Not all government reforms are good for the nation!

Comments on Peter Hartcher “Give us $52m, and we will decide who runs the country”, 2/02/2011, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/give-us-52m-and-we-will-decide-who-runs-the-country-20110201-1aceo.html?posted=successful

The article, while interesting to some, demonstrates the shallowness of some commentators in their analysis.

While it is not wrong to call any changes a government makes reforms, it is misleading to imply all reforms are good for the nation.

Just consider Peter Hartcher's concluding statements: "One of the central reasons that Australia's economy is outperforming the entire developed world at the moment is that we had two decades of bold reform. The reform era has been ended cheaply for unions and capital, but at enormous potential cost to Australia."

Howard lost his last election not because of Unions campaign advertisements, but because of its own longevity and his stubbornness to pass the leadership to younger ones. Voters were tired of Howard, and his IR reforms went too far for many voters' comfort.

Rudd lost his PM position, not because of miners’ advertisement campaign against the RSPT, although that was the last straw. The RSPT itself, of course, was poorly designed and the processes deeply flawed, a reflection of his management style of strong control and leadership shortcomings of lack of consultation.

He essentially lost his own credibility long before that. And his management style and leadership skills did help his fortune at the late stage of his Prime Ministership.

So, in both cases, there were much more fundamental reasons why each of them lost the leadership. Saying their lost means losses of reforms at enormous potential cost to Australia is simply misleading at the best.

OF course, Peter Hartcher appears to be politically biased towards the current government.

Is this a disguised show of support?