UN ineffectiveness problematic in Lebanese conflict...

Kofi Annan's claims of 'apparent delibrate targeting' of a known UN observer post ignored one of the problems of the confict. Since the withdrawl of Israeli forces from Southern Lebanon in 2000, the UN has maintained an force of Observers throughout Israel and Southern Lebanon. In their midst, Hezbollah did not only fail to obey the UN Security Council resolution in which they were to disarm and disband their militia, it actually did the opposite. The UN has been recieving a running commentary from its observers of the preparations of Hezbollah military infrastructure and movement of weapons throughout the region.

This is a prime example of the UN as a toothless tiger - impotent and pathetic. Not only was their resolution disobeyed, but they have presided over the biggest arms build up of Hezbollah's history. The UN actually has a fair element of the blame for Hezbollah arming its infrastructure and forces with countless rocket artillery assets - Israel was expecting after withdrawing from Lebanon that the UN would police and ensure their resolution was carried out. Instead the UN stood by and watched Hezbollah prepare for their opportunity to launch their new found arsenal into Israel - not at invading troops but at civilians and civilian infrastruce indiscriminatly.

Annan lashed out at Israel for the killing of UN Observers by IDF bombing - Australia's media lapped it up, damning the Israeli's for their inhumane act... both ignored the fact that Hezbollah has openly moved forces to close vicinity of UN Observer posts, civilan infrastructure and to civilians themselves. Hezbollah understands the propaganda gains it makes when it forces Israel to use area weapons close to civilian and neutral infrastructure. Hezbollah gains in strenght everytime children are killed because of the combatants in their midst, when Hospitals and homes alike are destroyed due to rockets being fired in close proximity.

I just wish the Western media would stop feeding the Hezbollah propaganda machine and start looking at the tactics that are causing the collateral damage, and lay the deserving criticism and blame upon the terrorist Hezbollah forces.

Beattie's defecits keep coming....

News this week of Beattie's ad-hoc commitment to a water recylcing program to the tune of $334 million dollars - bringing the total of un-funded projects to $2 .334 billion dollars. Remember that the last state budget was released in June - a month later and Beattie has already racked up $2.334 billion in unfunded projects . Effectively Beattie has tried to bluff his way with the voters, claiming he was running the budget at a surplus, and then trying to slip the fact that $2.334 billion of funding were not included in Budget estimates shortly after. The $245 million budget operating surplus has well and truly gone, and factor in that Beattie is borrowing a substantial amount to fund the $10 billion infrastructure program he announced with great fanfare.

This dangerously negligent cowboy needs to go - Queensland will hurt from the legacy of Beattie's period of power.

Lebanon: Hezbollah is a parasite, not a freedom fighting movement!

I was extremely dissapointed with Dr Abraham Constantin, spokesman for the Lebanese Community and Tariq Ali, columnist for the Age and their commentary on the Middle East Conflict. Constantin appeared on Ten's Meet the Press this morning, failing to condem a single action of Hezbollah, and indeed attempting to deflect the Australian Governments view of Hezbollah as a terrorist group. He instead concentrated his criticism on Israel:

From the transcript of Ten's Meet the Press;

STEPHEN SPENCER: But does Hezbollah bear any responsibility for this? Does Hezbollah, launching the rockets, kidnapping the Israelis, and, in short, do you think Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation? ABRAHAM CONSTANTIN: Well, Stephen, this is not the first time skirmishes happened on the border with Israel. Previously on various occasions Hezbollah took Israeli soldiers, Israel took Hezbollah militants. They've always negotiated. Why is it different this time? It gives the Lebanese a view that this is not a reaction, it's not an issue of two soldiers, it's a planned and systematic attack on the sovereignty of the Lebanese nation.

Now I'm not sure if the good Doctor has paid attention to the Israeli reaction to having a soldier taken captive by Hamas leading up the Hezbollah's raid that killed several Israeli soldiers and took two captives. If he thinks this was just 'the norm', he has seriously misread Israel's situation. This was a highly inflammatory act designed to result in Israel attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon, and allow Hezbollah to rebuild its waning support and power base with Lebanon. Hezbollah had seen the reaction to Hamas' operation, and used Israel's need to respond with a show of force as a catalyst to retake the initiative in an increasingly stabilising Lebanon.

