There is nothing as fickle as an electorate. Just because there are 23 seats cushioning the Australian Labor Party in the House of Representatives, does not mean that enough seats cannot change hands to cause an upset. They did not think Rob Borbidge had a chance in 1995, in the election that should have been won by Goss easily, but in a precursor to Howard’s win in 1996, a Liberal won Mundingburra and Pauline Hanson, disendorsed by the Liberal Party won Oxley.

That obscured the real contest for a few years, as the State of Queensland became the State of Confusion. When Rudd carried Queensland he carried Australia. He may have been very unlucky that Bligh won the last State election, because the only protest possible against her is a vote against Rudd, for another three years. Usually Bligh would have been defeated, in the balancing act of Australian electoral fortunes, where the States usually don’t elect the same party as is in power in Canberra.

Kevin Rudd was elected to lead Australia, and part of that leadership must be to rein in the States. So far he has not done so. We are still loaded with 100,000 homeless people, and threatened with even more. This is a problem caused by State incompetence. It is perpetuated by Federal inaction. If Malcolm Turnbull will start to examine all the legislation passed in the past forty years, since the abolition of the separation of powers in New South Wales, and the adoption of atheism as the State Religions, put up a list of State legislation that contradicts the Australian Constitution, and promises to do something about it, then the rank outsider could make a comeback. The Constitution does apply to the States. Even a true believer like Lionel Murphy knew that, so why don’t the Liberals. Rudd said the Constitution is paramount.

His biggest broken promise so far has been his failure in 20 months, to address breaches of the Constitution by State Governments, and action to provide a venue where such abuses can be remedied. That makes him vulnerable

Some are so far from reality I wonder how it happened.
I saw Peter the believers comment labor and Liberals did a deal, wasn't it pre ww2?
Interesting fantasy, however Ming, giving my age away there, Sir Robert who founded todays Liberal party may have had more in common with Rudd than Turnbull.
A question begs for an answer, how come this modern day party can find so little choice for leadership?
Blame it on Howard, he killed young shoots as they emerged and his legacy is still harming his party.
To think Costello, is still mentioned, Turnbull who has already proved a failure, Abbott is is not good enough to be a failed leader, and Hockey the next in the dead mans seat, who else?
Tell me who leads after the Rudd slide to come?

Next week in Parliament will be hard for Turnbull.
Maybe as hard as this past weekend will prove to be.
That shot of his wife, leading him, at the very instant proof hit the fan he was working based on a lie to unseat Rudd.
Aussies often call the little woman the trouble and strife, in this case its about right.
We , none of us, elected Mrs Turnbull, Howard too for that matter, and few will be happy to see her so involved.The final nail in Turnbulls political coffin may have to wait until after the election in both house, soon a fact, but it is under the hammer right now.

Ludwigg, politics is not about running the country/state, it's all about winning votes.

I see one of the main problems with our system is compulsory voting. Why have it, why not leave the voting to the people who actually care.

I can rememebr people not voting for huston because he drove a ferrari.

You can bet your bottom dollar the majority will vote for the gov which gives them the least grief.

What about cuts to wefare if your kids wag school. Often talked about but little happens.

The last election was lost on workchoices. How many people do you know persoanally who were worse off under workchoices. How many do you know personally who received a pay cut.

Where labourers getting $30+ per hour prior to WC.

Sure, some were worse off under WC, but only the low skilled. No high skilled worker would have put up with being underpaid, they just go elswhere.

Take the QLD state election, it was won with scare tactics and lies.

“Ludwigg, politics is not about running the country/state, it's all about winning votes.”

Rehctub, this often-repeated assertion is a furphy!

Sure politics is about holding on to power and hence winning votes. But it is also about running the country. The two are not mutually exclusive. They overlap enormously.

I’m asserting here, and have been on this forum for a long time now, that the best strategy for oppositions to gain and hold on to power is just the same as the best strategy for running the country, especially for as long as incumbents are doing such a poor job, with the fundamental flaw of promoting never-ending expansionism, regardless of which side of politics they are on.

I don’t see any solid counter argument being put up here.

So let me ask the straight question then:

Do people think that Turnbull and his mob have a better chance of winning power by developing a genuine sustainability strategy and thus setting themselves up as a very different alternative to the incumbents, or by being essentially identical to KRudd in his absolutely manic maximised growth-at-all-costs totally antisustainability-oriented approach?

I have been writing to both Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull for many years but find that both are showing ignorance to constitutional provisions and limitations the moment it may not suit them otherwise. And here is where the problem lies because they both purport to pursue the constitution but really don’t.
.
Either one could win the next election if just they were to use the constitution as their platform but neither one of them would want to do so as after all a politician is after more power and wouldn’t want to give up power ill gained.
.
In my view it would be better if we got rid of the major political parties and get true representation