I am with you Foxy! I used to vote for Liberals for many years, until Howard took the helm. Far too conservative for my liking.

Anyone who says the elections should not be about the leaders of the party, but about the party policies is naive.

I agree that Abbott is a Howard clone, and I will truly despair if such a man were to be PM in this country.
How embarrassing would it be to have such an inarticulate, bumbling conservative as him representing us internationally?

I would go back to voting for Liberals if Julia Gillard took the helm though. She is a woman after all, and surely a change is good :)

I suppose it is possible that Ozies could be stupid enough to re-elect this idiot Rudd again, it would be a pity though. Most Ozies may be a bit slow, when it comes to getting rid of a dill, but they don't deserve the total wreck more of Rudd will leave.

The most dangerous leader you can get is a fool who thinks he is the most brilliant man to have walked the earth. That's what we have now.

The ones to suffer most, if the idiot is re-electedm will be the rusted on labor lot, like many here. Another term of Rudd will have done so much damage to brand Labor, that they will be in the wilderness so long, they may even set a new record.

How everyone can not see this bloke for the egotistical twit he is, who despises most of his party is beyond me. Labor seems to be able to pick some really horrible people to lead them, but this one takes the cake.

rehctub>> "Surely you don't expect anyone to expose themselves and their shareholders to huge risks, knowing that they can only earn 6% on their investment then pay 40% of what's left in tax."

I am a full time worker and I pay 30% plus 4.5% to pay back my HECS, and I pay tax on all of my living costs, none of them are tax deductible. In business, any items quoted for purchase are quoted ex GST, because they claim the GST back on tax. They don't pay tax on anything they buy, so 40% on profit sounds about right. I would expect that business would be on at least a comparable rate to the average income earner, wouldn't you?

Also – when did shareholders become the be-all and end-all? We are judged on how we treat the weakest among us, not the rich– I think I’d be able to handle a bit more tax if I had the money to pour into shares!

To the rest of you>> this is a forum to express opinions, I find it very sad that personal attacks are being made against the intelligence of anyone with a differing opinion to your own. In my opinion, only the ignorant don't respect another's right to express their own values and beliefs.

Dear Elise,

We need to lighten up when it comes to
politics. We need to be able to tell
the difference when things are being
expressed "tongue-in-cheek, by posters
who can't see themselves voting for a
Party that believes in no taxation for
the rich.(Tony Abbott & Co).

Besides, its best to remember that
the law of obfuscation or
"that wasn't what I said," applies to
all politicians.

All political statements whether by
government or opposition, must be worded
so that the opposite meaning can be extracted
from them. The hidden agenda of such a simple
statement as "we shall abolish poverty," reads
as follows :

"We shall abolish poverty sometime in the future,
subject to the state of the economy, if the Senate
lets us, if we haven't got more important things
to do, if it suits the international bankers
and if there is no more important measure necessary
to win the next election."

Dear Suze,

I'm happy that we agree on Tony Abbott.
If you want to know more about the man,
google Malcolm Turnbull's blog - and see
what Abbott had to say about the Emissions
Trading Scheme - and other important
decisions he wasn't capable of making.

To those critical of this first term Labor government I would like to pose the following questions:-

If 12 years of Howard/Liberal leadership was responsible for Australia's economic success and the resources boom at that time had nothing to do with this success, but rather was because of Liberal economic skills, then when Labor took office amid the most catastrophic global meltdown since the Great Depression, why do you attribute Oz's immunity from recession/depression to the resources sector and suggest it has nothing to do with Labor's ability?

Do you seriously believe that a Liberal government would have stimulated the economy so succesfully? If so in what areas would they have done so?

Perhaps those still employed might like to ponder these questions. Apologies that Question 1 is somewhat verbose but it needs some context!

What you fools dont seem to understand is that it simply does not matter who wins the elections. No society in the world offers any legitimate democracy.

For more information, visit www.Truthmedia.8k.com and find the democracy lecture.