As for a planned and systematic attack on the sovereignty of Lebanon, maybe the Doctor should be also applying that statement to Hezbollah - which after all in a non state actor that has operated outside the legitimate government and defence forces. The sovereignty of Lebanon is sevrely undermined by a non-state actor - a terrorist organisation that operates outside of any Laws of Armed conflict and has failed to obey a UN Security Council direction to disarm. This organisation makes decisions that are often contrary to the interests of Lebanon as a whole, and shows more loyalty to their Iranian backers than the legitmate Government of Lebanon.

Tariq Ali in his opinion piece published in the Sunday Age chose to focus again on the actions of Israel and failed to highlight how Hezbollah has greatly undermined the legitimate government of Lebanon (which it is a minor part - kind of like the Greens taking matters into their own hands in Australia). He summed up the current conflict as such;

"The latest Israeli offensive is designed to take the castle. Will it succeed? A protracted colonial war lies ahead, since Hezbollah, like Hamas, has mass support. It cannot be written off as a "terrorist" organisation. The Arab world sees its forces as freedom fighters resisting colonial occupation."

It is as if Israel instiagted this conflict with Lebanon without provocation - and once again, a pro-Arab commentator has failed to criticise Hezbollah - instead trying to relabel the terrorist organisation as freedom fighters resisting colonial occupation. Well Tariq Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 - Hezbollah has for six years continued attacking Israel and has built a massive offensive arsenal. Hezbollah is not a freedom fighting organisation, but rather a terrorist organisation with the goal of destroying the nation of Israel and remaining the dominant player within Lebanon. The action by Hezbollah was actually met with criticism from Saudi Arabia and other Sunni nations who condemned the actions taken.

Lastly, lets get onto the criticism of Israel breaking Geneva Conventions Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) throughout the dispute. Sadly, Hezbollah has not recieved the same criticism, which is troubling considering the operating procedures actually greatly contribute to collateral damage. Lets now look at some of the LOAC principles also being broken. I have raised the fact that Israel has violated the principle of proportionality at several occasions throughout the conlfict - but the placing of key Hezbollah infrastructure in residential areas close to vital civilian infrastructure has seen collateral damage far greater than would otherwise occur.

As LOAC training we conduct in the Australian Defence Force teaches us, as a commander we must 'weigh the possibility and amount of collateral damage against the advantage gained in targeting a legitimate military objective'. Hezbollah is delibrately placing infrastructure in such a way that each military objective comes with increased collateral damage.

Hezbollah does not follow the principles of identification or distinction - that is, ensuring that combatants and non-combatants (along with infrastructure and equipment) are easily distinguished between. It instead seeks to disguise itself as part of the civilian infrastructure and peoples of Lebanon. As you can quickly see, LOAC quickly becomes a major military impediment when fighting against an enemy that does not adhere to LOAC and seeks to use these principles against you. Civilian and collateral damage is occuring less because Israel is delibrately seek this, and far more the fact that Hezbollah seeks to capitalise on media coverage and gain advantage by fighting in a dangerous way that actually puts civilians and infrastructure in increased risk. After all, Hezbollah 'wins' when Israel accidentaly kills Lebanese children - they win increased support, power and coverage. Hezbollah is more a parasite to Lebanon than a freedom fighting organisation.

Commentators and the international community need to get realistic. Hezbollah and Hamas need to be disarmed and have their militas disbanded to protect the best interests of Lebanon, Palestine and Israel. These extremists parasites are pursuing the interests of Iran and Syria, not their own countrymen - no matter what image they try to portray to sympathetic parties around the world.

Welcome to the wild west... Politics QLD style!!!

Madonna King in today's Courier Mail outlined some of the bigger issues that have come out in past week in estimates committee hearings in Queensland... one of which being the $2 billion bill for new Dams in Queensland not being anywhere in the Budget - Yeah, that's right... just a little omission!?!?!

Welcome to Politics QLD style - ever since the Senate voted themselves out of a job in the depression and optional preferencing become procedure, we have had some absolute garbage go down in Brisbane. The irony is evident when Beattie, a former protestor against 'wild' Sir Joh, becomes one of dodgiest operators QLD has ever had in parliament (and there have been some true gutter trash) ... media tart and owner of one of the most unimpressive records of any Premier Australia has seen.

