Something I have yet to learn from my wide range of reading, the advertisement or two on the television, and websites such as this, is what does Kevin Rudd really stand for?

So far what i have decided on Mr Rudd is that he is a huge fan of big government.  Considering he is by profession a civil servant I am hardly surprised, he apparently likes complicated procedures, layer upon layer of bureaucracy, centralisation of power, and large levels of government intervention.  His IR and health plans highlight his love of centralisation, while some may argue that the governments own IR policy is centralisation, in that the took control away from the states and brought it to canberra, i would suggest that it is in fact the opposite.  AWAs put the power into the hands of the individuals, and make sure that rather than generalising for the whole country, the unique factors relating to each individual employment, can be considered and acted upon.  As someone who has worked on an AWA as an unskilled labourer, I can attest to the success of this goal.  The Rudd health plan is another example of giving power to the government and civil service, rather than those on the coalface, and it is Mr Rudd's second piece of that cake.  As head civil servant in the Goss government he oversaw the removal of the local boards which until then ran hospitals, fire brigades, etc.  These boards were made up of experts, members of different levels of government,  but most importantly locals.  The very people who know the region, and it's unique constraints, as well as the people.  It is interesting to note the decline in health services in my home state since this decision was made, one need not say more than to suggest anyone in QLD pick up a newspaper for a status report on the success of Mr Rudd's first go at health.  Isn't it interesting then, that after his failed experiments, which gave him the nickname Dr Death long before Jayant Patel took the title, he is at it again.  If moving the control of Cairns, Townsville, Bunderberg, Mackay, and all the other hospitals, up to thousands of kms away, and administering them under the state demographic, rather than the varied local ones, was such a bitter and devastating failure, why would taking it even farther away be any better?

Something else that concerns me deeply is Mr Rudd's views on the economy, something that while it may be a bland topic of discussion, is central to every other aspect of government management.  Mr Rudd claims to be an "economic conservative", but as our treasurer points out, he opposed all the government's economic actions, which he now claims he will continue.  I can see only three solutions; 1) Mr Rudd has been recently converted to a previously unheld belief in economic conservatism, 2) He has always been an economic conservative but as a member of the opposition either put his party's policies before his own beliefs, or was simply opposing for the sake of opposition, or 3) Mr Rudd is not, nor has he ever been an economic conservative, but has decided, either on his own, or on the advice of advisors and consultants, that it is better politics, and thus better for his campaign, to pretend to be such.

John Howard on the other hand, as he said in his speech at the commencement of the campaign, has made his views very clear over the past decade, and I definitely know where he stands.  Before I get comments on the planned addition of aboriginal recognition in the preamble to the constitution i reccommend you locate a copy of the constitution preamble for the 1998 refferendum.  He is and always has been an economic conservative, he believes strongly in small business, he believes that work is ALWAYS better than welfare, and he believes that in a capitalist society like ours, private enterprise can deliver better services and more competition in areas like telecommunications, than goverment ever can.  If you ever want to know the virtues of privitisation, go to any government department (such as QLD transport) and compare the level of service with that of a private business, remembering that if you're not happy, unlike a government department, you can always go next door.

So finally, my question to Mr Rudd is this, why should i believe you have been honestly promoting yourself, and your vision, when you have already had a complete U-turn on your public views about the economy, you spent most of your time in opposition attacking the government on matters not concerned with the running of the country, such as alleged fundraisers on government property, what Mr Costello did or did not say to journalists etc, and most of your campaign on irrelevant slogans such as NEW leadership, Education REVOLUTION, and the like.  What does NEW mean on it's own? How does NEW keep the budget in surplus? How does NEW allow me to find a job?  If you were really confident about your vision for the country wouldn't you have supported the government's conservative economic actions while in opposition?  Wouldn't you have spent more of your question times asking about issues that directly affect the people?