`good for the fact he rarely ventures in to Hawke and Keating vs Howard, and believe it should be added:       : ``Mr Howard, on the other hand, never took on his own political base in the prosecution of any significant economic reform.`` :Because he didn't have too, it wasn't the Liberals that had to be dragged into the modern economy. The Hawke/Keating policies highlighted were passed with the support of coalition controlled Sentate. :``Look at climate change`` :Unsubstantiated group-think. :``Look at infrastructure policy. Look at education policy. Look at early childhood education`` :State responsibilities neglected by LABOR States. Why not throw in health;-) :Wow Kevin talks about HIS political agenda before an election and points out JWH hasn't jumped on board. Yeap I can't think of any better quote from Timeshift;-)  ::The quote is an interesting summary of Rudd's views but seems  bit long for inclusion. Is this better placed in a piece about Rudd Government policies, instead of a biography of Rudd himself?  ::The anon response above isn't very helpful - you might not agree with Rudd's views but this is not an article about you. Please stay focused on the article content, not your own opinion of the article subject.    :::The view expressed by Rudd is his political agenda in an election campaign. The only other conclusion could be the Rudd intends to deliberately upset his party faithful by announcing policies that are required upset them.  It was actually Malcolm Fraser that the Liberals unsuccessfully attempted to undergo economic reform. This was before economic rationalism took a stranglehold on both sides of politics, and during the time that classical liberalism died out. Not to mention your state not federal responsibilities attitude to education, health and infrastructure clearly identifies you as a non-investing Thatcherist ``Liberal``. And despite that, the state Liberals, when the public last had any confidence in them, didn't invest in education, health and infrastructure anyway.    :Fraser didn't push reforms, Howard in opposition as Fraser's treasurer (Cambell Committe) was very supportive. Only if Hawke/Keating were complete fools (I've never said they were) would they have not continued the reforms. That sections of the organised labour movement were fools at the time doesn't make Hawke tougher. ::Howard pushed Fraser for the reforms but Fraser wouldn't budge. So much for a cohesive Liberal Party (were they ever?). And you say 'continue the reforms'... what noteworthy economic reforms occurred under the Fraser govt? And if Labor is so economically irresposible as i'm sure you believe they are, they would have been complete fools and did what their ``mates in the labour movement told them to do``. At least that's what I keep hearing from the likes of people like Joe Hockey. *snigger*    :::Hawke pushed through the remainder of the Cambell Committee recommendations (after the Martin Group review). However the review and the reforms (e.g. tender system for selling treasury instruments - a huge reform) began during the Fraser government. After Hawke significant non-financial market reform was also undertaken (taxation reform, labour market refor