Yes, it matters. Never in my lifetime have we been faced with two such disappointing candidates for the role as PM.

Gillard, a clearly compromised candidate with no interest in the important humanitarian matters as one would have expected from a woman such as care for the oppressed and the deaths of children reflected in the cruelty and destruction of the Palestinians by Israel;
a person for whom political manipulation is now the norm;
discarding leftwing ideals for rightwing support last week to secure the leadership..dishonest and fickle;
a person whose policies mirrored those of the man she displaced, even more so;
a person whose judgement is now seriously in question over the education fiasco and the wastage;
displaying almost no management skills;
finally, a person whose life skills are sadly lacking in anything other than a militant union environment.

She is devious, disloyal, self promoting and wil be a failure as a PM with poor judgement, already on display in the selling out of our independence to the Melbourne Jewish establishment, now her masters, a captive of the evil Israel.

She has nothing to recommend her.

Against that we a have feckless leader in Abbott, a non-secular pundit promoting his captivity by Rome in every way. No original ideas, regarded as a temporary leader who reached the dizzy heights of leader over a single vote, a backfire that everyone now regrets.
But as a party remaining with this leader rather than appearing to be confused, yet again. The only hope is Malcolm Turnbull.
In the meantime, however, we are left with the indecisive, unimaginative and decidedly unimpressive Abbott, a joke even among his own.

If danger to Australia is the election criteria, then, beware, Gillard is by far the most dangerous. Her allegiance to Israel, cultivated on her recent visit under well engineered circumstances, the practised Israeli modus operandi, has her and her "partner' now captive in the devil's camp, impacting our humanitarium credibility throughout the world.
Abbott, on the other hand would just make Australia seem like a country embedded in 1800's, an international misfit.

There is one other thing that Gillard could do (albeit at the risk of splitting the Labor Party) which would make her election certain. This would be to announce that:

1. The government was abrogating the Asylum Convention.

2. Illegal immigrants arriving by boat would be declared to be enemy aliens, and entry into Australian waters without leave would be defined as invasion.

3. The Navy would be ordered to give three warnings to illegal boats attempting to enter Australian territorial waters, and if they ignored the warnings, to fire on them.

It would only be necessary to fire on one or two boats to completely solve the whole problem.

As popular as this action would be with the Labor heartland, it would be almost as effective, and much less divisive, to just bring back the Pacific Solution, particularly as it costs almost nothing, as Nauru works for its foreign aid.

The chardonnay sippers, who have dominated Labor and Green thinking on this subject, really have no-where else to go in the coming election. If they wish to cast a valid vote, they must preference both major parties, and they aren't going to preference Abbott. As a result, Gillard can safely ignore them.

Abbott is short on policy but he is certain of the people he wants to give a flogging to as evidenced by his intent to victimise the already vulnerable people in the community:

'Compulsory work for the dole and tougher tests for disability pensioners are the centrepiece of an $11 billion welfare crackdown developed by Tony Abbott. The changes would be part funded by a rise in tobacco and alcohol excise and a possible increase in the pension age.'

http://www.smh.com.au/national/abbott-targets-welfare-payments-20100223-p0p5.html

Although he conceded that people on welfare would spend at least half of their payments on necessities, he nonetheless proposed the quarantining rule should apply for every 'welfare-dependent' family.

It is the way Abbott would treat those who are less well or at risk in the community that sets him and the LNP miles apart from Julia Gillard and Labor.

Abbott is a neo-liberal. He isn't a liberal and he certainly isn't a conservative either because neither political philosophy would have the disadvantaged and poor treated so abominably. Last election, Kevin Rudd struck a chord that resonated with Australians when he criticised the neo-liberalism of Thatcher et al that was being applied by John Howard and his government. Now Tony Abbott wants to return to that same flawed policy, which will see living standards fall and an even wider gap between the 'haves' and the 'have nots'.

So yes, it really does matter who wins.

No cornflower, it doesn’t matter, at least not much.

Labor are going to drive our living standards into the ground, if given a chance, with carbon trading, or tax, to keep the chardonnay set, their academics happy. This will mean we will be poor just a little quicker. Without buying these green twits, they are well gone.

The libs will continue to export jobs to low wage countries, until we become one. Only then will the pressure for lower wages stop.

The mining & public service unions will resist, & will create a 2 tier system for a while, but they will be forced down in time. Even the academics will join us in poverty sooner than they think.

So mate, a bottle red head, or a marathon man, it won’t make a hell of a lot of difference. It could be worse, we could still be choosing between Rudd, & Turnbull, & be stuffed in a twinkling of the eye

re: the prospects of raising social expenditure as a proportion of GDP - it depends on the way the debate is framed. In increase, here, of 1.5% of GDP, financed by tax reform aimed at the top 20% income demographic - could succeed were it shown to be in the interets of most voters. Such modest and incremental reform could also be seen as 'non threatening' - but make a big difference if channeled into aged care, mental health and welfare. And with signficant increases in the cost of water and energy - welfare reform is critical.

Re: public opinion 'forcing' the ALP and Coalition to take a 'hard line' on refugees - but the same token a bipartisan consensus could defuse the issue. Here, the ball is in Abbott's court - because earlier he was the one pressing the issue hard as a 'wedge'.

re: 'big Australia' - Yes, it's true that a 'big Australia' means more costs when it comes to infrastructure and urban development...

Over the long term, though, it would also mean 'economies of scale' in areas like defence...

But ultimately both parties need to 'bite the bullet' to increase tax and social investment... With an increasing population overall, an ageing population, and increased costs for utilies - we need tax reform, welfare reform, more robust labour market regulation, and increased social investment (especially health, aged care and welfare) and infrastructure.

And this could just be to 'tread water' by maintaining current standards....

Hasbeen

Oh ye of little faith.