It's easy isn't it. To deride, to dismiss, to be cynical and hold others to a standard you could only dream of. To be cruel, to label to judge, to stand on the sidelines and deride.

Imagine being Julia Gillard or Tony Abbot.

To lose your father, and continue under the spotlight, making speeches, taking advice from the hollow men, standing up and leading a country. To be the first woman leader of the nation. To attempt to hold together the most fragile government.

To be put in a position to defend your religion, your relationships with the women in your life, to have your daughters hear you depicted as some sort of monster.

To be forced into this ridiculous game of 'gotcha', to kiss babies and take daily abuse and humiliation.

How ridiculous our judgement of these individuals, these humans. These are people. Remarkable people. Who have achieved, who have parents, children, partners, fears, personal lives. Hell they even have sex, and they get ill, they look in the mirror in the morning, and they have doubts.

Sure power corrupts, politics is dirty, and we long for someone to rise above the pack, to earn our respect, but really how realistic is this. What do we reward.

Do we seriously reward honesty, frankness, integrity. Do we accept compromise, do we compromise our comfort and lifestyle for the greater good.

We're kidding ourselves, we have the politicians we deserve.

It's just like slamming Greg Norman as a choker, expecting a 20yo footballer to be a saintly role model, to expect someone else to pay every single time.

How well would you do? Do you even have what it takes to be there?

Seriously. Think about it.

Show some respect. These are people doing their best in the game we all perpetuate.

If lies and deception is their best that we should accept,then we all have very low standards.

God H you speak as if we owe these people.
All the people you mention have reaped vast amounts of money for their efforts in comparison to the battler in the suburbs with two kids a mortgage and an ever increasing tax burden.

Houellebecq>> Do we seriously reward honesty, frankness, integrity. Do we accept compromise, do we compromise our comfort and lifestyle for the greater good.<<

Compromise comfort and lifestyle for the greater good……are you dreaming H?
The government has spent over ONE MILLION DOLLARS on junkets and associated time wasting on Slipper in less than a year just so they can retain power. H we have compromised. We use less water and energy than we did five years ago and we pay double for the privilege. Our cities are becoming the most expensive cities on the globe to live in. We have the highest Commonwealth debt in history and a score card that mirrors nothing but abject failure of most of the reforms and policies the poor grieving Gillard and her team of Labor criminals and liars have presided over.

Why should I give kudos or a tinkers cuss about ideologues who consider themselves above the masses. I will again remind you of the grieving Gillard’s comment regarding the pensioners who built the STRONG foundation that Labor has destroyed in five short years.

“DON’T GIVE THE PENSIONERS A PAY RISE, THEY DON’T VOTE FOR US ANYWAY”

You feel compassion for them H, I feel cheated, lied to and unrepresented.

H!well said, and the two contributors so far prove your point.
A mirror would be a worth while investment for both.
I own two!

"....H you speak as if we owe these people. "

Maybe some believe that our democracy is important. More trhan that, it is what makes our society worthwhile.

Maybe some do believe one should respect the institution that ensures our freedom, and should I say lifestyle.

Yes, we do owe these people respect.

We also should respect one another.

Just because one may do as you might not like, does not lessen the respect that should be given.

In the case of Mr. Abbott and Ms Gillard, it is the office that thye hold, that demands respect.

The ruckus that is going on now, and the ongoing personal attacks of Mr. Abbott that has led to an ugly situation, that is undermining our system of government.

The Macquarie DIctionary has this morning announced that it is updating the word misogogy.

The original meaning indicated pathological or clinical hatred towards women. It is acknowledged that over the last twenty to thirty years, especially since the emergence of feminism, the word is having a wider meaning.

It is now seen as the entrench prejudice against women.

That's piss funny Flo. The feminists have, by there use of hyperbole, changed the meaning of a word. One wonders what other words will have their meaning changed through constant misuse.

