I would slightly disagree with the author in one area.

Gillard should have be moved out some time ago, but has been retained to present a female face to the electorate. That may pay off for the Labor party, with Gillard attracting the female vote based solely in gender lines.

For example: -
“The female worm was noticeably more positive throughout the debate, although there were only a few times when the pair differed in overall trajectory.”

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/election2010/7934802/worm-picks-gillard-as-debate-winner

As a minister, she was disastrous.

As Minister for Education, she helped implement the Myschool website, which will help to create some accountability into education.

She then oversaw the massive expenditure of money for computers into schools. This will cost an estimated $11 billion, with about 100% of that money going to foreign companies through the importation of hardware and software.

There was also nothing put into place to test whether or not these computers actually do improve student performance.

As a minister, Gillard would have to be the most costly and ineffective minister Australia has had for many years.

However, she is likely to become Prime Minister, based mostly on gender, and not on performance.

More dreary hyperbole. Though it is touching to note Jensen's concern for the fate of the the Labor Party in the 2004 Election.

Dr Joseph Steiglitz put it well on the 7:30 Report last night: unemployment, taxes forgone, businesses gone to the wall, etc would have been a much higher price to pay than what has resulted from the Stimulus Programme: AUSTRALIA'S ECONOMY IS THE ENVY OF THE WORLD.

The Insulation Programme has resulted in regulation of a previously unregulated industry (though I still believe that the businesses which rorted and wrongly implemented the programme ought answer for their misdeeds in court) and the BER recorded complaints in less than 1% of projects - and of these very few complaints have been found to be substantial).

I know we can't expect too much, but it would be nice if Liberal mouthpieces had a peep at the facts every now and then.

Our economy might be the envy of the world, but only because we started the GFC with a government balance sheet in credit. Now we have an economy that is in debt because so much of the stimulus was wasted on consumption rather than on production, with little benefit except for those that rorted the system. It may have preserved a small amount of employment, but it only mortgaged the future. Not only does the principle loan now have to be paid back, but the interest as well, by us the tax payers.
We live beyond our means, then we have to suffer pay-back time. It's a crazy notion to borrow more money to get out of debt as the world is beginning to discover.

Of course a balance has to be created here but conservative governments always try to create wealth while socialist governments tend to distribute it.

Where is the muckraking article on Tony Abbotts car crash of a ministerial career in Howards government?
Or is OLO showing its true colours as a mouthpiece for the right in a time of electioneering?

What you say in this article is correct. If there is credit due, it is to Rudd and his initiative in providing a buffer against the global economic crisis and as you say, Joseph Steiglitz supports that viewpoint.

If I was a Labor person, I would encourage Kevin Rudd to tell what really happened. Cabinet secrecy, phooey.

We already have the doubts over Gillard’s lack of support for both pensions and the maternity allowance and I have no doubt this is true, Pensioners and mothers should be aware that as Prime Minister she is unlikely to treat such matters differently than she has in the past. She appears to have an inability to see things from other than a single woman’s viewpoint.

So Gillard is a washout, for more reasons that those mentioned today.
However, Dennis, if you as an obvious Liberal supporter, can honestly look at Abbott and see him sauntering across an International stage in some distant location representing Australia and not cringe at the thought , then you are past saving. There never has been a more feckless candidate for PM, yes, including Billy McMahon. What we have in fact is an election that should be scrapped, now. The parties should be forced to go back to the drawing board and find candidates across the board that are intelligent (not like Arbib) , have some appeal (not like Robb), know what they are talking about, (not like Abbott) and are honest and compassionate (not like Gillard; ask her for an opinion on Palestine). Then there is Barnaby Joyce (save us from him), Pyne (an arrogant puppy), and the rightwing Laborites with their skeletons in the cupboard.

They say the electors get the politicians they deserve. What have we done to deserve this motley collection of misfits, both sides of the fence . Back to the 1930’s again.

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.

Where is the muckraking article on Tony Abbotts car crash of a ministerial career in Howards government?
Or is OLO showing its true colours as a mouthpiece for the right in a time of electioneering?
Mikk,
You're an insult to your own intelligence with remarks like that.

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.

David,
You make a very convincing argument as to why parties and their hypocrisy and negative personality pap is the problem with politics in Aust.

I view elections as opportunity to employ some one to manage my country.
Based on this very unconvincing piece I hope you enjoy your next career.

Hold on to your hat. It is only just the wee hours in the election time, well so to speak. Could be said that both parties are doing the Mexican stand-off? Perhaps the majors parties are anxiously waiting for the time to reveal all to come nearer to 'that time'- the elections. Smaller parties, pressure groups will be doing a lot of slinging-off in order to crab a seat in the big house. Sort of like putting a lay-bye down and hopefully getting it. The major parties will fight back to keep those groups at bay. It is like a thorn in your head that just will not go away.

Fighting for a seat or the battle between the major parties need to be approach in an entirely different way. To win the position of Prime Minster one must not bag the other. The approach must be one of sincerity, honesty and the must important thing not to do, is get up and talk about how bad, and distrustful or how your opponent has stuffed up is your parties eyes.

