Blind freddie can see that julia needs something as it appears she is loosing the un-looseable.

I would like to see another debate, mid week would be fine and with todays tec it could be done in conference style.

Q1. While you say you are now the 'real julia' can you guarantee you won't switch between the 'real' or 'fake' julia?

Q2. While you oppossed both the parental leave and increase in the pension, were you 'real' or 'fake'?

Q3. While you approved and oversaw the wastefull school halls programe, were you 'real' or 'fake'?

Q4. When you dumped you leader, were you 'real' or 'fake'?

Now if you were 'real', then that's a worry, however, if you were 'fake', then that's also a worry.

Moving forward, I would suggest the 'real' julia won't listen to the labor power brokers, which, by the way was the demise of Krudd.

Finnally, a debate about the economy should be between the treasurer and his shadow treasurer, don't you think?

ah rechtub you seem to have an insight into blind Freddy's movements, a close relation by any chance?

Dear RObert,

We've got to maintain our sense of humour.
Cornflower's right. And of course both
sides are trying to present themselves
as being more ethical than the other guys.
This is an election campaign after all.
(Putting the HIP back into Hypocrisy!)

Anyway, we can argue until we're blue in the
face on this Forum, Australia will decide
who's going to be our next PM. Fingers
crossed that the voters will get it right.

As for my so called dislike of Tony Abbott.
I don't dislike the man. I simply don't want
him as PM. Now, Malcolm Turnbull, would be
a different story.

Foxy,

For all of his academic accomplishments Tony is a very small man, as evidenced by his early whistle blowing on people on disability pensions and work for the dole. A typical Liberal Tory and never a real conservative - who would have some concern about the disadvantaged - Tony's social Darwinism and reverse envy require that the poor be kept in their rightful place. His Roman Catholicism would applaud that thinking as well.

Unfortunately Turnbull isn't much different from Abbott, he just dresses better, physically and verbally. Turnbull is the archtypal smug city Liberal, the sort of smooth, rapid talking spiv that farmers always warned their sons about before they went to town. Turnbull would have his arm around you while he had someone else reach into your handbag - no way he would do his own dirty business.

Turnbull is clever enough to espouse concern about the environment while using it as a ploy to win his ultimate prize of privatising water to make a profit from it. Faux concern for sustainability become more expensive water to 'conserve' it. Faux concern for population becomes a glib assurance that better transport can fix anything and the States are at fault. Turnbull and his mates at his club would have a deal there too, just like Arthur Daly (Minder TV series), but with all of the contacts with the 'knobs' that Arthur never had.

Julia's problem is that she is hollow, an eggshell. She needs to define success other than by the material things she did not have as a child. Listening to Julia you get the distinct impression that she is only half-convinced that the less well off in society deserve any support. She has a lot of growing up to do, which is not always possible for a product of a law faculty. Perhaps like Mal Fraser she might one day actually to come realise that the vulnerable in society are not necessarily in that predicament through their own doing, that is, from sabotaging their own chances in life.

Are these the best people available, why so?

Cornflower,

Sadly I think there is much truth in what you say.
I can only rephrase what I have said before. It's the system that attracts these types.

Real leadership skills, competence etc are all optional traits.
The prerequisite are the ones we see all the time.

I can only repeat that politics like prostitution are the only professions that don't require specific teachable skills.
TO the system of party politics the way it's run is so flawed that it borders on dysfunctional for task it was designed to do.

examinator, "It's the system that attracts these types."

Politicians are regarded poorly by the electorate and that negative opinion seems to be reinforced by regular reports of bad behaviour by politicians.

I reckon you are spot on the money (it's the system) as far as many voters are concerned. They would attribute the poor standing of politicians on scales of honesty, ethics, principle, frankness and so on, to the political environment in which politicians exist. That was clumsy wording, but you and others would catch my drift. As usual I only have time to draft, without ruminating and forget the edits.

Now if politicians would agree that it is the 'system' not necessarily them (they would!), there is a 'fix' which is to go the way the Brits have gone and have formal structures in place to ensure corruption, fraud, porkies and so on are subjected to scrutiny. Plainly parliament is not always up to the task because it is 'their' club and political parties protect their own.

If you are also referring to the processes of pre-selection that cannot be relied upon to deliver the better candidates available, I would suggest wiping out a tier of government, putting a limit on the overall number of federal ministers and paying ministers very handsomely for their work. Raise the pay for ordinary members too and bring their superannuation and post-separation benefits into line with community standards (a slight trade-off for productivity, fellas).

It seems to me that we don't pay enough for the life experience, skills and accountability we expect and we are getting professional politicians who have come almost direct from university and student politics - with limited life experience, limited accomplishments in life and limited personal strength, character and ethics. No wonder they are so easily influenced and random.