Word : New Definition

Crisis : Small problem
Troll : Purveyor of outright abuse online
Momentarily : In a moment
Rape : Regretted Sex

' the two contributors so far prove your point.'

They do indeed Belly. Or maybe they missed my point. Understandable.

'If lies and deception is their best that we should accept,then we all have very low standards.'

Nowhere did I opine we should accept low standards, just that we recognize the nature of the job, the difficulty in pleasing people and our own input into the process, and for us to imagine what it takes to live up to the ideal that we would want from a leader and consider whether, personally, we would be able to maintain our integrity in such a system.

Further the hypocrisy of wanting respect from our leaders while disrespecting them, and while being partners in the degradation of public discourse and indulging ourselves in the soap opera.

'All the people you mention have reaped vast amounts of money for their efforts in comparison to the battler in the suburbs with two kids a mortgage and an ever increasing tax burden.'

As could you. Why don't you? Why do you think you would be more successful and maintain your integrity any better?

Most words change over time. The origianl, clinic meaning still stands. It is the usage of words that define their meaning.

Sure words change, but I think this is a particularly telling change. It is significant that it's a word used to label people, and it has been changed in order to label people who actually don't fit the definition, but retains the original definition so as to retain the very same connotations.

Why don't we change the definition of Rape, so we can use it with more safety against non-rapists, while still retaining it's effect?

What about pedophile?

I ask, why was it so important to use this word as a label for people who didn't fit the original definition

Houelly if you, or a PM want respect from me, they are going to have top earn it. They started with a clean slate, & it was them who dirtied it.

At no stage did I ask these people to put themselves forward to control our destiny. They chose to ask for my vote, & filled the ether with their words. They all had the same chance to earn my respect, & even affection, if they did a good job, & told us what they believed.

Until I detect some respect for us coming from Canberra, it's a bit rich to ask us to offer our respect

When some of them know they can not get my, [or others] vote if they tell me what they want to do, & chose to lie straight faced, to deceive us of their intentions, they have blown all chance of ever getting my respect, or I expect the respect of most of us. For you to now decry our lack of respect for these cretins is rather foolish.

When it gets to the stage where you can't believe a single word coming from these people, the only thing we can feel for them is disgust. Disgust is hard to swallow. When it makes up throw up, those who caused the feeling are bound to get splashed.

If there were any justice these people would have disappeared under the mountain of disgust they have caused. That they haven't is disgusting in it self.

So please try your suggestions in Canberra, respect is one thing that must come from the top down

sonofgloin,

I used to feel the same way about a former (still-beloved-by-many) PM who was quietly known for his anti-Asian racist tendencies while a Cabinet Minister, his frequent reference to aborigines as "boongs" in private conversation and he damaged many aspects of my life with his regressive policies.

Somehow his personal flaws were conveniently overlooked by the media.

Nevertheless life goes on if you care to let go of your anger.

In the end they are all just members of the same Party and they and their media and corporate masters are just yanking your chain for their own self-interested purposes.

Do you really think things will miraculously change under new management or will we just swap one set of complaints for new ones?

People dedicating their lives to something they believe in should be congratulated and respected. Self interest is something that drives 99% of the population. Both Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott are desperate for the top job. You don't stab a current leader in the back if you are not desperate. When self interest over rides the good of the people it is difficult to respect that person. No doubt Labour supporters think that applies to Abbott and Liberal supporters think it applies to Gillard. It really is only a matter of degrees of self interest.

At the end of the day the leaders have the opportunity to do what is good for the nation or what is bad for the nation. God will ultimately be there judge and preferably their Saviour. Really like all leaders they are puppets. They can serve God and the greater cause or self and self interest.

I still think you underestimate how hard it is to please all people all the time hasBeen.

How confident are you, given the job, that you would never have to compromise on your principals?

How long do you think you would stay in the job if you never were allowed to change your policy, and never allowed to compromise one thing to achieve another?

'At no stage did I ask these people to put themselves forward to control our destiny.'