Put it this way. If you had an agent come into your home and all he/she did was bag, down talk another agent/s. He/she spend most of the time with rhetoric, insulting, empty rhetoric hoping that this form of rhetoric oratory will some how be taken on and swallow by you, as eloquence language. And that your way with words will win the hearts of those folk.
This is totally an out model way of rhetoric bombast and turgidity form. Added to that this type of ideology styles and bodies its way in such grandiloquence that is has no place in to days political positioning. People are far more educated and do not like to be view at as an idiot. Just like the agent coming into your home and continues to fashion him/herself in such a form, clearly demonstrates that he/she has not got a clue. He/she does not quite know, to what he/she stand for. In fact it shows that he/she is desperate.

Further to my last post.

As he/she leaves your place, you will be left with all the wrong things about all the others. An other message is that there is no message at all and leave one with an emptiness hence 'why you should vote him/she in as your agent'. This type of tactics put a very bad taste in your mouth.

The fact of the matter is that most people - those rusted on to one party or the other; those who rubbish one side of politics, but not the other - will have no say in which party wins.

About 5%-7% of voters (the swinging voters) who don't care care about idealogy will decide who wins.

You are right Leigh.

And that 5 - 7% will, at this election, simply choose competence!

They've tried conservatism, aspiration and grand vision and saw they failed.

And now to the match of the day!
keith one
Leigh nil

An excellent reference would be Ian Burns - This is an area must of the pubic should be aware about:-
What role the media takes in shaping our politicians and swaying public opinion?

You may find the percentage of people that are highly influence by the media. By the media I am meaning the media power holders. The ones that puts profit before the people needs first and foremost. God save the political parties is they step out of line. Oh that is to say, the media's profit line.

Further more with the Gillard Gove. granting a $14.00 dollars increase on the older folk' pension is an insult> Thank-god I am not at or in that stage of my life. What does that message give us?
Perhaps it is fair to assume that all pollies can live with an increase of $14.00 per fortnight. I know that I could on that salary. Thanks Julia.

I get annoyed when some men in our society, and on these posts, suggest it is a gender issue with voting for the coming election.

Just because Julia Gillard is a woman, it does not mean that the Australian women will vote for her for this reason alone.
I think we can give the women of Australia a little more credit than that.

I believe that it is a backlash against Tony Abbott that will push voters (male and female) towards labor or the Greens.

Or are we also suggesting that all Australian men will vote for Tony Abbott because he is a male

Suxanonline,
"With ALP strategists identifying the glossies as a crucial plank of their campaign strategy, the Prime Minister's office confirmed she had agreed to an in-depth interview and a photo shoot with the nation's best-read title, The Australian Women's Weekly."

and

"The magazine already devoted a 32-page insert in its July edition to Ms Gillard, who also made the covers of the latest issues of Woman's Day and Grazia (also published by ACP) and Who and New Idea (published by Seven Media Group's Pacific Magazines). The four titles have a collective weekly readership of 4.4 million."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/glossies-to-play-a-key-part-in-gillard-crusade/story-e6frg996-1225887766253

Noticeable how Gillard doesn't want to talk much about her past performance, or about her part in the Rudd exile.

Might interfere with her image.

And at least she looks like a Prime Minister. Abbott looks more like an amateur actor in an add for Nutrigrain.
David G,
There is help available for warped humour. I'd have thought there was an obvious slight difference between disposing of a constituent elected Prime Minister & an opposition party room decision changing a leader before an election

I used to think that some of the Howard -haters went a bit over the top but a lot of this Gillard stuff is just weird.

Yesterday I heard some talk-back radio seriously discussing the womans earlobes!!

There was another moment where others accused her of outright lies when she admitted sending a text message to the wrong person but none could provide a motive. Truth shouldn't get in the way of a good smear.

That says a lot about the intellectual depth of that sort of discussion but a lot more about some of the speakers themselves.

I would have thought the antiRudd crew would have vented their spleens by now but it seems they've got a taste for it now.

This is going to go on forever, no matter who wins.

They should remember that Abbott's unenviable record provides a lot of ammunition still in reserve for those who can be bothered and he will likely suffer the same unrelenting criticism for years to come.

Julia "looks like a Prime Minister?"
Have you seen the glammed-up killer-heeled Julia in the Women's Weekly today?

Having failed miserably in just about every other area, Gillard is now falling back on the exploitation of her glammed-up looks to win votes.

Anybody, woman or man who offers themselves up for this kind of airbrushed and manufactured glorification of their appearance hasn't much right to be upset if the public focuses on that appearance, offering both negative and positive comments.

When did we last see the WW do a glammed-up photo shoot of Tony Abbott, complete with windblown hair and designer suits?

I didn't have a whole lot of time for this woman, but now I've got none at all.

Briar Rose

>> When did we last see the WW do a glammed-up photo shoot of Tony Abbott, complete with windblown hair and designer suits? <<

Er, when he was featured with glammed up shots of his wife and daughters and blithering on about women keeping their "gift" of virginity for marriage?

