Oh really! You do not say! A labour Party member takes two pages to say "Pick us, pick us!
I honestly think this can be described as political advertising.
Why is it here?

It's August 14 today and the election is on September 7. We have no accountability from Abbott on costing and budgeting that Treasury can study, nor adequate time left for the public scrutiny. Abbott is just pinning his wing-nuts back and tearing for the line.

Doesn't that worry you JBoywer, or do you like flying completely blind in your allegiance?

The tragedy of current politics is that people like Tristan would love to be able to fill out the ballot papers in the current election, when the fact is that the electorate (who don't know what is good for them, etc.) are the ones who actually will.

In all the spin obscuring this election, there are two issues that the electorate clearly want implemented.

Firstly, they want the boats stopped.

Secondly, they want taxes reduced, or at worst, not increased.

The situation reminds me of the position in Europe, where there is complete and total agreement about who should pay their outstanding debts.

Everyone agrees that the debts should be paid by someone else.

In the election there is much discussion about the need for infrastructure, and this should not really be a problem. In the 1940's the Snowy Mountains scheme was begun, with sound financing, and was paid for by selling electricity. Infrastructure paid for by the user has never been a problem.

The problem today is that the National Party and the political left want someone else to pay for their infrastructure, or a least subsidise it so that everyone pays the same. The slogan of the National Party for decades has been "capitalise you assets and socialise your losses". In the 1960's they even pushed for the same amount (the lowest STD rate) to be charged for every phone call, and this has survived today as 1300 numbers.

If only politicians would implement what the people want, instead of what the politicians want, everything would be OK.

A good first program would be:

1. No taxation, with or without representation, with any deficiency in government finances being paid for from the sale of politicians' assets.

2. Treble government spending.

3. Balance the budget.

4. Pay off the national debt.

Of course none of this is achievable or logical, and that is why economics is called the miserable science. It also makes politics much more fun.

I agree that we are heading towards a US style society with little safety net, insecure (or no employment )for the young, minimal tax paid by the wealthy and a "market' solution to everything!!. This is the inevitable consequence of Abbott's quest for power and comes from the Republican Party playbook. Very sad situation.

The author demonstrates a naivety that must derive either from his youth or political conviction. The last opposition leader to issue a detailed document was John Hewson who prior to the 1993 election produced a 650 page detailed document called Fightback. Prime Minister Keating spent the whole of that election negatively campaigning against the package with the result that Hewson lost the unlosable election. What is often forgotten is that Abbott was Hewson’s chief-of-staff during the election. Since that election no opposition leader would be so stupid as to produce detailed policy statements and that is one lesson that must be seared in Abbott’s memory.

Howard did not in 1996 and all Rudd did in 2007 was promise to be an “economic conservative” or Howard “lite”. Of course Rudd turned out to be a total hypocrite. The last five years of the Howard government produced a cumulative cash surplus of around $80 billion while the next five years of Labor government produced a cumulative cash deficit of $200 billion. It is not just the deterioration in the cash position that disappoints the rational Australian voter, it is that much of the money has been wasted on stupid, irrational schemes based on impetuous decisions and lack of due process.

As a true Socialist the author has listed off a series of programs he would like to see introduced. Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money. Of course as the Socialist George Bernard Shaw noted, “A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”

Tristan, being of the far left, did not surprise us giving the bumbling performance by the Dudd his nod of approval.

Comparing the Dudd with Abbott (identical ages), ignoring physical attributes, academically Dudd did not even come close. With a BA in Asian studies he was qualified to work in the public service or MacDonald's.

Labor has served up a PM previously rejected for incompetence with his primary attribute is that he was not as incompetent as Juliar, and did not lie quite so badly.