Kevin Rudd:

Niall Clugston writes: Re. “The strange case of the terrible first-term prime minister” (yesterday, item 1). Bernard Keane damns Labor loyalty with the comment, “You can draw your own conclusions about which side of politics is more prepared to back their prime minister when the chips are down.”

But it should be said that this is a new departure for Labor. Historically Labor not only virtually canonised its prime ministers, but was also doggedly loyal to failed opposition leaders, up to Hawke’s coup against Hayden. Even in their recent sojourn in the wilderness, it was only after successive Beazley-led defeats that Labor was consumed by the merry-go-round of knives which characterises the Liberal Party in opposition.

The parallel could be made with the NSW Government, but, though extreme, its behaviour is not unheard of for a regime that has outworn its welcome. But axing the head of a government in its first term is unheard of, particularly in the absence of a crisis.

Considering that the Liberals have gone through three opposition leaders in one term, is it possible that the fault lies not with Labor but with the ephemeral, image-conscious spirit of our time?

Is this politics as Twitter, parliament as “reality TV”?

Andrew Lewis writes: Some of your commentators  are claiming great talents in Kevin Rudd, and while he initially played a good reform game he couldn’t bring home the bacon. The CPRS backdown, and an inability to sell a super profits tax for the miners (this man couldn’t sell ice cream in the tropics!) killed off his reputation with the public, and his relations with the caucus killed off his PM’ship.

Whatever else, the public had stopped listening to Rudd, and rightly so. As far as I can tell he hadn’t actually said anything in the last six months.

Keane has been quick to write off Gillard as being reform-averse. I doubt we will see much more from her than sorting out the mining tax before an election is held. I hope he is wrong. I was always under the impression that it was Rudd who didn’t have the Keating-esque drive to “crash or crash through” to sell an unpopular policy, but that given the chance, Julia would.

I hope I’m right and Keane is wrong. We need a leader, not a populist.  Mining tax, CPRS (or better still, a carbon tax) and other important reforms require serious political courage. If she isn’t up to the reform task, I hope and pray she is bundled out as quickly as Kevvie.

In the meantime, the coalition could do us all a favour and find someone worth electing instead of the current buffoon.

Les Heimann writes: Bernard Keane has spent the last nearly two years spraying vitriol like a Gatling gun at Kevin Rudd. It was in almost every article he wrote. He was quite correct and Rudd was every negative Bernard accused him of being.

Now Bernard begins an almost biblical resurrection of the unlamented one; and commences his self appointed task on “ganga” whom he considers one who walks away from anything not pragmatic.

You were correct on Kevin Rudd and you know full well why he was shafted. Don’t pretend Rudd was ever something other than what he is, and remains.

Julia Gillard:

Kim Lockwood writes: Re. “Mungo: with so many killers, who’s really to blame for Rudd’s demise?” (yesterday, item 12). How short the memories of those who abuse the Prime Minister for (a) being barren — what a despicable word — and (b) knifing Kevin Rudd.

Prime Ministers Andrew Fisher, Stanley Bruce, James Scullin, Ben Chifley and John McEwen were childless. You can search all the history books, but you won’t find a word of disquiet about their “barrenness”.   Why is Julia Gillard different. Not because she’s a woman, surely!

And leaving aside the frequent changes in prime minister in the early years of Federation (we had four from 1901-04), since World War II we’ve seen McMahon roll Gorton and Keating roll Hawke. (And in Opposition, since some like to mention that too, Howard rolled Peacock and Hawke rolled Hayden.) No one thought these unusual. It’s part of politics.

A nice piece of trivia, for those who collect such things, is that Gillard is the first PM to be born overseas since Billy Hughes (1915-23), who was also born in Wales.

David Hand writes: Re. “Mayne: will Gillard’s policy stock take include union power?” (Friday, item 10). In his commentary on Friday Stephen Mayne commented that “Whilst Gillard’s extraordinary political skills were on display with a near flawless media blitz yesterday, the biggest downside risk is that she’s a left-wing ideologue who doesn’t understand the realities of fiscal discipline, business success and productivity driven by workplace flexibility.”

