"Despite the lowest unemployment rate in over 30 years, unprecedented levels of prosperity...the Labor Party will try to convince people that their job security and very way of life is falling down around their ears as we speak."

Show me the link between how workplace flexibility offered through these reformed IR laws are creating a more productive workforce? Id rather prosperity through a well educated, trained workforce than marginalised, untrained casual workers whom are only useful when asses are needed on the production line to match demand. These laws based on economic imperatives are undermining the foundations of the employment relationship and for what? This view that flexibility is somehow intrinsically tied to productivity?

I liken elections to competitions between snake oil salesmen whipped to hysteria by a salivating media.
Both sides showing the mental ages of a junior school in the middle of a playground brawl.
Where is the dignity? The intelligence needed for the most responsible jobs in this country?
I remember one election, it may have been Hawke who stopped all the stupidity by declaring media silence before the actual election. It was blissful. It was how it should be.

gonginalong,

Why do people make unfounded assumption about me based on nil/zilch/zero evidence? I belong to no political party. None. Not any. (The repetition may be necessary - I find some OLO posters take a lot of time to comprehend.) What's the point I have proved for you, gonginalong?

You then accuse me of 'reverting to a personal attack'. Now what part of my post was personal?

I've read my post again. It's not long so I can run through it again.

I agreed with JamesH's idea. I added some examples of fear campaigns. I refereed to Alan Renouf's 1979 book and indicated that both sides of politics have changed gear on climate change.

I thought Peter Harcher's monograph and article was more insightful than Patrick Baume's glib article and gave a gloss on the bio-note at the foot of Baume's article. I presume Baume wrote that piece himself or at least assented to it. So where's the personal attack?

"put a gloss on" eh Frank? That's a wonderful bit of doublespeak. You stated that a glib assessment was all that should be expected from someone who has worked in PR.

You were saying that anyone who has worked in public relations should not be expected to be able to provide an intelligent and considered contribution.

If that's your view that's your view, and you're certainly not the only person who holds it, but at least be man enough to own up to what you have said Frank. With that amount of spinning clearly you have a future in the dark arts of public relations yourself.

Its a shame that all the posters (so far) have been strongly partisan, but I suppose that both reflects and reinforces why the vast majority of Australians are so politically indifferent.

Well, I think this article summed up my attitude pretty neatly.

Part of the problem, for me at least, is that I don't really have the time to carefully examine policies or to research what effects certain policies might have, etc.

Because I'm too busy paying off my mortgage, sharing household duties with my wife who also works full time, sharing the upbringing of our two preschool children etc.

So its all just too hard. Maybe looking into political promises should have a higher priority than, say, posting on OLO - but I've got to have some fun in my life!

Cheers!

gonginalong/Patrick.

Your article puts forward some facts that in my view do not stand up to scrutiny. I suggest many Australians do not agree with your assumptions.

Yet the best you can do is to give Frank a serve. I suggest that you try to back your assumptions and argue your case. Which I consider to be flawed.

Are you looking for a consultants job with a politcal party?