When The Australian Labor Party lost the last federal election the party leader resigned and one of the prospective candidates to replace him was Kevin Rudd. Rudd is, in my opinion, the only person in Australia at present who could lead the Labor Party to unseat the Howard government. A party meeting was held in which Rudd withdrew from the leadership race. I happened to be listening to the radio when the meeting came out and the reason for his withdrawal was "insufficient corporate backing".

The word "corporate" was dropped from subsequent news reports, but I, being Johnny-on-the-spot, heard it.
Kim Beaszley got the nod. He had already been beaten in an election by Howard. This is clearly what corporate Australia* likes.

You will understand then how surprised I am that Rudd today made a tilt for the leadership and won it from Beazley. The way I see it, there are three possibilities:
1. Corporate Australia* has removed its favour from Beazley, which means from Howard,
2. The rank & file have flexed their muscles and bounced corporate Australia*, or
3. I have been mistaken all along.

If (3) was a possibility I wouldn't submit this, so if you're readiing it we can pretty safety reject (3) as an option. I find it hard to credit (1) as a reasonable possibility, so it would seem, to me at least, that the ignorant, stupid, lazy and complacent have opened their eyes and had a look around, something they seem to do only once or twice a century.

With the recent mid-term elections in USA, am I pre-emptive in sniffing the air for the hint of change?



* Read "corporate America" or "The global corporation".