THE LIBERALS won't win votes with bribes-that's the response of workers across the country to the federal budget.

According to Nine's political commentator Laurie Oakes, "[Labor] pollsters reported that voters like the budget. But they also found a high degree of scepticism in the electorate.

"Many voters saw the budget's swag of goodies as a cynical attempt by John Howard to get himself re-elected, and that caused them to be less impressed than they might otherwise be."

Have no doubt-Howard is in deep trouble. No amount of spin about an "education budget" can conceal the fact that over the three key issues-Iraq, IR and global warming-he is unpopular.

Although the media tried to ignore it, the hatred of Howard's IR laws has forced the government to back-flip over AWA individual contracts. Now they want to re-introduce a kind of "no-disadvantage test" for AWAs.

This is after dismissing the overwhelming evidence that the use of AWAs under Work Choices has undermined working conditions!

The policy itself is a joke. The budget sets aside funds for only a further 15 personnel in the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, while 57 workers will be cut from the Office of the Employment Advocate.

As Labor's Julia Gillard points out, "It is clear from the Budget itself that there will not be enough resources for AWAs to be checked against the so-called fairness test.

"John Howard is a clever politician. The so-called fairness test is only there so the Howard Government can misuse taxpayers' money on pre-election advertisements for it.

"The test will never be properly implemented and will provide Australian working families with no protection at all."

Kevin Rudd's pitiful response

No surprises then that Costello's budget speech avoided unpopular issues like IR. This being the case, why hasn't Labor gone on the offensive?

Labor should be calling for the government to use its $10 billion surplus to actually fix education, health, and the childcare crisis.

Instead, we get a promise to train school students in vocational skills. This is hardly inspirational vote-winning stuff.

Labor has again accepted the terms of the debate, rather than switching it back to Iraq, IR or global warming, issues that will hurt Howard.

Okay, Rudd rightly slams Howard as a "climate change denier". But he is strangely reluctant to talk about the government's failed Iraq policy or Work Choices.

The reason for this is Rudd's conservative politics. He is reluctant to talk about Iraq because it raises uncomfortable questions about the US alliance-despite the fact that Howard got a hammering in the polls in February when the national debate was focussed on this issue.

He is reluctant to attack Work Choices too much because it raises the ire of the bosses.

Rudd would prefer to quietly negotiate his policy with big business, as he did during his recent trip to WA's Pilbara region, paid for by BHP, Rio Tinto and Woodside. Now he is considering backflipping on his promise to abolish individual contracts.

By sucking up to business and US imperialism, Rudd just makes it easier for Howard to climb back into the race.

However unpopular he is, at least we know that Howard is on the side of the bosses.

But Rudd keeps trying to kid us that he can "walk both sides of the street" in "the national interest". You can't Kevin-you have to take a side.

Rightwing politics won't help Labor win the election. Labor could have buried Howard if it had opposed this mean, tricky budget.

But terrible policies like the $22 billion wasted on the military, including $6.6 billion on 24 defective fighter jets, were barely mentioned.

Hidden from the media's piercing eye was this clanger from Labor's Defence Spokesperson Joel Fitzgibbon: "Labor welcomes the attempt to put the defence budget back on a sustainable footing, but whether the modest increase in defence expenditure from 1.9 to 2 per cent of GDP in times of such high operational tempo is enough remains to be seen."

Is Labor really saying that $22 billion-a 150 per cent rise since 1996-isn't enough money wasted on wars and destruction?

With Howard on the ropes, we are entering a crucial period. This is no time for idiotic policy responses from Labor.

Hats off to John Watkins!

Kevin Rudd should take a leaf out of John Watkins' book. The NSW deputy premier has attacked the APEC summit, planned for Sydney on September 7-9.

He said Sydneysiders would be better off without it.

Watkins is worried about a repeat of the instability seen during US Vice-President Dick Cheney's visit in February. Hundreds of protestors undermined his visit. What's more, thousands of motorists were seriously ticked off about the traffic delays caused by Cheney's cavalcade.

Watkins said APEC would be "Dick Cheney multiplied by 50." Imagine that!

What better reason for anti-war and environmental activists, trade unionists and students, to speed-up preparations for a huge protest against these warmongers come September?