In Eight years Beattie has run QLD into the ground... playing popular has seen Health and Education slowly head down in the gurgler, Energy and Water not far behind them. He will deliver a legacy wridden with time bombs ticking to his successor - like Carr, his negligence will only become truly clear once he is finally gone. There is no passing the buck when you inherit services that are amongst the best in country, only to see them become the worst within your time in Government.

A few other highlights from the Beattie government included underspending on disabled infrastructure, failing to implement 16 recommendations listed in the Crime and Misconduct Commission report into child abuse, failing to cost extra teacher aide hours for the new 'prep' year starting next year in QLD schools .... the list keeps going.

Fellow Queenslanders, do our state a favour and vote this clown out - he makes us a laughing stock and is the most negligent Government leader the nation has seen in the past decade.

Andrew Bolt vs the rest... Insiders wrap up.

Bolt appearing after some high profile comments during the week about Australians with dual citizenship - nothing on Piers Akerman, whose Blog has gone into meltdown after he bagged the

"new class of dual nationality super-snivellers who believe mere possession of an Australian passport guarantees them security in their “other” homeland". Still, I'm sure there will be plenty of anti-Israel 'ignore terrorist organisations and non-state militias that are the biggest obstacle to the peace process ever succeeding' arguements from the 'left' media present, so Bolt will be in fine form.

More to come after tomorrow's viewing....

I'm so sick and tired of Howard's 'false' unemployment figures

So you think Howard cleans up unemployment figures to give his Government a better 'progpaganda' pitch hey? An assistant statistician from ABS might just be able to set you straight..

As written to Crikey 21 Jul 06
"Merilyn Henden, assistant statistician in Labour Statistics at the Australian Bureau of Statistics, writes: "It's time to end the great unemployment figure rort" (17 July, item 18) accused the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) of presenting misleading unemployment statistics. It is true that some countries only count a person as employed if they worked 15 hours or more in the reference week. However, Australia, United Kingdom, Canada and other countries have interpreted the phrase "some work" included in the internationally accepted definition to mean work for at least one hour. This approach ensures consistency between measures of employment and measures of production of goods and services, as all work (however little) contributing to national production is included in measures of employment. Employment and unemployment statistics in Australia have been produced using these internationally accepted concepts and methods since the monthly national labour force survey commenced in 1978. Each month the ABS conducts the Labour Force Survey (LFS) in around 30,000 households across Australia. The LFS collects information used to produce official estimates of people who are employed, unemployed, and not in the labour force. The information collected relates to the labour force activity in the reference week of the respondent. This approach is widely accepted, both in Australia and internationally, as the best method of achieving reliable information on the level of unemployment. Apart from the key measures of employment and unemployment, the LFS also collects information about the hours worked by respondents and their desire for more hours. In addition, the LFS collects more detailed information on a specific topic or group of people each month. One such group is "Persons not in the Labour Force". This additional information is collected annually to assist those who wish to undertake further analysis of people classified as not in the labour force. Comparisons between the unemployment rate produced from the LFS and various government benefits can be difficult because they are not measuring the same thing. For example, estimates of the number of Australians on unemployment benefits can include people who are working. They can also be affected by administrative procedures and any changes made to them. Hopefully the points above will help Crikey readers better understand ABS labour force statistics."

So lets stop this wingeing about Howard's spin doctoring the best unemployment rates in 30 years... nothing has changed since 1978, and this method has been used by subsequent Liberal AND Labor governments.

Enough said.

Israel / Arab - whichever side you are on, you must agree with this!

Despite where you stand on the conflict that is unfolding within the Middle East, one thing is universal. The militias of Hamas and Hezbollah must be disbanded and disarmed for the Peace process to ever have a chance of success. No ifs, no buts, no blaming Israel, the US or the international community. The biggest impediment to peace is two non state forces that operate outside the control of their respective governments.

Let's examine the situation by using an example we can all understand....

Australia and New Zealand have been involved in on-going conflicts for the past 50 so years. During this time New Zealand invaded Australia - in response to the Australian Defence Force's inability to defeat N.Z. , the Labor Party raised a militia to fight our invaders. New Zealand withdrew, and we signed a cease fire and peace agreement. The Labor militia, seeing that its powerbase and popularity would wane in times of peace, sought to win popularity by attacking the still hated New Zealanders with frequent rocket barrages and taking their soldiers hostage....

