Ammonite, the Liberal Party certainly has a vetting process in place. I was party to vetting at least one candidate out when I was Queensland VP, and the LNP has an even stricter policy than we did. They put people through psychometric testing, which I think is probably going too far.

Having said that, you generally don't worry too much about candidates that are in unwinnable seats, which explains some of the eccentrics who make it in landslide elections.

The article on The Conversation is typical academic twaddle. Marketing has been an integral part of election campaigns as long as I've been involved - and that dates back to the 70s. There has been no change in the last 5 years that I can discern.

I think the quality of politicians has deteriorated in that time, as well as the ambit of what is being disputed. Gone are the days when Labor would advocate nationalisation, for example, so that the differences between the parties are relatively minor. This leaves not a lot to talk about apart from the personality and the strategy and tactics.

GrahamY:"I think the quality of politicians has deteriorated in that time,"

Not coincidentally: "The EMILY's List journey began in 1994".

EMILY's List is all about the promotion of a single-issue agenda (radical feminism in their case) at the expense of all other priorities. There are no equivalent groups other than some of the more fundamentalist churches, as far as I can make out.

This group now dominates ALP politics behind the scenes. It is "soft" power, that makes those subject to it self-regulate for fear of attracting consequences from the very powerful women who hide in the shadows, watching everything said to ensure it "frames the debate" in a "progressive" way, as George Lakoff put it.

The ALP has always been saddled with the task of carrying left-over Union types who had outlived their welcome among the workers. That has been to some ecxtent a a strength, as well, since these people were used to negotiating with powerful corporate types and had some appreciation of the nuances. It was also a terrible burden, since some of them had no means of regulating their pseudo-Marxist rhetorical and philosophical roots, which lead them into making foolish decisions that the party had to deal with.

Those Unionists are still there, but increasingly they are EMILY's List members as well. Not to mention the several ALP women parliamentarians who have no significant background in anything except gender politics.

When you have vast experience in sloganeering and little of substance, then any discussion you hold will perforce be restricted to slogans, no matter what your interlocutor might say.

Thus we have the modern ALP and reflecting it, the modern Coalition. After all, if slogans are all that will be heard, then slogans must be invented and chanted.

It's affirmative-action dumbing-down.

Well said, Graham. A major opportunity lost for Gillard, and it’s hard imagine she’ll get a second chance. She’s been a weak leader since knifing Rudd -- the faceless clique who did for Kevin still hover around her. Minority government has further reduced scope for her to show her strengths.

Imagine, though, how the dynamic would have changed had she banished Thompson to the cross-benches as soon as his nasty details hit the headlines, then fast-tracked the investigation into his pecadillos and HSU’s bankruptcy. Worst case would be a lost by-election. Abbott might have used that to bring down the government, of course, but charges he’s a ‘wrecker’ could have triggered a groundswell in Gillard’s direction; she’s already perceived as hard-done-by. She’d have proven beyond question that she put good, open government ahead of her personal ambitions, and that she was in no way beholden to the factional warlords who made her PM. Abbott’s not ready for an early election; his strategy has been to keep his powder dry while Labour shoots off its own feet. Best case, she’s proven she’s honest, and is willing to risk her authority to maintain high standards. Even if she lost, Labour would’ve been competitive next time around.

Instead, she ignored the matter. Bad judgement, assuming the smell of Thompson’s rotting career would just dissipate, or that Fair Work Australia would be allowed another year or three to finish its assessment of the evidence against him. As things stand, she appears not just weak, but unprincipled. And she’s accommodating Abbott’s preferred election schedule: next year, when electricity prices go up another 15%, the Carbon Tax kicks in, and GFC Mk II accelerates.

Too late now, probably. When you’re outnumbered, surrounded, and running low on ammunition, that’s the time to attack -- the alternative is certain defeat, or humiliating surrender. Gillard’s best hope now is that Thompson can drag out his damnation for another year, that the Greens and Independents will put up with stasis indefinitely, and that Abbott will miraculously disintegrate. Sorry, Julia, but you don’t bet, you can’t win.

Graham; Don't good advice to these bunch of clowns and incompetents.I want them out of our misery ASAP.

Our current account deficit is now over $ 800 billion and growing thanks to these fools.Abbott is not an inspiring leader but a step in the right direction is to end the CO2 tax and rein in Govt waste.

We will be paying $ billions more to countries like China on the form of carbon taxes and the ETS for no good reason.It is totally inane!

GY

Unlike you I see the choice between the Labor Party and the Libs as a choice between bad and worse.

No point in critiquing Labor without due consideration of an Abbott led Liberal Party.

What the voter (AKA the consumer) has is a choice of brands - generic ones at that.

"Do we have the rise of the political class where the advisors see what they are doing as a step to a safe seat?

It is important to understand that there are different types of roles within ministerial offices and many different kinds of people working in them. There is a bit of nuance about that and I prefer not to generalise. Broadly though, most offices have policy people, who may or may not have a substantive background in the minister’s portfolio; political and issues manager types who might handle relationships with the party, for example; there are media and communications people who tend to come from journalistic or public relations backgrounds. Then there is a group of administrative and support people who handle appointments, invitations, correspondence and so on. Experienced administrative staff are highly sought after; sometimes they work for one minister and then the next. It sounds obvious, but having good staff is incredibly important – as much because it creates the perception of ministerial effectiveness and competence, as well as the reality.

How many staff there are depends on the minister’s position: cabinet ministers have more staff than junior ministers; the Prime Minister, Treasurer and senior ministers have more staff and they’re more senior as you would expect. The mix of staff and skills required depends on the portfolio, but it also reflects what the minister him/herself wants and feels will suit their preferences and working style.

Not everyone who works in a ministerial office has political aspirations but it is clear that many of the people who go on to achieve pre-selection have come through a policy advisory or media advisory type and yes, it is absolutely a stepping stone to pre-selection in those cases."

Cont'd

Cont'd

"You can look down the federal front bench of both sides of Australian politics and very many of them spent time working in what I would call para-political roles. Gillard was, Abbott was, Hockey [was](http://www.joehockey.com/meetjoe/default.aspx.

There are contending views about the desirability of this. Some people think that politics is a professional game and you really have to have the knowledge and skills to know how to operate effectively in it. Others are concerned that people are coming from a very narrow career background to these roles and both Labor and the Coalition have asked themselves at the party level whether this is a good thing."

http://theconversation.edu.au/spinning-it-the-power-and-influence-of-the-government-advisor-2406

PS

I'm sure you'll get a heads up from the Libs for spinning this website in your own image. Have you noticed that the number posters have diminished lately? Just a few brave progressives continuing such as; Turn Right Turn Left, Pelican, Squeers. The majority are mostly rusted on conservatives. Was this your goal for OLO? I'm sure that Anti can spin this as being a feminist plot.