Yes Belly, hear hear. Unfortunately the democratic process guarantees more of the same. Only *the* most unprincipled people can ever rise to the top, those driven solely by consideration of power at any price, those who couldn't lie straight in bed, the veritable sociopaths.

Ms Gillard has done far better than Mr Abbott would ever within the strictures of the minority government he wanted to form.

Broadening the tax base by pricing/taxing carbon makes sense, regardless of whether or not it has an effect on climate change. The tax will be offset for families by reducing income tax levels and raising incomes of those not earning income. Exporters will be financially aided in maintaining their competitive positions. The Coalition and its allies’ “Big New Tax” mantra ignores these compensatory measures to maintain community anxiety about change which media barons fan, for their own interests, by ensuring continuous bad press.

On immigration, the Nauru solution did nothing to stop the boats. What did was the lack of concern for safety and human rights displayed when the Australian Navy began turning them back under the last Coalition government. Mr Abbott has stated its intention to again turn back boats should it The Coalition win government. The veil of supposed concern for safety and human rights used by the Coalition as justification for marooning the Government on border protection puts political gain ahead of the national good.

Should Australia’s mineral wealth be sold off at bargain prices? A market-linked interest under the proposed mining tax provides a fair deal for Australians and mining companies, but the Coalition opposes it with no better suggestion.

cont'd

We need a tax system that encourages low carbon emissions and broadens the tax base away from incomes to incentivise work. We need a humane immigration policy and border protection. We need a better deal on mineral wealth for Australians.

There is a very high level of negativity and disrespect displayed by the majority OLO posters towards Ms Gillard over her difficulties in delivering on these needs within the strictures minority government. This is in comparison to the high level of support for the wrecking and stymying tactics of Mr Abbott.

It is worth pointing out that both leaders are "on the nose" if opinion polls, such as the SMH's, are anything to go by. On preferred PM, Mr A 48%, Ms G 44%. On approval Mr A 41%, Ms G 31%, on disapproval, Mr A 54%, Ms A 62%. By the way, incumbents generally go poorly in these measures, with exceptions like Hawke in the 80's

Why the generally one-sided invective on OLO? Are posters here out of touch with the more balanced view of the general community and slaves to the interests of media barons? Perhaps the half a dozen people that post here is not a fair sample from which to draw a conclusion.

Sorry mate,welcome how ever.
I think you need an out of body experience.
Look again at the threads title.
Then at our comments.
Then yours from the evidence you gained in doing the first two.
See, with me, you stand on an ant hill,while they run up your trouser leg.
And tell every one you are right we are wrong.
Gillards relationship with men, no popularity is the subject.
I am FOREVER ALP
And unionist.
And opposed this lost sole.
On the nose?
Dare not even try to tell you what men think of her.

Thanks for that welcome Belly,

From the SMH article "65 per cent of men disapprove of her performance and 31 per cent approve".

This is barely different from the overall the stats incorporating both genders. The only aspect of note is that the genders have come to this point via different timelines. Whoopeedoo! The main aim is obviously to keep the bad press rolling, no matter how insustantial the point. Just look at the space and prominence given to the article

This thread has the barest basis of interest yet, like any thread involving the PM, is used to attack her personally, and by some who a fine turn of phrase in doing so, it must be said.

Sorry if I added a little humourless balance.

I love the way some posters state, hand on heart, that they have no love for TA either before proceeding with vilifying JG personally and/or politically. Maybe they should start a thread on TA and his deep sense of concern for the safety and human rights of the boat people he intends the Navy to turn back to sea, the ones he'd hate to end up in Malaysia. Perhaps they could get really angry about "core" and "non-core" promises of the past and whether we might expect some from him in the future. Perhaps they could get upset about the highly unprincipled way he attempted to knit together a minority government himself.

Until then, I'll observe the slagging from atop my ant-hill.

When discussing broken election promises let's not mention Abbotts's "absolutely rock solid, ironclad committment" about the Medicare Safety Net rebate levels he made before the 2004 election when he knew about the cost blowouts.

That promise was quickly broken amid calls on him to resign. The excuse made was due to "changed circumstances". Mean and tricky.

Lete's also not mention Howard's "mandate" to introduce the GST when the ALP actually won more primary votes that the coalition. More people were against the GST than for it, but it came down to seats.

The "M" word has all sorts of implications when in suits.

History repeats but spin can change how it's seen.

Reactionary fascists, however - never change their spots.