How important is this election?

Um… not at all important!

We’re choosing between two entities that are practically the same and getting more similar with each passing day….. and which are both hopelessly off-track with respect to our future wellbeing.

This election like all the others is essentially meaningless. We will traipse along to the polling booths and in effect pick one of two parties. There are a lot of others there but they will have no chance of gaining government.
The two we can chose from have in theory nothing in common but in reality are very much the same.
To be elected they have to appeal to the bulk of the voters who are inclined to be swayed by whoever offers them the most chance of continuing their tilt towards the life they believe to be their right.
So it is really an auction of promises a lot of which will not be kept.
Any genuine attempt at reforming governance will be lost in the scramble for the next few years in the drivers seat.
One lot is financed by big business and will use their power to push benefits in the way of tax breaks, cheap imported labour and deregulation that way.
The other is financed by the remnants of the unions and also by big business who have each way bets on the result. They will also push benefits to big business and also a few crumbs to the Unions.
After the result and the post mortem is over it will return to the usual squabbling in parliament with no improvements for the voters but a continued gradual erosion of life quality. The rich will get richer and the poor even poorer.

Robert, your comment is filled with despair. It is palpable!

The bottom-line in this election is that both major parties should be cast into Outer Darkness. As you pointed out either we get Big Business running the show or a combination of Unions and Big Business. Both of them are poisonous!

If the electors wanted to, they could refuse to vote LABOR or LIBERAL and elect only Independents. That would throw the cat among the pigeons, wouldn't it?

What it would do is to clean the slate, banish all the boof-heads, lawyers, and self-promoters.

We need a new way! The dinosaurs have had their day!

Pity we don't have a time machine.

If we could just get back to see, I'll bet those dinosaurs elected a bunch of drop kick independents to run the show in their day. A parliament full of such fools could make anything extinct.

After seeing the type of pointy heads we get from Tasmania as independents, & those couple of ratbags from the New England of NSW, only a fool could want more such rabble.

I just hate the way the major parties have perverted the democratic process with compulsory preferential voting for the lower house and 'above the line' voting for the Senate. I want to return to voting only for the people I choose - at least one for my local seat and at least the number of senators up for election on the Senate paper. I don't want a Senator from the Never-heard-of-it-before Party to suddenly appear because of a back-room with the faceless ones.

"the Ins are much better at talk than at getting things done (and passing legislation is not a necessary or sufficient sign of good government)."

Those who accept the message of the snake oil salesman, do so at their peril.

Hasbeen,

Copy that!

David G, you seem to have left a trail of unaddressed issues wherever you go on OLO. Why do you bail out when the questions get too hard?

As for dinosaurs, yep, let’s get rid of them and replace them with, er, let me see now?

How about mammals? Better still, how about a sentient species? I know, lets have a species that can think for themselves, that can research and absorb data, turn it into information and then into knowledge and apply it?

OK, let’s have a species that sets itself above mortality, is immune to the fickle finger of Gaia, ignores reality, pretends to embrace the eternity of dinosaur permanence whilst watching their own extinction and joining the mammalian revolution.

Yes, yes, that would be great! But what should we call this new species? Well, first of all they would have to be hypocrites, they would also have to lack embarrassment genes, they must be conflicted, they must confuse rhetoric with intelligence and they absolutely must be capable of dismissing economic reality with ideology.

I know, we could call this new species The Greens.

It's a good sign when the major parties have similar policies; it may mean that some rational thinking has gone into producing them. After all, both parties have, or claim to have, the same goals -- the continuing survival and increasing happiness of the Australian citizenry -- so it's not too astonishing that they should also agree on the means to achieve this. Let's hope it's genuine reasoning which has achieved it this time, and not just a reaction to the loudest voices in the room.

What is astonishing is that the ins keep recycling their new and old leaders. The latest the old windbag Beattie from Qld. Presumebly he's been parachuted into Forde so as he can replace the current recyclied pm when he is either dumped by the electors of Griffith (which is highly likely) or dumped by his mates ... again.

Vote labor the party of recycling.

Lolol They really are in panic mode.

They might as well bring back Whitlam ... he wouldn't stuff up so much.

Lolololol

Now that's an idea imajulianutter, but why not bring back Fraser to be joint PM. He never was much good, rather like Whitlam actually, & has gone further to the dark side since. Together they should be able to do almost as much damage as Julia & the KRudd.