And yet you didn't ever put yourself forward. You allowed them the chance by not competing in that race, and further, if you ever voted, helped them in achieving the position.

' if they did a good job, & told us what they believed.'

Yet Gillard said she believed old ladies would not vote for her, so in order to maintain her position to enable her to please some of the people some of the time, you berate her for this honesty.

'When it makes up throw up, those who caused the feeling are bound to get splashed.'

That's quite funny. Kudos.

But did they cause the feeling, or were they victims of a system perpetuated by us, that makes any other method a sure fire ticket to losing their job?

'If there were any justice these people would have disappeared under the mountain of disgust they have caused.'

And be replaced by who? They are people doing a job that displeases many, with the impossible expectation to please people with competing needs and desires, and to make decisions that will be popular on the micro and macro level, and in the near and far future.

I believe that's quite difficult, and I don't think I could do better.

You?

Houlebecke, you have an interesting topic here. I believe we should respect our PM for the role she has in our society, but not necessarily for all the decisions she makes.

What many people forget is that she is not making these decisions in isolation. She has a parcel of politicians in her party who vote on any decisions to be made.
I believe she does the best she can with what resources she has.

Runner, Gillard doesn't have to answer to your God or anyone else's invisible man in the sky, as she is an atheist ...

Wobbles>> Do you really think things will miraculously change under new management or will we just swap one set of complaints for new ones?<<

Wobbs it will probably be one set of complaints for another. I looked for positive change in NSW with O'Farrells election, but have been bitterly disapointed. Regarding Howard, I had no time for him either.

Houelly, yes I'm sure I could do better, & yes I am bl00dy sure I would never compromise my principles. You see I don't want a job, just to have the job, I only want it if I can do it as I believe is right, & to the best of my ability.

If that meant I was chucked out quick time so be it. I would be chucked with my principles in tact, & my flag flying.

Gillard doesn't even have a flag to fly, helps you to get lower than a snake, if you have nothing sticking up. I would be utterly ashamed if any of my kids turned out as bad as her.

Abbott is not a known quantity as is Gillard. I believe he is probably an honorable man. It is almost a test of an honorable man to be attacked by a planed disinformation program by Labor & the left. They have had no honour for so long, they know they can't survive against it, & start to smear. I found it interesting to watch their campaign against the "Honest" John title. It took years, but they did it.

Like I did with Gillard, I will give him the opportunity to prove himself. He would not have to be anything special to be an improvement on Gillard. Weather he could come up to the Howard standard will only be known given time.

*It is now seen as the entrench prejudice against women.*

Gawd I love it. The feminists misuse the word for a few years and
now it should have a new meaning! We'll just invent it as we go
along.

Now if somebody dares to mention any kind of biological differences
between men and women, they will no doubt have a new label!

Perhaps you should go back to the psychologist who first came up with
the word "misogynist" and understand what she actually meant by it
and why, before misusing language to suit your semantics, as
you go along.

Respect is earned. Neither Gillard or Abbott have earned my respect.
In fact all I can think of is their many cases of poor judgement

I actually hated Howard with a vengeance, but I see now in hindsight he runs rings around the dregs that are left.

Even if you didn't like his politics, he had beliefs, and was consistent even when they were unpopular.

The place wasn't such a circus when he was around and I cant imagine it being this bad with him in the mix.

'Houelly, yes I'm sure I could do better, & yes I am bl00dy sure I would never compromise my principles. You see I don't want a job, just to have the job, I only want it if I can do it as I believe is right, & to the best of my ability.'

Why didn't you then? Is it because you knew it was impossible and that you would get chucked out? Even if you didn't compromise on your principles, you'd have to select the lesser of two evils all the time.

If you really wanted to effect some change in an area, you'd have to sacrifice something. Or are you happy with no change and no sacrifice of principles? I think a man has to be pragmatic, and it's a bit of a cop out to stand by your principles in order to avoid the tough calls.

