always on the day before a federal election, the newspapers' editorials come out with their recommendations. As The Age says, "The disappointing aspect of this campaign has been the unwillingness of both major parties to present clear, competing visions: instead, they have left it to the voters to read between the lines of their campaign messages." Consequently, The Age favours neither side, but notes that "The need for Senate checks on the government of the day has been brought sharply into focus and the minor parties, especially the Greens, have an important role to play in calling the major parties to account."

The Sydney Morning Herald says that "The Coalition has served Australia well with many necessary reforms, but those are now past. It makes no compelling case for re-election. Under its current leadership it appears unwilling to respond to the new and growing challenges Australia faces. We do not know how it would deal with them." Melbourne's Herald Sun, Australia largest circulation newspaper, says the opposite and supports Howard. Sydney's mass circulation tabloid, The Daily Telegraph, says that its editorial "is an unusual editorial in that it praises the leadership and legacy of our current prime minister--and calls for him to be thrown out of office. . . . [W]e now believe Mr Howard has reached his use-by date--if for no other reason than he almost believes it himself. . . . Certainty and unity are not of themselves the basis of a cogent argument for change. Oppositions must provide a compelling alternative. We believe Kevin Rudd has done so. . . . Most impressive of all is that Kevin Rudd has embraced new thinking and championed new ideas, which appears alien to John Howard."

Although I don't agree with all of it, I find the lengthy editorial in The Australian worth reading--not least because a paper generally seen to favour 'economic rationalism' is supporting Labor. Often accused of being right-wing, The Oz defends itself as "not so interested in one side of politics or the other", but as a consistent advocate of "an open economy, markets, international engagement, reform of the federation and labour market deregulation." The paper evidences its independence by its exposure of the 'children overboard' affair, its pursual of the Government over AWB, its argument for tax reform and its exposure of the weakness of the government's scandalous handling of the Haneef affair.

The Australian has a particular interest in Mr Rudd's desire to modernise the federation--something long overdue. But it supports Howard's industrial relations changes, which I do not. It is satisfied that, although Labor is its choice, Howard's coalition would continue to be satisfactory, which which I disagree. In all, the paper's conclusion is interesting.

We believe . . . that Australia deserves a leader who reflects Australia's character and position in a rapidly changing world and fast-growing region.

We believe the incumbent Government has been a good manager but has not done much with the prosperity with which the nation has been blessed during its watch. Mr Howard and his team have a proven track record but, to us, they have run out of energy. Their campaign is a signal of their torpor. Mr Rudd has spoken of recapturing some of the reform zeal of the Hawke and Keating years, the economic benefits of which are still being felt. There is much detail missing from Mr Rudd's promised reform revolution, especially in education and health, but we believe he has the administrative experience to manage constructive change. We recognise that no change is free of risk, but we recommend a vote for Mr Rudd.

Well, yes, but Mr Rudd and Labor remain only my second preference, after a first preference for the Greens. Another piece of editorialising in the paper includes part of my reasoning.

Mr Rudd has been brilliant in uniting the ALP and enforcing discipline on a party that has struggled to come up with a popular message for nearly 12 years in opposition. It is hard to fault his leadership either over the past five weeks of the campaign or the 11 months since he was took control of the party. The contrast could not be starker with the Government, which has found it impossible to keep on message because is has no message to stick to.

As a result, the proposition on offer from Mr Rudd is to vote for him not on the strength of his policies but on the strength of his leadership in the hope that the single-mindedness and determination he has shown in getting elected can be turned effectively to running the country. It is a pitch for voters to take him on trust.

Yes, Labor has worked hard and with discipline to give us a hint of where it's going. Yet, despite hundreds of pages of press releases and policy documents full of specifics, Labor's principles remain a vague mish mash. Sorry Mr Rudd, I'm still not fully convinced to trust you to bring justice, equity, fairness and sound environmental management. Which is why we need the strongest possible Green representation in the Senate. Yes, the Labor policies are better than those of the coalition. Of course, the Greens will not have the numbers to put their policies into effect, but they can keep a weather eye on the government. For the Green's policies are better, by and large. The Greens will get my first preference and Labor will my second preference--with Howard's Liberals a sorry last.