rexw,I have to agree.Obama was just a another puppet like Bush.Gillard will do as she is told by large corp interests.Abbott will do likewise.It is time for a new political movement.Both the major parties do not serve the people

People living in forested areas may not be to pleased with Mr Balieu.
He says he will implement all recommendations from the bush fire commission. That was to buy out people living in dangerous places.

<< Ludwig, Federal Labor won in 2007 because people wanted it to win. >>

Yes Graham. But they wanted to see Labor win because they wanted to see the back of Howard. If Howard hadn’t been well and truly on the nose, even a fresh-faced highly articulate leader like Rudd would have been battling to win.

I think all parties that win elections do so by default, or largely so. I don’t think that we’ve ever seen a situation at Federal or State level where voters have struggled to choose between what they perceive as two really good options, have we?

Ludwig, politics is always a question of alternatives, but that doesn't mean that people aren't often motivated positively by the other party. People wanted to dump Howard in 2004, but Latham was a bridge too far. Beazley also didn't have it in the end. But they thought that Rudd did.

Rexw, you should read more of my stuff, then you would know that leadership is only one component. I wouldn't have crafted a successful campaign for the Coalition in Queensland in 1995 if it was the most important. No-one voted for Borbidge because they liked him more than Goss. We made the election about something other than leadership.

In the end, voters worry about their own personal circumstances more than any high flown promises from leaders. In politics charisma is over-rated. It fills the media narrative, but when individuals get to choose it rarely informs what they do.

"We made the election about something other than leadership."

But that was a long time ago. My comment is that in those 15 years a great many things have changed the main difference being the way the major parties run their campaigns in 2010. They choose to use the leader, as I said, rightly or wrongly.

I have counselled against this practice particularly in the times when I though Labor had some merit, before right wing interference and poor candidates. In the recent Federal election, I have been part of campaigns in small (3-5,000) electorates which when polled before voting, 50% stated that they were voting for the leader by name, not the local candidate, 12% not even knowing his name.
Surely this confirms the importance that the electorate gives to the leaders, not the member, not the policy and certainly not the reality of what NEEDS to be done to get the country back on its feet. That same electorate, just two weeks ago stated emphatically that they had "had enough of Gillard's fine words" which I gather meant policy turnarounds / lies.

All this since the Federal election. Incredible really.

The more exposure some people receive the worse they are viewed.

One should never write off the people and their ability to assess character weakness, gut feelings, even more important when the second most important selection criteria after the hip pocket is the credibility of the leader, almost to the exclusion of anything else, in my humble opinion.

Blame the press. They decide who gets the coverage. They also have their own agenda as we also saw last weekend.

So it was on that basis, copied in two other electorates of somewhat higher numbers that I felt that my feelings were confirmed that we have fallen into the trap of seeing 'people' and all that we expect from them, as the yardstick for support with the following qualities uppermost; sincerity, credibility, honesty and loyalty to principles. Quoted almost word by word!

It is not difficult to see how the leaders fail so badly when measured against those standards.

Come on rexw, how could current elections be about the leaders, when Labor went with the least attractive, [as a leader], person they could have found under any log?

Has anyone ever heard a worse public speaker than our Julia, unless it's Abbott. No, on second thoughts he is not as bad as that.

Who cares who the local bloke, or bird is, they are only there to fill the seats for TV question time.

Then you say don't write off the people's ability to access character. Fair go mate, they voted foe Rudd for heavens sake. If that doesn't prove most of them have no idea, or perhaps don't care, I can't imagine what could.

Please tell us where you got those glasses. A pair of them might even make our old Toyota look good again.