<< Three cheers for Julia and Tony… >>

Huh? This title doesn’t seem to fit with the tenet of the article at all!

Apart from that, my only comments are in relation to the paragraph in brackets:

<< (How ironic that the man Julia Gillard supported as Labor leader to the end proved to be her nemesis in successfully urging many to exercise the donkey vote! What a savage indictment of the ALP that such a brooding and vindictive character was ever given political oxygen in the first place!) >>

Mark Latham didn’t urge people to exercise a donkey vote! A donkey vote is a formal vote that counts, in which the voter just numbers all the boxes down the paper from one at the top consecutively to the bottom, or perhaps the reverse.

Latham’s suggestion of the lodgement of a blank ballot paper is entirely different to a donkey vote.

Whether Latham is brooding and vindictive or not is beside the point. He made a very good point in that voters should not feel obligated to vote for either major party, either directly or via preferences, and that a vote for on one is an option well worth considering, in the circumstances of very poor campaigns with poor elucidation of policies or the details thereof that each party was offering, and a glaring absence of any comment from the leaders on some of our biggest issues.

Good on Latham for injecting a bit of spice and common sense into an otherwise very tedious election.

Julia may have done alright except for that over self opinionated blockheaded treasurer. Admittedly, I believe that Kevin was trying to do the right thing, but certainly didn't get the sort of help he needed and should have got. It wasn't he who placed those insulator vandals on the jobs, the people had the choice of choosing the people or company doing the job, but when freebies are there? A lot of my beliefs are very much different from what I have heard or read, I think that Mining exports are a destruction to our economy and manufacturing industries as the reciprical imports have destroyed our own manufacturing industries, and the resources are non renewable, when they are gone, they are gone for good and I can't see our dependants surviving very well with no coal, or those other mined resources. Also the reports on the internet, claim that the mined land is no longer suitable for any farming activities or pastures.

George is obviously not happy with a reduced roll for the academic left of the Labor party.Funny how these elitists abhor any thought that a party should become "populist". Excuse me mate, I had some strange miss guided concept that our politicians should represent the people, & implement the will of the majority, not that of an ivory tower based elitist minority.

"A Gough Whitlam or a Jim Cairns would not have got a start in today's Labor" he says, well thank god for that. We have seen the total failure of this type of academic left, when it comes to the real world. One of Rudd's main failures was he saw himself as part of that group, as he thought, behaved, & therefor ultimately failed, just like them.

"Gaining electoral trust involves taking risks", well no mate it actually doesn't.

We are not some social experiment for you, our betters, to play with, with some fool theory. Our pollies have to form simple policies, designed to benefit the majority, communicate them clearly, then sit back & watch the votes roll in. It really is that simple. This means they can't be all things to all people.

While we have little Julie trying to tell the peasants she'll stop the boats, while telling you lot in the elites, that she will open the boarders to the suffering, she is always going to have trouble.

Any party must decide who it is. While it tries to serve 2 or 4 or a dozen different masters, with diametrically opposed desires, it must fail, & the sooner the better for most of us.

So George, why don't you scuttle back to your tower mate? You are not part of the majority, never will be, & unfortunately for you, we are taking over.

Why don't you join the Global warming mob, & just play with your computers. You can then convince yourself you know it all. At least your computer will agree with you, & there won't be a red neck in sight.

Clearly, the academe do not yet "get" any change which they have not orchestrated.

Here we go. The Labor disintergration has begun.

But let's just put the record straight the Liberal coalition did not orchestrate a national negative, nasty, lying, or hate campaign. That oozed out of a nasty little Sydney Labor rat-hole.

The Liberals concentrated on the first concern of electors ie the economy as enunciated in a return to responsible fiscal management. Put all the high-minded desires for 'nation-building' and aspirations of 'leadership' social policy to one side for a moment ... most of us will happily embrace those when we can afford them. Right now we are in debt, it is increasing and with the world picture growing dimmer by the day I think that the right direction for any political party today. We need to bunker down for the immediate future.

The greastest folly Labor would foist upon us is this 46 billion dollar NBN.

The next generation phones, the 4G, will be much more powerful and provide greater functions than todays (Wireless) laptops and hard connrected desktops, and there is no need to 'plug them into' any hard network. Sadly the costs of obtaining data via this method is expensive ... today... and is probably the reason Telstra is so reticient at becoming involved in NBN rollout. They have probably worked out they'll make more money with wireless phones than the current modern technology cables. Now if the technology of today can support the next 4G phones why can't todays technologies be improved to improve wireless internet connection? Or more probably it would be more correct to ask how fast will today's technology be improved to improve wireless internet connection?

Ah the race back to the past by Labor with NBN is astonishing.

I bet most of you don't realise that when the NBN comes down your street it will be strung from telephones poles just like all the old technologies of telephone and cable tv. What an improvement eh?

“The Federal electoral system is a relic of the late 19th century” I view is an unfair and indeed inappropriate comment to make because of how politicians now are manipulating the system.
It amazes me that with my crummy English as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I seem to be the only person who really understand/comprehend what is constitutionally appropriate, see my blog at http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati for a set out of the relevant constitutional matters regarding this issue of commissioning a person to form a government. Who will form the next government has nothing to do with the majority in the Parliament as it is a prerogative power exercised by the Governor-General and so WITHOUT the advise of the Prime Minister!
Neither Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott or for that anyone else elected for the House of Representatives are Members of Parliament until after the return of the writs when they take up a seat! There is no hung Parliament because the only members are the Senators at this time. And, back in 1901 E. Barton was commissioned to form a government without any Parliament existing and was subsequently elected. Don’t confuse the role of a government with that of the Parliament, and I for one having campaigned for long for electors to vote for INDEPENDENTS to bring about a lesson to the major political parties am satisfied they are getting their message.
On 19 July 2006 I defeated comprehensively the Commonwealth that compulsory voting is unconstitutional and while I do not oppose voting I oppose any form of compulsory voting and the Court upheld my cases! This my blog also displays. Voting is our constitutional rights but in the way we desire and not hijacked by politicians dictating how we should vote! See also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com. As for the Greens as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view that some of their alleged issues are a constitutional nonsense. Do I need to say more?