Sorry Severin, very different photo shoot, very different outcome.

All I'm saying is that if politicians are now willing to use their glammed-up bodies to lure voters, then they can't complain if commentators use physical appearance to judge them.

They can't have it both ways.

People have been banging on about Abbott's ears and abs for ages. Yet we don't think anyone should mention Gillard's earlobes and dyed hair? Why not?

I don't like reading unpleasant comments about a woman's appearance. However, if the woman is willing to exploit that appearance (but only after it's been glammed-up) then I don't know why anyone shouldn't comment on it, and some of those comments will be negative.

Personally I haven't noticed Gillard's earlobes.

But I have noticed the words "Do Not Trust This Person" written across her forehead.

Severin writes
'Er, when he was featured with glammed up shots of his wife and daughters and blithering on about women keeping their "gift" of virginity for marriage?'

no doubt you would prefer the alternative (ie sleep with the first man that comes along in case you miss out). Your hatred for decency seems to know no bounds.

"no doubt you would prefer the alternative (ie sleep with the first man that comes along in case you miss out)"

runner incomprehensible as it may seem to you there is a whole range of other alternatives between your preferred "get so sexually frustrated that you marry someone else even more sexually frustrated and then be stuck with them because divorce is bad" option to the other extreme which you pine for.

You appear to be very frustrated by what you think that you are missing out on judging by the inordinate amount of time you seem to spend thinking about every one else's sins and just how delightfully wicked they must be.

R0bert

It is interesting that the Coalition is using this forum as a part of their campaign. First we had Julie Bishop, now we have Dennis Jensen. It's a great idea - despite some absurd comments that more than occasionally make it into the discussions, I would say that almost without exception we have quite an intelligent bunch in here.

Sadly, neither Bishop nor Jensen has taken that intelligence into account when tailoring their campaign drivel to its audience. The muckraking and mudslinging we have seen in debates, press conferences and TV ads continues here. How about a "here's what Australia needs, and *guess what* the Coalition will provide it" sort of article. Most of us are politically savvy. We know Gillard's track record, just as we know Abbott's. We don't need a history lesson - we need a sign of what the future might bring for us. It pains me to see the Coalition so devoid of policy and so spiteful in its campaigning. The teenagers with whom I spend my days exhibit greater courtesy, greater decency and credit each other with more intelligence than the Coalition assumes of the Australian population.

If only there was an independent in my electorate.

YES OTO and all,

It is rather odd to read the slinging or insulting comments 'called smart rhetoric'. Those MP's that have a seat in Parliament or those that are aiming to hold a seat have a bee in their bonnet and it appears they have one thing on their mind. That is:- 'telling us how wrong we were' - 'to have voted in the exiting or present government'. 'naughty 'naughty'

Those [as above] treat us like little tiny kids. Bolt children and we need to be continuous hammered and scolded> and reminded of how naughty we were to have voted that bad party in.

Gosh if it were not for those pollies or hope-to-be pollies acting as security guards the country would cease > full stop.

Gosh I kind of thought a had high IQ - well seeming I haven't.. well that is according to those as above. Oh well it appears I must go back to the drawing board and my paint?

When this election is over and we have a new PM the following blokes will have to answer a few questions.

Yes Feeney, Aribib, Bitar, Marles, Farrell, Shorten, Ludwig, and Howes (With thanks to Ross Fitzgerald) will have to tell us where on earth they got the idea Australians, especially married women with children, women who aspire to those roles and men would elect a 50 year old spinster as PM.

Where were their brains focused? Didn't they realise that as soon as Julia displayed any selfishness, meanness or coniviving everybody would immediately think of the negative character traits of their spinster Aunts?

I reckon it took about 3 weeks for that to catch hold.

Just look at the selfishness, meanness and coniving involved in Kevin's demise, the mining tax spin, the East Timor fiasco, the climate change debacle, the leaking, the moronic mofo, the glamourous self-centered self-promotion in the WW and the nearly universally despised nature of the inbalance in the displayed personal relationships.

Doh!

Two party prefered 52% to 48% is looking like a conservative estimate. I think we'll see the end of the Labor Party as we've known it. I think it's in it's death throes. The last labor leader with fair dinkim decency (Omitting Simon Crean) who had a chance at winning and who's never displayed the bile of those who followed after him, was from 30 years ago. Bill Hayden.

I reckon we'lll see another PM (embittered former Labor this time) lose his seat at this election. And Labor ough be ashamed at it's 'dregs of the middle class' personnel, chaotic policy presentation (Without Substance) and shambolic campaigning.

And now they reckon they'lll have Kevvy and Julia campaigning together. I'd buy tickets to see that.

You're not really suggesting that Simon Crean had a bit of fair dinkum decency, are you?

Having moved into Jensen's electorate and heard that he, like Abbott, believes climate change is a load of crap, I was intrigued to read this article. It's a load of crap and confirmation that he's not worth voting for.