An interesting article and the trend data sounds like a great resource.

Polling is far more sophisticated now than 20 years ago. Even so, I wonder whether or not the majority of the people feel 'strongly' about the election and when they are polled, they tend to flip or not strongly held views.

This is the ghost in the machine for Newspolls, Morgan, McNair, etc. We may gain a sense that the electorate wants change but we're not sure in what direction and what degree of change.

The gap between the rhetoric and the polls certainly decreases as the election date arrives and polling becomes more reliable.

The parties are so busy pork barrelling the "swinging voter" they are in danger of losing their core constituency who are
- saving water in the face of the worst drought in south east Australia
- suffering under inadequate water, transport because infrastructure development hasn't kept pace with increasing population
- working longer and harder for less money and worse conditions
- frightened of the imminent sale of Medibank Private and insidious Americanisation of health care system
- disgusted that the striking Victorian nurses returned to work for 3.8% of 4 years
- concerned that we will be a net food importer and that we import food from China where there aren't the same hygiene regulations controlling fresh vegetable growing as Australian farmers have to meet

Political parties shouldn't be surprised when the election results don't match their pre polling as the majority of Australians don't live in the politicians favoured household of mum, dad plus school age kids and thus electors feel the pork barrelling has passed them by.

Perhaps the on-the-spot clip under the ear could be added to the fine!

I'm not convinced by the analysis in "The Government tries to scare the electorate with allegations of union power and control. McAllister demonstrates that this won't wash. The electorate, in 2004, actually feared the excessive power of big business (71 per cent) much more than the excessive power of trade unions (41 per cent), though 41 per cent is still no small matter." In 2007 there is a very real prospect of the return of a union-dominated ALP led by a PM who remains amorphous as to what he will actually do on many issues, and whose capacity to constrain the unions is untested. The union issue may be more significant now than the 2004 figures suggest.

I think John Howard et al have capitalised very well on the propensity of many Australians to avoid any sort of analytical thinking. Hence the pretty coloured ads about trade unionist MPs. I believe the message is "trade unionists bad. Don't vote for them."

It would be refreshing, wouldn't it, if people reacted to those ads by asking, "OK, so why is being a trade unionist bad?" Or even bothered to verify the evidence presented, or thought about a context. I'm not representing a position here. The point isn't that everyone who thinks about it will realise how terrific trade unionists are. I don't much care what answer people come to if only it was based on a considered analysis.

Perhaps then there would be less of that insulting lowest-common-denominator drivel that passes for campaigning regardless of party. Perhaps we could refute politicians' assumptions that Australians are too lazy and ignorant to question anything if it is simply asserted over and over.

I live in hope, not expectation.

of course, if party policy was presented to the electorate as separate referenda, the public could have what it wanted. no party will do this, as they would have to look for alternative employment.

if would-be ministers offered themselves and their program to the electorate in direct elections, the public could have what it wanted. but that would require that candidate ministers be competent and experienced so they won't do it.

clearly, the aim of our political system is not to give the public what it wants. indeed, parties often boast about doing things the electorate in general don't want.

election analysis here is directed at determining which promises of special interest largesse deliver the most votes for the least cost, with emphasis on promises which are easily broken or evaded.

polling to find these 'sugar-plum' phases are the epitome of political skill, nowadays subcontracted to people who make their living selling submerged riverside retirement villages in between elections.

"giving voters what they want?" they want things to not get worse. it's a modest hope, doomed to disappointment unless they suddenly grow up.

ECONOMICS can help CIVILLISE SOCIETY given there are prospects for business innovation and leadership in our Preparedness.

Remember economic's is the only 'discipline' that cant be tested until it happens. Economic lives, as we live, alive in the field.

We have a stack of national knowledge, and it is essental we make this powerful.

I suggest that a pressing need is to focus on infrastructure through Administrative Reforms before we loose the chance. Yes, it is a massive task.

I reflect that the last time Australia got this close to problem solving was in the mid 1970's and early 80's.

Unfortunately, we made some serious mistakes as a public. We paniced as we became distracted by the first round of market recessions.

We were rabbiting on big-time about the future of "manufacturing" ... then we pulled the plug. Our infrastructure has virtually clapsed because of it. While growth in services is good, it is a diverse export market that helps us lead.

We rabbited on about public works programs and used it to argue our bias about the unemployed. Again we pulled the plug. Mass redundancies, Selling our public Assets. These debates however lead to the CDEP and NEIS frameworks eventually, though it is only a sketch of the greater possiblities.

For me I was once proud as I found Australians had had a major influence on the economic theory of DEVELOPMENT.

It is Australia who contributed to the whole notion of Cost Benefit Analysis, AND look how far these theories have come.

My criticism is that Australia has failed to keep up with this kind of leadership.

I was proud of Australians overseas working in Knowledge-Transfer and Exchange technologies. Advising on Agriculture, water-pumps, as teachers, as aid workers, as telecommunication experts... but I am think, as a nation, we have NOT insisted on this kind of sustainable development theory, for ourselves.

I suggest, the new mix is to consider the progressive arguement of the 1970's and let's re-percolate some of these wealthy and constructive debates with our current knowledge.

http:/www.miacat.com
.

If the government really wants to give voters what they want, they should allow for evoting on every Bill being passed through the Senate - the upper house really acting as a 'house of review'.

Last election there would have been a number of people who voted for Liberals & yet unhappy their senators rubber stamped the work choices legislation.
Greens, well everyone wants to be green but legalising marijuana.
Labor, the polls would indicate our next government, announced a policy on wheat marketing that many farmers are unhappy with.

Where people may not like a particular policy of a party they support, or be concerned of the introduction or change of policy they might be unhappy about, a way people can protect themselves is to have Senator On-Line in the senate, without any specific policies but with the commitment that on-line every time the majority view will be heard in parliament.

Have a look on www.senatoronline.org.au

Just remember a good verse.
Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name .
I am from the government in power now.