I think the real thing missing in the whole mix is transparency and genuine communication. I'd love to have the bare faced truth, the polictical suicide honesty.

Imagine,

'Well I know I said no carbon tax, but I bent over for the greens because I want to be in government to achieve XYZ.'

' I Know there's no weapons of mass destruction, but we really need to bend over for the Americans because of XYZ.'

I suppose people know this deep down anyway (Which is why Assange is harmless), it would be nice to have it affirmed though.

How ridiculous our judgement of these individuals, these humans. These are people.
Houellebecq,
I think you understand "die du mir so ich dir". If they want us to treat them with more compassion then shouldn't they do so to us ?
I think far too many in high office do not have the integrity to hold their office. If they did we'd be a much better society.

'I think you understand "die du mir so ich dir". If they want us to treat them with more compassion then shouldn't they do so to us ?'

That's a bit circular.

If they want? I see lots of people on this site going on about the state of political discourse, all the while luxuriating in personal insults about the politicians.

I see more of 'us' wanting more respect form 'them', so this new found desire for respect and civil discourse may as well start with the people wanting the change.

It's all a bit 'after you Sir, I'm right behind you' isn't it.

'I think far too many in high office do not have the integrity to hold their office.'

I just think the game is stacked against them. I also think we influence greatly the rules of the game.

Come off the grass Hoully, Gillard wanting to achieve something for someone other than her self, pull the other one mate.

Had to buy the Green vote, what rubbish. Just when were the Green likely to vote with the liberals? She had them over a barrel, not the other way around

I find your whole argument nothing but an attempt to justify the unjustifiable, & not worth bothering with. Try again some time, after a bit more thought.

Houellie,
no wonder you're puzzled. I just noticed I'd made a typo, should have been wie instead of die.
Re respecting authority. yes by all means but when can we get to experience some respect from them ? Like pensioners having to cop it sweet with burglars, assaults, council stupidity etc. Where are those respectable Magistrates & Judges ? Youth crime, where are the respectable upholders of the Law ? Crook operators & con merchants, where are the respectable authorities ?
Yes I agree with you that many of us greatly influence the rules of the game & so we should because the respectable in authority perpetually fail to allow the decent to continue on the track of decency whereas the crooks instantly get the benefit of the doubt. I think respectable has different meanings in different circles.
I can foresee an emergence of vigilanteism entirely due to the miserable failings of the bureaucrats in high office.

'Come off the grass Hoully'

Haha, I must confess when I wrote that original post, well, ... hehe

'Had to buy the Green vote, what rubbish. '

It was just an example of giving some kind of frank explanation that would be politically unsound.

But, speaking of Greens, I see this as very aligned with the Green's attitude to things...

'If that meant I was chucked out quick time so be it. I would be chucked with my principles in tact, & my flag flying.'

ie all or nothing, and happy to achieve nothing of their goals, and keep their hands clean.

Sittng on the sidelines, happy in the knowledge they can keep their integrity, with zero risk of ever having their pie in the sky idealism put to any kind of real world test.

I think it applies to a lot of our arm chair analysis.

As I said at the start, it's easy isn't it.

those who lobby also,..stand and serve
i couldnt bind to any party..so i lobby those in power
i have talked with a few who managed to 'get it'...then found the couldnt change much..

like the poker machine..law was a lay down missere
till party numbers changed..and his work results in a nice 35 million subsidy to try iy in alp clubs in act..much frequented by the lobby.

it dont take power..in govt
it take an affective lobby..ongoing persistant lobby..on their homeground..or in their relaxation areras/hobbies..intrests..of the lobied in the off hours.

catching them with their pants down
just ensures you got the dirt on a loyal partier..PARTIES is the error

LOYALTY TO PARTY>>.. OVER STATE?
thats treason..right there.

or in the case to the 'lawsociety'
big pharma/private imprisonments industies ..loyalty to brand
is treason to the state../mate*