Do you really think New Zealand would stand for this action and maintain its ceasefire and peace agreement? Is this reasonable - do we not hold Australia accountable for a militia operating within its borders and part of its government?

What needs to be done is this - Hamas and Hezbollah need to disband and disarm their militias - Hezbollah is already required to do this by a UN Security Council agreement. Once their militias are disarmed and vigilante activity stopped, the UN and International Community needs to guarantee their security from Israel. The Palestinian and Lebanese Defence Forces need to be enhanced and become to sole actors in Defence in their respective nations.

Only when this is achieved can the peace process get back on track. How can we expect a cease fire to occur when you have non-state militias running around with their own agenda and no accountability to their government? Once the militias are no more, state can negotiate with state - as it should be!

Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organisations at the moment - as long as they maintain vigilante militias, they always will be. Both have a responsibility as a political force to ensure they protect and build upon their nations sovereignty, not tear it down.

It should never have been Israel's responsibility to disarm Hamas and Hezbollah - their respective Governments have that responsibility, and if that fails, international groups such as the Arab League and United Nations must step in.

Israel is not obeying the Law of Armed Conflict principle of proportionality in this conflict - something that needs to be addressed. But disarming the militias is far more critical - after all, disproportionate conflict only occurs after vigilante militias force the Israeli government to retalliate.

But we wouldn't want to 'steal' you..

"Significant numbers of Aboriginal children were removed, or stolen, from their families. And such practices were enshrined in the policies of the time and endorsed by government. The legacy of these policies and practices has been devastating for my people. This legacy continues to impact on each successive generation, causing immeasurable grief and trauma and loss of culture. tude is killing our children." -Professor Lowitja O'Donoghue, Aboriginal Activist.

The stigma placed upon community services and religious groups due to the stolen generation is having a nasty flow on effect for 21st century children in danger. After a decade of preaching of the damage done when children are removed from their parents, children are now suffering in the hands of negligent parents around Australia. This is not just happening within our troubled Aboriginal communities in remote Australia - The William Thomas Clare case saw a 3 year old boy raped and murdered, his six year old sister also raped. Their mother entrusted Clare with baby sitting her children after meeting him at a train station, and continued to let him look after her children after her daughter told her he was looking at her genitals. The 3 year old boy died after being raped and electrocuted with exposed wires shortly after.

Some of the ongoing concerns with Aboriginal children's living conditions were highlighted earlier this year.

"According to West Australian Health Department statistics, 708 children under 14 had been infected with the diseases since 2001. And almost 80 per cent of the victims were Aboriginal.
Of those, 19 were toddlers and preschoolers under the age of four. In the Kimberley region in the state's far northwest, four children aged under four had been infected with chlamydia or gonorrhoea last year." From 'STDs rife in indigenous children' by Ashleigh Wilson and Tony Barrass in the Australian June 23, 2006.

Now let us examine the rights of a child that Australia has signed up to:

From UNICEFs the Convention of Rights of a Child:

Article 3: “In all actions concerning children … the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”

Article 19: Children must be protected from “… injury or abuse … including sexual abuse, while in the care of parents … or any other person….”

The right for children to remain in the care of their parents if it is there choice is also a right that has been ratified by Australia. The problem is that this right seems to be used above all others in determining how state community services deal with children in dangerous and disadvantaged situations. Australian children are suffering terrible abuse because community service now believes that 'stealing' a child is a greater sin than allowing one to remain in suffering and abuse. When do we realise again that in some extreme cases, taking a child away from their parents - yes stealing that child - is in the best interets of that child!

The proponents of the 'never again' viewpoint after the stolen generation debates have a lot to answer for. I believe that the children's rights should come before an adult - if we have to steal a child from an adult to ensure that child lives a healthy and happy life, so be it.

Dual citizen Australians in Lebanon...

