The writer gives me hope.
Being perhaps too ignorant of, not the law, but what lawyers can make of it with the Government at their back and engendered popular support, I have allowed myself to be too isolated. Any grouping might be construed against some law or other, newly enacted.

So the writer indicates that not only a large number do not agree with current policy but that such numbers imply that many are better informed than our media would allow us.

Granted we are not in America in which Record of a Paper by Friel and Falk shows a sycophantic press, wrong by omission of facts and context referring to the, well never mind there is probably a SLAPP order in the wings, buy the book. Such analysis is yet to be done in a systematic way in Australia so who knows how much we have missed!

Agreed the opposition has hardly shown fight on these issues. But like the Libs they too apparently agree with Renouf’s book The Frightened Country and find safety in the American camp. Funny NZ finds no such need, why?

Two questions arise why the repeated return of the coalition? You answer this in a post by saying it’s the economy stupid. Are we so self centred? Or is the majority that rules in Democracy so ill informed so trusting of politicians who poles purport are not trusted?

Or are we so fearful that though mouthing though shall not kill or do unto others etc and striking postures of morality , cognitive dissonance (holding opposing ideas simultaneously), rules?

Secondly from where does the information that makes the many informed, come from or is it a sceptical approach relatively uninformed?

The provision of correct and full Information since without it one cannot make an informed vote, needs assessing.

Too true, untutored mind. The coverage the courier mail is giving the state election isn't what you'd call penetrating. Sure, they're giving a blow by blow account, but you don't get any reasoned analysis in a historical context, nor even a decent commentary. P'raps we should sponsor Matt Price to take a trip here at the next state election.

As for your comments about NZ... the NZ government has always had a little more independence than the aussies, largely because they don't have to kowtow to the US so much... that's why they've resisted nuclear proliferation, and that's why they've been excluded from free trade negotiations (a rather spiteful US effort I might add).

That being said, the kiwis have the luxury of having Australia as a buffer zone. The Australian's won't let anything happen to NZ. There are plenty of reasons - one, it would smash the whole 'cultivate western allies to protect us' concept that has backed Australian foreign policy throughout history, and lets face it, the kiwis are benign, they're a lot like the Aussies in culture. if something catastrophic happened to them, they could only become more hostile. So in effect, the kiwis have the luxury of going it alone, and the Australians don't.

Ultimately, the message of this article is that many of the coalition voters aren't voting to make a moral stand, they care more about how much their next mortgage repayments will be (convincing them that the libs could safeguard that was a fantastic piece of political spin).

And ultimately, Labor has the perception that they can't fight the views of the coalition when it comes to issues like terrorism, because the voting public is clearly an ignorant fearful mass.

When the interest rate issue became central to the last election, Latham didn't point out the folly of claiming to protect against interest rate rises, instead he said he'd keep them low too. This is a prime example of what is wrong with the labor party.

The main thing wrong with the labor party is that it tries to buy the votes of this author, & you lot.
This makes it unelectable in this country.