H I am no Angel so my comments refer to me too.
I think we let our selves be lead, by both sides of politics.
To blindly and often wrongly, ignore the issues, and target, unfairly the person/people.
It, after a couple of days combative posting, is my opinion, this is the best thread of 2012.
I try, very hard, not to target people without reason.
Try just as hard to target ANY side that needs it.
Those I target Gillard and Abbott,anyone, are in my view much as I say they are.
But we are, all of us, being lead like sheep, and it is ours and the country,s loss.
Any superstition put before Parliament is bound to have eight out comes, eight different groups of people wanting their out come.
It is simplistic, in the extreme,to not seethe whole, to think only what suits us,is good.
A few of us come armed with pit bull terriers to loose on THEM the other side.
And that is blindness

Yes it is a hard road being a polly.

Continually fail at what you attempt and you still get paid. Gillard's pay soared by $90,000 to about $470,000 - more than either Obama or the British PM is paid. While Abbott's pay packet swelled by $74,000 to $333,000. Or stay on the back bench for $200,000 a year.

Enjoy the free car and petrol; use the credit card to fill the wife’s car.

Travel to exotic locations on tax payer funded junket holidays.

Stay in the job for a few terms and you get a lifetime pension, one that beats the pants off the basic $16000 we plebs can look forward to.
Recent MP retirees MP’s like David Hawker is on $120,000 a year, Lindsay Tanner $111,000 a year, while ACT MP Bob McMullan hits the jackpot with nearly $130,000 a year.

>>To lose your father, and continue under the spotlight, making speeches, taking advice from the hollow men, standing up and leading a country<<.

No sorry Houelly I can’t see them as a protected species because the nature of the vocation does not attract wallflowers. If they can bear the weight of a minimum $200K a year and the perks, they can bear some atrociously poor moral judgment such as Jones comment to Gillard. Jones was using it as a cheap shot condemnation from the grave, but it was water off a ducks back to Gillard, and a god given opportunity to talk about anything except her failures and garnish some sympathy.

>>We're kidding ourselves, we have the politicians we deserve.<<

You speak for yourself of course, I do not deserve duds.

>> standing up and leading a country.<<

Not in India though. I heard several women on talk back radio comment about Gillard’s topple."I laughed and laughed and laughed, am I a misogynist, one lady asked the announcer". I and my bride also laughed and laughed and laughed when I told her what I had heard on the airwaves.

the one thing that gripes me with our pollies is that they just have to do one term & they're guaranteed a handsome pension immediately. We have to wait till we've worn out our minds & bodies because of their dreadful performances before we can get our Super/pension.
Why don't they have to wait ? Any decent pollie (silly question) out there who'd care to tell us ?

H I do not believe the post above is true.
But am baffled by some answers.
I think strongly, the subject is the best I have seen this year.
I do not think we can judge by the numbers who contribute.
Not by the quality of contributions.
That here however is telling.
It seems that no room exists, to give any thanks to any one in politics.
I will be told,despite a post history proving it untrue, I am propping up my party.
By some, who by their post history, prove they never do other than, prop up their party.
IF we are Representative, I am afraid we deserve the Governments we get and fail any test on our understanding.

Belly,
This is not a Party issue because neither major outfit has rejected or is asking for a change of such policy. Pollies grab as much as they can get. It's a shame because if one lot turned around at such immoral pay rises & benefits & said enough, no more for time being than we could say well, they're showing some decency, but none have said so as yet.

It is not wrong to hold politicians to a high standard. Most politicians underestimate the goodwill and intelligence of the electorate.

It is not even about betraying one's principles. Blind Freddy understands that this is sometimes necessary in a democracy because a democracy is about representing the electorate and should a politician's principles no longer match those of the electorate, then they have to be put aside. Abbott has come to this realisaton to some extent on women's issues and maybe he has had an honest change of heart in some respects.

