Once again - back to the topic of this thread.
As I stated earlier - the scattergun tactics
which can and do rattle a government simply
do not translate into office. What voters need
to ask themselves: - Is Mr Abbott so socially
conservative that he's unelectable? Will he
fail/succeed - as Prime Minister?

The public may be
annoyed with the government - but they didn't
vote in Tony Abbott. Most of the protest vote
went to the Greens. Does Mr Abbott have a
statesmanlike side, or is he what he appears to
be - a one trick pony.

What would Malcolm Turnbull be like as Prime Minister?
Is he a less polarising figure? When it comes to
winning in politics it is real policy debate over
economic issues that matter not silly political debates.
Economic credibility counts in voter-land. And as I stated
previously all the petty political and hyped grandstanding will
eventually stop working.

cont'd ...

It was pointed out earlier that:

"The Opposition's economic credentials look
raggedy, at best. 'The $70 billion black hole'
argument keeps getting regurgitated because
there's no answer. It won't stop. It will
intensify after the May budget."

"If the debate re-focuses on the Opposition's
costings and plans, including its direct action
carbon plan, and its internally divisive new tax
to pay for some strange and expensive parental leave
scheme - the certainty on an Abbott victory is lessened."

As experts have pointed out - Malcolm Turnbull is widely
respected in the business and wider community for his
economic nous, his experience and acumen. There is a
big difference between the two Members of Parliament in
more ways then one. Hopefully voters will make the right
choice.

Lexi. Thanks for the history lesson the Labor Party grew out of the shearers strike of 1891 okay nice bit of history. The Liberal Party grew out of the rear end of Pig Iron Bob Menzies while he was sitting in an armchair in the Old Melbourne Club, another nice bit of history as well, and the point is?
You say "Now it is difficult to see significant differences between the
policies of the major parties except on a few issues." I will add those (few) issues are in the main cosmetic and therefore of little significance. The 2 major parties in Australia have to formulate policy that is acceptable to the rich and powerful, the media will then do the necessities of convincing the 'voters' of the desirability or otherwise of said policies.
I simply calling for the people to be in the position of choosing for themselves who should govern for them, in their interest. Rather than being constantly manipulated to vote the way vested interest dictate.
My ALP friend here see this as a dictatorship. Belly writes:
"Your (Paul) wishes are anti democratic. And badly under value the thought processes of every voter in this country. At polling booths almost every voters had made up their minds, after thinking it out.
They decide who, not you. Your form of democracy would be an enforced dictatorship!"
If you question the status quo your labeled as 'anti democracy'.

On ya Paul1405 for spelling it out to the shills like it is!
Vote for who you want, it won't change anything. The poor will get poorer, the rich will get richer, the parasites will scream louder for their handouts and the middle class will be expected to carry the load, what's left of them that is!

Governments have become a waist of breath, it's everyman for himself! That's what humanity has come too. Greed and self preservation are king!

I'm a bit more optimisitc about the governments of this
country - past and present. Because overall - we've
been so lucky in so many ways when compared globally
to how others have fared and are faring.

Sure we have our problems - but somehow or other
the voters seem to get it right in the end.

We have a Constitution that
protects us. It can only be changed by laws passed by
the Commonwealth Parliament and approved by a majority
of voters acorss Australia and in a majority of states.
As you know this process is called a Referendum and since
Federation in 1901 - only eight out of 44 proposals to amend
the Constitution have been approved.

We have Bills that
are proposed through Parliament but these must go through
certain steps before they can become national law. The
Bills are debated in both the House of Reps and the Senate
and sometimes may be referred to a parliamentary committee
for detailed examination. Before any new law can be passed,
or changed a majority of Members of the House of Reps and
the Senate must agree. They must also be signed by the
Governor General.

So your fears of the total take over of
"vested interests," are not quite accurate. Of course
lobby groups,and vested interests can pressure for change -
but it doesn't mean that success is going to necessarily
be guaranteed with so many things involved.

It appears that this subject has now run its course.
I'd like to Thank every one who took the time to
contribute. It has been an interesting exercise.
And whoever you end up voting for in the next election -
may they prove to be the Prime Minister you had hoped
they would be.

I shall see you on another thread.