Incidentally, have you heard, Labor are bring back the useless Cheshire Cat grinning Peter Beattie, as if he hasn't done enough damage to Qld. They must be lining up the worst possible leader for after Rudd gets the chop. Well they have got a real no hoper in Beattie, should suit them perfectly.

Talk about having the rank & file run the party, he's been parachuted into a close marginal, to try some glamor. It would be really great to see him get his backside kicked, & there is a reasonable chance he will. Banana benders have a tendency to kick back when pushed around.

This election is only important in who doesn't get in. The drovers dog could do a reasonable job in Oz, if they just drop all ideas of grandeur.

Just imagine the better schools with Rudd back in. It won't be Mandarin He'd have to introduce to language classes but Greek. We would need Greek when we have to import them to teach us how to live in a bankrupt country.

two entities that are practically the same and getting more similar with each passing day….
Ludwig,
I wouldn't call incompetence & competence as being practically the same.

As always, Don, an interesting article. I take a slightly different tack on a couple of things, but I do agree that the piece in The Conversation was facile and fairly puerile. It's a shame that such a great idea is not producing the results it deserves to. The main reason for that, it seems to me is the recycling of hacks who have an historical association with the "progressive" side of the media divide, talented as they may be as writers.

It is to be hoped they can lift their game over time.

Now, the things I differ on. The issue of leadership change is a red herring, it seems to me. It distracts from the very real reforms that are occurring in the ALP. It's highly instructive that the main critiques of Rudd are all about personality and the fact that some of the least impressive former Cabinet Ministers (red-underpants Conroy the superannuation clerk and JEG's boyfriend Emerson being least among equals there)have refused to work with him. From where I sit that's an endorsement! It's also a sign of maturity to acknowledge and rectify errors of judgement, such as putting JEG into the job.

I also disagree that Rudd has tried to make it a Presidential campaign. That has been done by the simplistic media who like a good conflict-narrative because it's easy to write. Rudd does have a lot of personal support and it makes sense to draw a line between the Gillard debacle and the Rudd resurrection, but there has been a lot of good policy as well. The fact that the "Outs" are not arguing against a great deal of the policy is an indication that there is broad agreement on what needs to be done, whoever is in the hotseat.

A disclosure is in order here. I am in Rudd's electorate and I volunteer, albeit sporadically, to assist his re-election. however, I don't think it makes a jot of difference whether Kev or Tony becomes PM after the election. The politics is disengaged from the policy and perhaps that's the ideal situation?

I don't think it makes a jot of difference whether Kev or Tony becomes PM after the election.
Antisceptic,
If you think that there's no difference in the level of competence between those two then you'd better crawl back into your little hole. It is an insult to Abbott to put him on the same level as Rudd as it is indeed an insult to decent people to put them on the same level as ALP supporters.
Yes all the indoctrinated young voters with their iPhones are are a democratic force to be reckoned with but sadly idealism is what got Australia to the sad state it is in now. Tripple AAA rating ?, more like triple HAAA ! If the Rudd Administration is so good then why are the coffers empty ? If they are so good why has local manufacturing literally ceased ?
I suggest you give those not in the public service some thought.

My Mum always used to say that some people are brought up, some people are dragged up and some people are kicked out of bed and told to get up.

She forgot to mention those who got out on the wrong side...

Yes Antiseptic, & some are so thick they are still in bed, & asleep.

Only those so indoctrinated they can no longer see, & those who have been asleep in bed or out for the last 6 years, could consider voting for Rudd.

Anyone who ever sees him on TV & can still vote for him, must be deranged, or getting something out of it.

Thanks Hasbeen, was there a point to that, or were you simply trying to demonstrate that you're not interested in thinking about issues as long as you have a team to barrack for?

Hasbeen: ".. but why not bring back Fraser to be joint PM. He never was much good, rather like Whitlam actually, & has gone further to the dark side since. Together they should be able to do almost as much damage as Julia & the KRudd. "

Fraser has gone to the dark side. He has become a Greens sympathiser.

You are on safe ground ranking Julia and Kevin as being worse than Whitlam. At least Whitlam had some principles.

Principles are good (in principle), but they can also cause, as in Whitlam's case and in Gillard's to a degree, a sense that the ends can justify the means.

Without a strong sense of morality to go along with the sens eof mission that principles often provide, it's easy to go off the rails.

My feeling is that Rudd and Abbott are both principled people and they both have a strong sense of personal morality. I hope I'm right, because on of them will become PM and they will have a whole party full of people with their own principles and sense of morality to try to integrate into an effective Government.

