Peter, what a crying shame it is that you can’t recognise a monumental change in Australian politics that has arisen with the ousting of Rudd and installing of Gillard.

This is, for the first in this nation’s history, the expression by a PM that a sustainable society should be a primary objective and that a big Australia is really not a good idea.

For the first time ever, a PM has moved away, if only a little bit, from the utterly entrenched, sacred and unquestionable continuous-growth-forever paradigm.

She has made this quite momentous move because she has sensed a strong level of support for it. But….. it is now not getting very much support at all! It is pretty much neutral. The electorate seems to have just taken it for granted!

What a crying shame it is that the general view of the Australian people is that this election is boring and unconstructive.

As much as I hate the close alignment of the Libs and Labs and the ‘me-too-but-just-in-a-very-slightly-different-way’ mentality, there is something very interesting about it. The parties are aligned in their push to be seen to be reducing immigration and hence population growth and are competing to be seen to be reducing it further than each other.

OK, so just about everything else leading up the election is drab, ad-hoc or non-committal. But hey, one of the really important political changes of our era is happening. And this surely should be overriding the drabness and disillusionment and making for a very interesting campaign and election.

Ludwig,

I wish I had your optimism. I think "sustainability" is just another catchword used to spin the real situation. Governments all over the world are committed to economic growth and at the same time to sustainability. The two are obviously incompatible. No one knows what sustainability means. Most things we do are unsustainable. The idea is a blank cheque that does not discriminate between essential unsustainable actions and unessential. This is just aspect of green idealism.

Peter Sellick

Rarely have I read such complete rubbish.

Sells, Ludwig, on the same wavelength – with variations of course; but banging-on at a welcome tune with elements of reality and the rational.
Sells: “Governments all over the world are committed to economic growth and at the same time to sustainability. The two are obviously incompatible” .
Ludwig: “This is, for the first in this nation’s history, the expression by a PM that a sustainable society should be a primary objective and that a big Australia is really not a good idea.”

Now if only Twiggy Forrest and his mates, and the Business Council of Australia and their kin, all could gather round and listen to such Bible stories – the likes of which they have never heard before (or closed their ears to).

So "the church knows the truth".
Peter, which truth is that?
Is it the truth that if you appoint a man to forgive another person's sins the granted power will go to the head of some of those so appointed so that not only will they accept that indoctrination of a young child is a noble aim but also that a child does not need absolutely the best possible protection form the depraved some of whom have been granted the authority mentioned?
Or is it that truth that sex should not be fun between consenting partners capable of reasoned assent?
Or the truth that even in a world running out of resources every sexual act ought to have the aim of producing another child even in those countries where starvation and destitution is almost endemic?
We need thinking politicians willing to tackle many of the problems created by the indoctrination of populations by religious heirarchies.

Ludwig, what monumental change? Seriously I cannot see it. Rudd and Gillard are cardboard cut outs, clones, just like Abbott. There has not been a monumental change is Australian politics in over 50 years by my reckoning.

Peter Sellick is spot on the money when he says that politicians care more about winning the election at all costs than they do about actually doing the job of leading the country. The current catch cry for this election and most of the ones before is a snappy catch phrase loyalists, a sweetener for the swingers, a dig at the opposition - but no substance, no accountability.

Gillard presided over the Building the Education Revolution. Yet many were the reports of rorting, shoddy workmanship, schools receiving what they did not need. If even one school received a raw deal it would have been too much. How many students would have been disadvantaged if even one school was ripped off? Yet we saw reports of many schools forced into a situation of accepting something that they did not need nor want. But, and I do admit that I don't watch the news very often, I have yet to hear Gillard say that they have screwed up and apologise.

Both sides of politics at the moment are the same, just look at work choices for an example from the other side. Politics these days is all about winning, it’s all about keeping the voter on side. But politics should be about leading the country sensibly, giving the country what it needs even if it is unpopular. It should be about steering the country through bad times and care taking during good times, not making a name for yourself or trying to get into the history books.

So please can anyone tell me what change there has been in Australian politics that should even get me out of bed on election day?