25,000 Australian citizens are seeking Australian Government help in evacuting from war stricken Lebanon. Criticism is being leveled at DFAT and Alexander Downer about the slowness of respones. Let's just take a minute to look at the situation - Firstly 25,000 citizens are in a nation that DFAT has had a travel warning current for over a month... you are assuming some risk when you disregard the warning. Secondly, the Australian Government doesn't possess the assets to move 5,000 soldiers as rapidly as some people are expecting 25,000 civilians (dispersed throughout an active war zone). We have no ships nearby - Lebanon is half the world away so is this really surprising, and air is out of the question due to the on going conflict and targeting of airports.

Thirdly, lets look at who else we are competing with to get our citizens out via private shipping and other means; 25,000 US, 20,000 French, 45,000 Canadians, 34,000 Filipino, 90,000 Sri Lankans, 20,000 British. It is obvious that obtaining assets will cost a premium and this is extreme demand in a short supply environment.

I think it is time that the critics take a reality check...

Out of those 25,000 Australians I want to know how many dual citizens there are. One thing this situation definetly raises is in regards to dual citizenship. This evacuation will end up costing the Australian taxpayer significant amounts - so how often do we expect our dual citizens to actually contribute to the Government by paying tax? Should we require a financial year's worth of tax in every decade? Dual citizenship is fine, but when it costs Australia so much to support our offshore citizens, we need some contribution to this nation finacially from them! I wonder how much tax those 25,000 Australians have contributed in the past five years.... enough to cover the costs of chatering six ships for their evacuation?

Bring back Latham?

Newspoll comparison between Beazley now and Latham as leader;
Decisive & strong: B 57 L 69
Visonary: B 69 L 77
Understands Major Issues: B 70 L 73
Caring: B 82 L 78
Likeable: B 73 L 70
In touch: B 64 L 75
Trustworthy: B 64 L 61

So the voters find Beazley more caring and likeable than a sociopath known for his head kicking ways in parliament. The only other area that Beazley trumps our spiteful ex opposition leader is in trust.... and the public really put a high priority on trust in our politicians today, don't they! I'd hate to be a Labor supporter right now - if only that talent pool wasn't so shallow at the moment....

Why doesn't Beazley tackle the economy?

The Australian published newspoll results today - no surprises in the results. On which leader the respondents trust with key issues, there wasn't much change. Howard still out in front in security and the economy, Beazley leading the way in Labor's bread and butter issues, health and education.

What really caught me by surprise was how badly Beazley is doing with the economy. Not only does he fail to inspire anywhere near the confidence levels that Howard does, he fails to inspire his own voters in this issue. On no other issue (except for possibly IR - ill check that) do respondents have less confidence in their party's leader than the opposition leader. This is clearly an area that Beazley needs to do some serious work on his policy and approach. The last election was decided on 'who do you trust with interest rates, with the economy', yet Beazley still has a major drama in winning voters over on economic issues.

Labor really seems to be banking on IR being the overwhelmingly decisive issue in the next election. Sure they have been pushing an alternate energy plan, and re-emphasised push on training and education... but those issues don't rate up there with the economy and security.

Keep on ripping up those laws...

4 Corners takes aim...

The infamous David Clarke was under the spotlight once again, with the public broadcaster firing its latest salvo at the conservative powerbroker. The usual assortment of disgruntled members and has-beens were dragged out to make the case that Clarke is the antichrist.

One thing that amazes me about David Clarke is how someone as powerful as media commentators clearly believe him to be has failed to capitilise on his power. The backbench hardly seems the place that a significant powerbroker within the NSW Liberal party would appear.

The same old smears have once again been dragged out - Urbanchich and his Nazi ties, the John Brogden smear leaks. I don't think Clarke really could have anything to make the Brogden situation worse - that was a capitulation of his own making.

It seems the only truly remarkable thing about David Clarke and his 'group' (not faction) seems to be the fact that David Clarke is involved with Opus Dei. I wonder if he would have even been news worthy had not a summer best seller with evil Opus Dei characters in it have appeared?

The ABC and other media commentators seem to believe that there is nothing more sinister in politics than a politician with links to Opus Dei... or Hillsong.

Howard retakes the initiative...

Sadly for Labor voters, once again Howard has re-taken the initiative. Focusing on issues such as energy and water addresses interests many Australians would hold. Malcolm Turnbull in particular is benefiting from some of the most severe droughts and water restrictions the East Coast has experienced. In QLD concerns have been enough to ensure normally unpopular decisions - building new dams - have become a viable option.