Yeah — flawless skills in a media blitz. That says it all. Rudd made a number of critical mistakes which have been analysed to death by people more skilled than me but my tuppence-worth is that winning the daily media cycle is a seductive drug that ultimately delivers nothing.  Eventually the voting people see through and judge the reality and this is Gillard’s fundamental challenge.

Rudd’s key problems in policy back-flips, the RSPT, cancelling the ETS, throwing mountains of money at dodgy roof insulators and school toilet block constructors came from Gillard and Swan. Though they seem to have successfully made Rudd the scapegoat, there are more stuff ups by these two just waiting to be made.

This of course is why she must go to the country early. Gillard will quickly find that each week from here will demand policy rather than rhetoric and the euphoria of last Thursday will be the best day of her prime ministership if she does not win the election.

I rate her chances to win the election very good but those chances can only go down from here on. Especially with Wayne Swan at her side.

Martin Gordon writes: A few weeks back Federal Labor was accused of using cue cards with its MPs churning through rapidly shifting messages. In the last few days Julia Gillard appears to have made an art form of being the careerist Lindsay Tanner accused her of.

Now her cynicism on asylum seekers, and migrants and harking back to “protecting the Australian way” and training “of our own people” that Arthur Calwell would have been proud of (and I would add almost more Hanson than Pauline Hanson herself).

Given Julia’s junking of emissions trading with no regret, it seems more than bizarre that the return of potential Greens voters are buoying her standing. How long will it be before people work out Julia is not what she might appear, but merely saying what you want to hear?

Augustina Samardzija writes: Why do so many people (e.g. Mungo yesterday) refer to Julia Gillard as ‘single’?  She is not … she has been in a committed relationship for a number of years, and it’s not like she hides it from the public. In this day and age, do people still need to get married in order to avoid the “single” moniker?

Keith Binns writes: I’ve voted Labor since ’75. I couldn’t care less about the colour of Gillard’s hair or her sex or how she came to power. Will she act on climate change? If not then my prayer is that the Greens get the balance of power in the Senate and I’ll be voting accordingly.

The population debate:

Terry Brissett writes: It is encouraging to see that so many people are now talking about population growth. It is of concern to me, particularly in the fact that my successful business career has largely been the result of growth.

There is no doubt that population growth stimulates economic growth but we do live in a finite area and must quickly find an alternative, something that will stimulate our need to progress but in a sustainable way. The environmental and social implications of population growth here in Australia are well documented with a short term threat to our Australian way of life and a long term threat to our survival.

I am sure we are all aware of these problems but coming up with an answer is very difficult, especially when we consider that most of the causes of this growth are good things, the wonderful advances in health and hygiene have ensured a healthy and long lived human population and something for us all to be very proud of, perhaps education is the answer, perhaps young people will take a responsible approach to family planning.

Hopefully our economy can remain healthy not only by building more houses but by renovation and recycling in an environmentally sustainable way. As humans we have an inherent desire to progress and this should continue we simply need to be able to have this progression without population growth.

The battle for Melbourne:

Michael Kennedy writes: Re. “Tips and rumours” (yesterday, item 7). My dear Crikey: Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.

Wrong 1. Yesterday we were gobsmacked (and pissed ourselves with laughter) to read that my partner, Prue (note the “e”) Willsford, was approached to stand for the federal seat of Melbourne — first that either of us had heard of it. It’s flattering, of course, but untrue.

Wrong 2. It also came as surprise to us that Prue had been made CEO of State Trustees, as no doubt it did to the present excellent CEO Tony Fitzgerald. Oh and as far as we know, Prue isn’t even a member of the ALP (unless the stackers have ‘borrowed’ her name).

Wrong 3? Ain’t got one, but wrong, wrong, and wrong again seems to read better than wrong and wrong again. For what’s worth, I think Nick Reece would make an excellent candidate.