This is the usual election propaganda.Most on this board would be aware of the failings,present and past, of most of the current crop of politicians and their advizers.

There is truth in the article.There would also be truth in a similar article written about the Howard era.Many from that era are in the current opposition.

Let's have the policies and their justification.We can debate them.All else is really just a slanging match.

I don’t see a lot of point in critically examining Gillard’s past. She was part of the disgraceful Rudd government, having been right there at the top level (or second-top level) of the decision-making process.

She now sees fit to substantially change key policies that she was instrumental in implementing. So with that enormously conflicting position firmly entrenched in everyone’s minds, what’s the point of digging further back into her political performance?

A very large portion of the populace is willing to give her a go despite this, which they should, especially when we look at her opponent!

She needs to be judged on performance now, not in the past…especially given that her opponent is hardly any better with his history.

Trouble is, after a very positive start, she seems to be steadily moving backwards!

Ludwig,
It does seem that the propaganda machine is being effective (at least partially).

However, lets “move on" (and forget) is not much better than "don't you worry about that".

If a politician wastes billions of dollars of taxpayer's money, then asks the public to vote for them, then the politician is asking a lot from the public.

At least that politician should respect the public enough to give them details about the Rudd affair, which Gillard has not.

We see already an ineffectual and extremely wasteful politician who has no respect for the public and wants to hide much, but believes she can talk her way out of anything.

Eventually she won't, and will not be able to count on the female vote either.

Rhys Stanley states: "Don’t write off Rudd and Turnbull. At least with them you have men who have credibility, strength and appeal and you could accept their presence in representing Australia in an international environment and not throw up."

Did not Rudd and Turnbull appeal strongly that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is the greatest moral challenge of our time? How credible is their claim?

Neither bothered to ascertain the veracity of the AGW hypothesis, preferring instead to push the populist line. The alleged influence of anthropogenic carbon dioxide on climate is an hypothesis which has yet to be proved scientifically. Alleged climate scientists have failed to produce that proof, after searching for over 20 years. Yet Rudd and Turnbull obstinately pushed for the passage of the ETS.

Abbott doubted the veracity of the AGW assertion, and had the strength to stand up to and depose Turnbull on that very issue; while Gillard at least had the strength to question the wisdom of proceeding with the ETS and to influence Rudd to postpone consideration of the legislation until 2012.

Politicians and the electorate should accept the fact that there has been no statistically significant global warming since at least 1998, despite carbon dioxide emissions continuing to increase over that period.

The really sad thing is that either Gillard or Abbot will be PM. There's not much to choose between them.

On the other hand Abbot is a fellow cyclist...

All this nonsense about Julia. Obviously many people on OLO think only from the right-side of their brain.

Keep in mind all you Julia-knockers that Abbott was only elected by a one vote margin. The Liberals are as divided as a snake's tongue.

And at least she looks like a Prime Minister. Abbott looks more like an amateur actor in an add for Nutrigrain.