Howard pushed for state co-operation in the form of water trading and urged recycling of water as necessary. This has the affect of making the Government look like they are pushing for reform, but also enables most of the burden to be placed on State governments - very handy!

Energy was also focused upon - but not the green-friendly renewable types, the fossil types that Australia has abundant supplies of. Australia is the world's biggest supplier of coal, and therefore has an interest in the pursuit of greener coal technology that will alow coal to remain a major energy source. LNG is also another area where Australia can benefit - the PM touched on the fact that as a stable and reliable supplier, Australia will be an increasingly popular option... who would you trust your energy contracts with... Iran or Australia??

Where now for Howard and Costello

So what's the strategy to regain the initiative? One of the results of the leadership controversy in the last week should be an increase in Howard's approval rating - that's right, an increase. The average Australian would have had a scare this week - actually considering that Howard might not be leading the nation will have made the punter realise how much they approve of the job he is doing.

While in one sense this week has been wonderful for the Labor party - for once it is the Liberal internal squabbles dominating the press, there has been no coverage of anything Labor. IR has been off the public radar for the first time in several weeks, and the momentum behind this issue has been stunted in the leadership hype. COAG sat during the week, with Premiers taking the opportunity to fire pot shots at Costello and his 'new federalism' and appearing unified in support of Howard. That's great, but all they've done is strengthen Howard at the cost of Costello... AND Beazely. Australian's do not like change, and they particularly avoid changing something they percieve as successful - Beazely already has his work cut out in these times of prosperity. The smoothest state - federal relations in years, and a highly productive COAG meeting doesn't motivate voters to oust a highly succesful Coalition government.

Lyn Allison appeared on Ten's 'Meet the Press' this morning trying to convince everyone, including her own party, that they were not headed for the political oblivion at the next election. I agree with the assessment that the Democrats have moved too far to the Left - they are now longer a centre party - they are a Left leaning party that just doesn't do things as well as the Greens. My own views on their future have been made before - they will be as bad, if not worse as the last election - afterall what have the Democrats done since 2003 to improve in the voters' eyes?

I look forward to another week of high drama in federal politics - the Treasurer has his soapbox this week with the meeting of all state and territory treasurers. Let's see how he attempts to restablish his authority as the number 2 and works hard to get back to business.

Masterstroke or blunder?

The fall out from Costello's 'treason' ( his almost perfect loyalty for Howard until now seems to be have forgotten over night - what loyalty do you owe someone who gives no loyalty in return?) was all over the press today. Most commentators are rigidly focused on the here and now - few seem to focus on the next decade - Howard might be here for another 3 - 5 years, but he will definetly be gone by his mid 70's. Many Howard supporters have been attacking Costello's arrogance and smug smirks - but who do they see as an alternative... the far more arrogant Abbott or the smug fishnet stocking wearing Downer (Do they remember his last stint as Liberal leader)?

Ultimately, Liberal supporters and sitting members must come to terms with one thing. Howard's days are numbered - he is in the twilight of his political career. Costello is the future - Howard walking all over Costello has been undermining the potential for a continuing dynasty for the Coalition for years. Costello might not be as popular as Howard, but compare him to Howard in 1994, when he came to power. Costello has none of the baggage that Howard did, and his stock will greatly improve once his ambition is finally realised - he will rise to the occasion.

What remains to be seen is if the move by Costello will deliver him the initiative or undermine his ability to take the top job. Regardless of the result, I firmly believe we will see a Costello 1 1/2 term government, characterised by instablity created by Howard conservatives. A rejuvinated Labor party will have their best chance at snatching victory in 2010 or 2013 - it may even be Bill Shorten that does the job for them....

The dust settles...

Tonight the drama that was played out between Howard and Costello over the past few days seems to have finally come to an end. Costello has let Howard know his preference will be to take control of the Coalition prior to the next election. Howard has given no guarantee (at least not which will known to the public) that this will be the case, but has left Costello in the position of Treasurer regardless.