Yes Antiseptic there was a very large point. I find it incredible that any thinking person can't see through the façade that is Rudd.

You have a real tendency to pontificate, handing down your wisdom, from a great height, to us peasants. This may not be so bad if there was some wisdom to dispense. I can not find any wisdom in anyone who is so lacking in judgment as to think Rudd has any principles.

I have to doubt your intended line of study will achieve very much, if you lack the basic skill to see through an obvious fake like Rudd, particularly when you tell us you have had the opportunity to see the subject up close.

Once again, Hasbeen, you're making lots of dramatic assertions, but there's no attempt to justify any of your claims. I don't think Rudd is an "obvious fake". What makes it "obvious" to you and what is the nature of his fakery?

I'm sorry if your think I'm pontificating, I really am. Perhaps I tend to over-intellectualise a bit in print, it's a sin I'm trying to rectify. What I would really like is to have a decent conversation about this stuff instead of having people competing in a war of slogans. Conversations with George on philosophy are very satisfying because they stimulate lots of thinking and exploration of ideas, even though we rarely overtly agree on anything.

You're obviously a smart, capable bloke and I have a lot of time for your views on a lot of things, but that doesn't mean I can't disagree on others. I reckon if we were to sit down over a beer we'd get on pretty well.

but why not bring back Fraser to be joint PM. He never was much good, rather like Whitlam actually
Raycom,
I wonder if anyone could or rather would disclose how much these two are costing us every day they still hang in ? I guess their kids will be rubbing their hands in anticipation of their inheritance. I mean how much can an even posh nursing home cost ? Or, are these two still getting free offices & secretaries ? The mind boggles.

Antisceptic,
I too see through Rudd like a crystal clear window. As Hasbeen says, that man for want of a better word, is so un-genuine that calling him a fake is actually a compliment.

That's great, indi. Care to tell us why?

Yes Antiseptic I'm sure we could.

However on the question of Rudd we have no meeting point. From the first time I watched him on TV swearing undying love & support for Beasley, with his knife clutched behind his back, I could see straight through him. I wondered if the average Ozzie, with little interest in politics, would apply enough attention to see through him too. Unfortunately the answer was no.

Every single thing he has done in those 7 years has only reinforced my disgust at his duplicity. He is nothing but a con job, although a good one, but it is good to see more Ozzies have taken the time to see through him.

The mere sight or sound of him is enough to have me changing channels, or turning off. I gather many others , like me, who usually would take some time to find the remote, now have it immediately available.

My dislike is that strong that even at the computer, where I can only hear the TV, I have the remote to hit the mute button, should the station be silly enough to have him on.

If the advertisers realized how many feel & act this way, they would demand no Rudd stories or advertisements where they advertise.

Why is it that Labor today, has gathered all the no hopers together? Rudd, Carr & now Beattie, it is almost a jamboree for failures. And they want to run the country? God help us.

Fair enough, but you haven't told me why you think he's a fake, all you've done is say that you feel a sort of visceral dislike. That may well come more from a dislike of the ALP than the man, perhaps?

Antseceptic,
In all his appearances his shallow character shines through the fake intelligence backed by his lack of competence. For someone to support this egoist in his quest for the top job is nothing short of frightening. How shallow are the supporters of that egomaniac ?
I suppose that's why ALP Governments don't do anything about real education, keep the young & vulnerable ignorant & turn them into mindless followers.

Antiseptic, just a few points.

Global warming was the greatest moral issue of our time when he could use it as election issue, & thought it would win him a top job at the UN. Worth nothing, now it is not a vote winner, only worth some tax to try to cover their stupid spending.

Boat people. Used as a moral issue to secure inner urban vote. Now he kicks them harder than anyone, to try to buy the western Sydney vote.

Whitlam may have been an unworldly fool, but he had principles & believed in what he tried to do. This bloke is an unworldly fool, who believes in nothing but KRudd. That TV Mr. nice guy is a screaming egotistical maniac in the office.

He is as phony as it is possible to be, & if you can't see it, perhaps engineering is more your bag.

Hasbeen, should someone, having made a decision then never, ever change their POV, or should they be prepared to say "I made a mistake" and look for a new way to do things?

Do you see a virtue in doggedly sticking to something that one knows is wrong? Why?

Anti,

Do you really think it's something he now knows as wrong?

I formed the impression that he now knows that coming down hard on refugees will attract votes to the ALP.