Yes, politics is a difficult job, and yes the hours are long and it is impossible to please everybody. I am sure most politicians enter politics with the noble idea of doing good and somehow along the way, after a few jaded years, some succumb to career sustaining politics instead of representative politics. Now too busy with backroom deals, poll chasing, politicking and nit-picking the opposing team to remember the purpose of their role. It is also easy to lose track of what is happening out there in the burbs when much of the lobbying is done by special interest groups. This may, in some cases, blur reality.

Give people some credit, they are fed up with the nonsense in the House and in the media. Yet the politicians are not listening and continue down the same merry path.

In Julia Gillard's own words to the media (taken from The Australian newspaper): Ms Gillard said the media could head off criticism by lifting its game. "If I could put it as clearly as I can . . . 'don't write crap'," she said. "Can't be that hard. And when you have written complete crap, then I think you should correct it."

The same goes for politicians.

Pelican well said there are Buts.
Yesterdays ACT voters spoke.
What they said will have every side giveing a different view of just what it was they said.
My slant? in Canberra? home of the Greens, Labor?
They confirmed the greens are dieing.
Labor is in very real trouble, nation wide.
Now having said that, if we put every poster who ever posted here.
In race form, Melbourne cup style.
You know post history.
Would we find a few, who no matter the issue judge much more harshly one side than the other.
Pelican great differences exist between fair judgment and some wildly wrong thoughts.
It is that difference, the chance to understand it, that see,s me claim this is the best subject of 2012.
If we judge every side on a fair honest basis that judgment becomes a foundation for better out comes.
I think that should be what we all want, it would still bring about a change in government, it is my belief Gillard has much to hide.
So saying I highlight my post is not about politics but outcomes.

Belly
The Federal election will be a better about Greens support. It will be interesting to see the impact of the departure of Bob Brown and any influence of concerns about minority governments. Minority government has worked well in the ACT overall, and certainly has not casued great stress on the electorate as it would appear by some accounts federally.

The ACT election was about local issues and from my view the two big issues were the Liberals campaign about living costs but also the botch job at the Canberra Hospital by the ALP and hints at corporate bullying around the shaky figures. There is also a lot of development issues in Canberra and perception of lack of consultation on building proposals. Among other things.

One of the few things I agree with Kevin Rudd is the need for both major parties to lift their game regarding personal attacks and personalities. Whether this was just a nice sound-byte the fact remains the message is true enough.

Pelican Brown was the face, in my view false one of the greens.
His departure marked a wrong turn, the current leader is damaging the party.
I said there would be ,many views about yesterday.
Standing by mine Gillard, her supporters,her knifing of Rudd have damaged the Labor brand.
Greens will have little impact in the election, as Labor falls from a Gillard sponsored cliff.
Rudd is right,we both know, but it takes two to tango, both sides shame us all by their actions.
Greens? will share Labors fate mostly because they miss used the power they hold now, the very peak of their party future and past, on issue like boat people trying to convince about 89% of us they alone are right.

And Belly, if the Greens had done a backflip on their boat people policies, then you'd be the FIRST to whinge about them not being sincere and not being able to take a stand. They're damned if they do, and they're damned if they don't ... similar to your old fashioned attitudes towards our Prime Minister where you damn her no matter what she does, or doesn't, do. Well Belly, between you and her .... who's our Prime Minister and who lives a life in obscurity? She's intelligent, tough as nails and makes Toxic Tony look like a rank amateur.

DP the truth is of more value than your bitter unshakable opinions.
It is because of the Greens MISS USE of its power granted by its followers.
Some of whom are ex ALP voters that I gloat at the impending death of this party.
UNFORTUNATELY, only one Senate seat [I think] Is at risk for them in this full lower house half senate election.
This hung Parliament has achieved much.
I credit the independents more than the greens for that.
Abbott, his NEGATIVITY, his dysfunctional team, is surely the enemy of EVERY LEFT OF CENTER VOTER in this country.
Not however the Greens, boat people will change this government, and the once left now lost Gillard.
Greens sponsor the election of the Abbott/Turnbull government.
The DLP of the left, may conservatives after victory call a double dissolution election and destroy forever the lost tribe opposing working class Australia the Greens.