This has been the best outcome possible for Costello, considering that Howard stepping aside was never going to be an option. He has regained ground from when Howard walked all over him in 2003 - Howard's motherhood statement that he 'will stay as long as Australia and the Liberal Party wanted him to' devastated Costello's ambitions. Costello has now returned to a position of power within the leadership picture - Howard now is under pressure to reveal his plans or make a deal with Costello. He know realises he cannot push Costello around without a hostile reaction that will risk damaging his legacy, or even see a disgraceful exit at the hands of a party room vote (unlikely as it may be).

Costello has to be happy with the outcome - he know longer has to beg and plead, and Howard no longer holds all the cards. Tonight Howard will be considering his future, and how he wishes his legacy to conclude. My expectation is that we will see Howard commit to leading the Liberal Party to the next election publicly, and a private commitment to the handover of power to Costello the following year.

The deal...

The Howard and Costello leadership questions keep coming. Today saw Howard deny that there was ever a deal prior to his return to the Liberal leadership. Shortly afterwards, Costello conducted a media conference in which he concured with what former defence minister Ian MacLachlan had said - that being that Howard had said he would step aside after a term and half as Prime Minister.

I am not surprised that Howard made such a comment in order to secure a peaceful return to the leadership. Times do change, and Howard turned from a weak Prime Minister to one of Australia's most successful and popular politicians. At the start of his leadership, Costello very much was in a position of power, threating to Howard with his ambition and heir-apparant status. Two terms later, Howard ruled the Coalition with an iron fist, while Costello had been reduced, his standing much weakened due to Howard's success.

The interesting element to this story is not that a deal was made, but that Costello has undercut Howard today. Howard now looks to be dishonest, and the Costello camp finally seems to be regaining momentum. I do not believe for a moment that Howard will step aside or be challenged before the next election, but believe Costello is seeking to guaruntee a swift hand over of power shortly after the election.

Establishing an alternate agenda for the future, becoming more Prime Ministerial and less Treasurer - Costello is definetly building the foundation to his platform for the leadership.

The Waiting Game...

Today's news polls have finally delivered the expected bounce to Labor over its IR stance and joint campaign with the Unions against the Howard Government reforms. After heavy advertising campaigns by the ACTU and lobbying of the press by Beazely, Labor has been rewarded in the polls. With Howard out of the country, and more Union 'horror' stories coming to light, Labor has had a relatively good performance towards an almost 'vacant goal'.

From the Coalitions point of view, I don't think much needs to be done - ride out the momentum, set the agenda for the remainder of the year in parliament, and ready for battle in the next election campaign. Howard does need to have a long period of time concentrated on domestic issues - and needs to clearly show the coaltion that he is preparing for his final election showdown with Beazely.

I do believe that with the resuffle of Mark Vaile from the Trade Portfolio, the Coalition does have the perfect opportunity to put a stronger figure than Kevin Andrews in the Workplace Relations portfolio. Andrews lacks the carisma and character assets to sell and defend the IR reforms to the public - Howard could well benefit from leaving the portfolio in more capable hands so he doesn't need to micromanage so much.

Once again, this is an issue that I expect will not be a key factor in the next election. Labor and the Unions will need to spend countless millions to keep IR on the headlines for another year - after all, is anyone talking about AWB anymore?? Labor will need more core issues than IR to see an end to Coalition rule.

Costello hints at his agenda...

Interesting to see the future PM Costello openly on display on Nine's 'Sunday' program. He was clear in articulating a reform agenda which he would pursue as the Prime Minister. I enjoyed seeing Costello emerge from Howard's shadows for such a frank discussion about Australia's future.

Costello's points on the commonwealth taking complete control of the economy ring true to me. In an increasingly competitive environment, Australia needs to improve its efficiency and ability to compete - at present there is red tape at the state level in areas such as ports, transport and other areas. This barrier to trade and economic growth would be removed by creating national regulation controlled by the Commonwealth.

I agree also with Costello's assertion that the blame game has to stop - if full control of education and health is handed to the states (but under a federal framework, where states have obligations to meet in accordance to national policy) and the ability to blame the federal parliament for state problems, states are forced to keep themselves honest. Beattie would no longer have any ability to blame the Commonwealth for his self-inflicted health problems, and voters would know who to hold responsible.

Costello needs to work on continuing to set a future agenda, letting Australians know that there will be no lag in progress once Howard passes the baton after the next election.