Why look for negativity in the election announcement?
Afterall this announcement removes the uncertainty and
puts a clear timetable in front of everyone.

But then we must remember this is an election year -
and "anything goes."

Obviously, some will be upset that it ensures the
government will serve a full term of 3 years.
(So much for the belief held by some that Julia's minority
government wouldn't last).

Another added bonus is of course of allowing the Opposition
more opportunities to say something silly and a long,
relentless campaign also plays well to Julia Gillard's
personal strengths of discipline and tenacity.

Much is now going to be made of Mr Thompson's
arrest by the Opposition. More slurs on the PM's character
and "judgement." And the ethos of "innocent until proven
guilty," will remain on the backburner.

Predictable times ahead.

579 and Parrot,

1 - The civil court has been involved for some time, now the criminal court is involved.
2 - If your question is why has it taken so long, maybe you should ask Juliar why her FWA took so long and why Labor paid $350 000 of his legal fees to shield the weasel from the law.
3 - The one charge the weasel's lawyer uses is supposedly for ice cream, firstly is that what is was really for? and secondly why has he been so quiet on the other 149?

Juliar claimed that Labor was the party of conviction, now we get to see how right she was.

Politics is a dirty game, and unsurprisingly a major party will do what it takes to stay in power.

Let's just hope the long 2013 election campaign can bring much greater attention to the serious issues facing this country.

Dear Chris,

And the Opposition will do whatever it takes to GET
into power!

You're right about politics.

Let's hope that the discussion of policies (and costings)
will appear somewhere on the agenda prior to the
election so that people can make informed decisions about
their choices.

SM,

Actually I think you're probably right about the election call and its connection to Thomson's charging.

"...supposedly for an ice-cream. Firstly is that what it was really for..."

I think Thomson's lawyer was referring to the fact that someone had trawled through and discovered something as inconsequential as the purchase of an ice-cream - as in anything to trump the charges into the overwhelming figure they are would suffice.

I hope you're not suggesting that the cost of an ice-cream would purchase anything really diabolical. I mean your surmising "...Is that what it was really for..." is reminiscent of Maxwell Smart : )

Madcow Sinister,

Do you think its right that we should play with each others' monikers?

(You referred to great Hercule as "Parrot" - without inserting humorous pirate banter)

Just asking : )