He hasn't explained the principle upon which he's based his change of mind - except to mouth the line about boat deaths.

I also have trouble with this strategy exploiting our poor neighbours.

Bottom line is that it appears he's changed tack for political ends. That's not surprising, but nor is it an indication that Rudd is acting on a new (and better) principle.

(I'm quite uninspired by politics in Australia at present - of both colours)

Poirot, he's a politician. Politics is what he does. Complaining that a politician does politics is like complaining that a lawyer tells lies.

I thought the piece on the potential for asylum seekers to prosper in New Guinea and also benefit New Guinea was a good one. It showed that there is more than one way to look at the problem.

With all due respect, I think you're looking at it too narrowly. What makes you think he is insincere in expressing a concern about deaths? What did you want him to do/say? Must he spell every decision out in full? How much time do you have to devote to listening and how much time do you want the PM to spend on that instead of actually forming policy and making decisions?

Yeah, Anti, you're right.

I'm boggled on this one. Rudd has turned himself inside out and I'm complaining that his label now showing.

Apparently because someone is a pollie, I'm stupid to try and fathom some sort of principle behind his actions, and not just plain opportunistic policy formation.

I'm naive.

Back to my book (I found a copy of R.L. Stevenson's "Travels with a Donkey".....and it' far more inspiring than what's being served up plolitically in Oz right now)

Come on Anti, even you don't believe that rubbish. You are rationalizing because you want to vote labor.

I know it must be hard for someone committed to a philosophy to admit it is a total failure, but sometimes you have to. Admit to yourself he is the worst possible choice for Oz, & come back from the dark side.

The man is a horrible desperate megalomaniac, probably one of the worst people ever raised in Oz.

He spent millions of our money grandstanding on global warming. Remember he took half the bureaucrats with him to grandstand at Copenhagen, now it is nothing. All that was nothing but his application for the UN top job. He is just a bad joke, all be it, a bloody expensive one for Oz taxpayers.

Poirot, he's a politician. Politics is what he does.
Antisceptic,
Rudd is so abysmally incompetent that he can't even manage to be a bad politician let alone a decent one.
I think Rudd is a good reason to invent a new word that describes the likes of him.

Having said that, you'd be battling to find a more vacuous less, inspiring Prime Ministerial candidate than Tony Abbott.

During tonight's debate, it seems he was incapable of answering a question without recourse to a slogan.

Pathetic!

I switched channels as soon as the PM started his waffle so I don't really know how Abbott went.

<< …you'd be battling to find a more vacuous less, inspiring Prime Ministerial candidate than Tony Abbott. >>

Ain’t that the truth, Poirot.

Which is just so so so so so sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo unfortunate, given how bad Rudd is!!¡!!¡!!¡!!

My guess is that those given the privilege of the task of evaluating this debate were all from an academic background hence the verdict so heavily influenced by display rather than quality & substance.

One wonders whom Kevin Rudd is targetting with his campaign slogan "A New Way".

Does he seriously believe that he can sway voters with his proposed banishment of future asylum seekers to PNG? If so, he appears to have overlooked the fact that people smugglers would not be deterred from operating from PNG across the Torres Strait -- it is already happening. The placing at great cost of full-page "keep out" advertisements in the local press may indicate to the naive (voters) that he is being serious, but few if any intending asylum seekers read our newspapers.

Does he seriously believe that he can con electors into believing that swapping the ETS for the carbon tax would markedly improve the cost of living? If so, Kevin is ignorant about how electricity prices have sky-rocketed thanks to implementation of green-schemes and the carbon tax. Besides many more people are awakening to the fact that human-induced global warming is a con.

Or does he believe that he can con electors by going all negative and warning them off Tony Abbott as he allegedly can't be trusted and Coalition policies allegedly hide 'black holes'? If so, he must think we have forgotten how dysfunctional he was in his three years as PM? Even colleagues such as Wayne Swan, Stephen Conroy, Julia Gillard and Tony Burke and new 'colleague' Peter Beattie attested to his dysfunctionality.

Further to my comment on Kevin Rudd's dysfunctionality, I have just come across the following article :
"Ä complete and utter fraud", The Spectator Australia, 6 July 2013
http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-leading-article/8955281/a-complete-and-utter-fraud-2/

It begs the question: how is it, that journos 16,000 kilometres away can see him for what he is, but most Aussie journos can't or won't see?

Raycom,
It appears the further a journalist gets away from Australia the more intelligence they accumulate.