Belly my young lad, you're too young to remember the 40s and 50s when Labor was a "real" left wing party. These days they are a centre right wing party. Why? Because they "have" to be that way, otherwise they'd never gain government in such a capitalistic country like Australia.

I support their centre right philosophy, as it creates a VERY good balance between the haves and the have nots. "True" equality for all will NEVER happen, nor should it. Why? Because human intellectual biology is not, and never has been, like that. The best that any decent society can ever hope for is that the have nots are not too unfairly disadvantaged, and that the haves are not too unfairly advantaged.

In order to counter this centre right Labor philosophy, the Coalition has, over the past decade or so, moved to a radical, far right wing philosophy (but not so radical that it turns off too many traditional Coalition voters ... after all they do need to win elections).

Should Labor and the Greens ever form an official Coalition, we can instantly say goodbye to the Libs/Nats ever gaining government for at least 20 years or so. But a Labor/Greens coalition will likely NEVER happen, because Labor is now so right wing compared to their lefty past.

DP I am not pulling your leg, thanks to an invention I have been privileged to learn about those days.
Rapidly needing an update that invention is called BOOKS.
I by age 5 knew why I was bound to be a Labor voter, even tried Communism and Socialism.
I left both, based on lies used more often than truth, both enslaved my class.
My post history is full of deeply felt concerns at the radical left to just lost, Socially inept, to day dreaming fools,who ,makeup the greens.
My true feelings make the words above seem like flattery!
Hiding within that radical group are the very dregs of politics.
I would vote LIBERAL, BEFORE BEING ANY PART OF THE GREENS.
80% plus share that view.
Greens current leadership best serve me!
So distant are they from public opinion they destroy them selves.
Labor will grow again and this time not let middle class refugees harm us, the very word green damages Labor.
I too share however your view Labors move to center/right had to happen.
I am actively from the right faction.
And constantly fighting those, not all, from the left who are better served by getting a seat on the greens good ship Titanic

Belly
Christine Milne is not damaging the Greens. In what way do you think she is damaging the Greens.

DP is right about Labor. No longer a Centre-Left party.

4 seats down to one in the ACT seems to differ Pelican.
DP actually said he agreed with Labors push to the right.
And I do too.
It made governing possible, and started ,slowly, in 1972.
Any turn to the left now entrenches Conservatives hold on government.
On the issue of greens, bank on it, they will suffer even more than Gillard lead Labor next year.

I agree with Labors moving away from Centre-Left but in my experience terms such as 'push to the right' seems to mean different things to different people.

The swing away from Greens in the ACT was nothing to do with Bob Brown, it was very much an election on local issues. Even with Bob Brown as leader, I don't think the result would have been any different in the ACT.

Much of the concern (real or perceived) around the Greens is the hysteria being whipped over a minority government and tactics by the Libs to continually assert the Federal Government is not legitimate. This, despite the fact Abbott would have done anything to hold the same 'illegitimate' reins should he have been successful in winning over the Independents/Greens. And despite the fact that the Coalition of Libs and Nationals seems to have escaped Abbott in terms of ability to form government. Libs would never win government without the Nationals.

Pelican I know my views on the greens are way out there.
I know too, without doubt my views are shared, by indeed in my view 80% of the population.
Labor had to shift, dreams win no elections.
Even now, under a barrage of Abbittism, [ a term I just made up meaning disrespecting truth, making random dog droppings in to mountains, and being disrespectful of the average voters IQ ]Labor has to return the party and leadership to its reason for existing, members.
They if it takes self immolation will do that.
But the greens , while near bullet proof in the senate for this election, will suffer greatly.
For not truly using their peak power, those high watermark senate seats that they hold now.