There is a fundamental lack of logic of any ALP response to that Oakes question to date.
Roxon has a middling intellect and is incapable offering a decent fudge.
The illogicality of the question was around even before Rudd re-offered his services this week: How can the ALP tout its achievements effectively when it sacked its former PM?
I recall Gillard was asked the same question by Oakes several weeks ago. Her response, no better than Roxon's, was, fudge fuge, but she made the one point that Rudd believed in a "big Australia", and she didn't. Yes, Rudd did make the statement but he also moved away from it a few weeks later.
Does Gillard really expect us to believe that Rudd deserved to be sacked because he made the "big Australia" statement? Because that is this only policy difference she has ever offered as justification.
The answer is that the ALP has been hoping not to answer the question: it was the response by a power hungry ALP right faction, with a fixation of focus group based policy on the run formation, and a timidity and cowardice in not wanting to be held accountable for its first 3 years.
It is much easier to do some window dressing by changing PMs rather than face the deep structural flaws in the ALP model, and try to deal with the sleazy characters in positions of power who hold the electorate in lowly contempt.
That is real answer to Oakes' question imho. I would probably vote for Gillard if she had the guts to says it...that would be the sign of a great leader, but alas she is not.
