The irrational slide to Rudd

Whether the Liberals portray John Howard as a one-man band, or market him as “the name you know, from the team you can trust”, will make a world of difference to the outcome of the election.

In 2007, ironically it is the ALP that is building its case on its leader’s personality. Not surprising really. It’s easier to explain away his zero ministerial experience than it is to explain away his entire team’s miniscule governmental experience and nil commercial achievements, isn’t it?

In 1951, six long years after British Labour had replaced Churchill in government, Labour was erased from office. By Churchill.

Several issues were responsible for the end of socialism in 1951, but chief among these was what was called “the rising cost of living”, or what we today refer to as “economic competence”.

Britain suffered for its naïve embrace of socialism, thinking that Churchill’s best days were behind him. And that Clement Attlee was Winston Churchill lite. And for that indulgence Britain paid dearly.

In 1945, rather than sitting back, the Conservatives should have reminded the public of Labour’s woeful economic credentials, last visible under Labour Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald. But they didn’t focus on it.

For those conservatives who have forgotten: it is John Howard who won four elections on the trot. Not the Liberal Party and certainly not the Member for Higgins. And as for the white ants in the party who think they know best … here’s some breaking news: some of you cannot even be counted on holding your own seats, yet have the gall to pass unsolicited commentary.

It is John Howard who has shown the capacity to best connect to working Australians, and not Peter Costello or anyone else of the front bench.

Any talk of leadership change merely emboldens the socialists and robs the Liberals of their most effective voice on the hustings.

Memo to Ms Albrechtsen and cowardly conservatives: to paraphrase an old Liberal election slogan “if the answer’s Prime Minister Pierre Popinjay”, then it must have been one very, very stupid question.