"Julia Gillard's campaign to portray Tony Abbott as a misogynist does not appear to be working in crucial western Sydney electorates where women clearly prefer the Opposition Leader to the Prime Minister, according to a new Fairfax poll. In the four electorates polled - Blaxland, Chifley, McMahon and Werriwa - roughly 20 per cent of people rated Ms Gillard's performance as ''good'' or ''very good'', while about 60 per cent rated her ''poor'' or ''very poor''. The poll predicts a rout for Labor in western Sydney, with ratings of Mr Abbott's performance as ''good'' and ''very good'' about double those of Ms Gillard in each of the four Labor heartland seats."

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/women-voters-turning-from-gillard-20130302-2fd24.html#ixzz2MX54ePfi

In my opinion, Gillard has shot her bolt early. Her accusation of Abbott's sexism was so extreme and vitriolic that it had painted a very negative image of Abbott in Australian's mind. The scrutiny over the subsequent months showed clearly that the vitriolic outburst by Gillard was unfounded, and that this was yet another lie perpetrated by Labor.

I believe that further accusations along this line, and others, will simply fall unheeded as the messenger is not to be trusted.

Oh phoowey!

Are people really going to vote according to some perception of Abbott as being sexist or of Gillard as having launching an overcooked criticism of sexism against him?

Surely not!

Surely people are a little bit more broad-minded than that.

Surely they are! ( :>|

.

.

Aren't they ?? ??

Luddy old mate, get with the strength.

"Everybody" KNOWS Gillard lies. 60% of the population would not believe her if she said white was white. When you get to that stage, there is no return.

Haz, it is with some perturbation that I find myself not fitting within your definition of “everybody”!

So um. Do you actually prefer Abbot / Libs to Gillard / Labs then? Or are you equally condemnatory of him / them?

>>"Everybody" KNOWS Gillard lies.<<

Well, yes: she's a politician. Along with lawyers it is a trait they're famous for. Gillard lies and Abbott lies and Krudd lies and O'Barrel lies and even St. Malcolm lies.

But it's the differences and not the similarities between politicians that wins or loses them votes. What is different about Gillard than Abbott that will see him win the election?

Cheers,

Tony

Last year we all endured a political debate mired in
the personal, the trivial, and so often, the
downright nasty. Yet beyond the grounds of Parliament
House, the desire is for a debate about real issues
and real plans.

No wonder many people are disgusted by the current
state of politics in this country.
When regressive ideas, imparted by divisive scare
tactics, aided and abetted by toxic mouth pieces
has been the norm.
Some seek to be PM by destruction, in the
absence of any policy, reform agenda or vision,
reducing complex issues to inane slogans
and negative rhetoric,
thus lowering the national debate.
Is it any
wonder that voters are frustrated.

Predicting the future is at the best of times a
risky business. Historically, we've learned with election
results that what was predicted did not always happen.
And in this case as far as Western Sydney is concerned -
to use an old adage:

"The enemy isn't conservatism,
The enemy isn't liberalism.
The enemy is bulls--t."

And who knows, whoever sings a ballad of economic
security, job creation, and secure borders, may
just win Western Sydney over.

Tony Abbott has a long, long history of mysogynism and his litany of lies goes way, way back to his close partnership with Howard when they both promised that there would NEVER EVER be a GST! Julia Gillard, in my opinion, is being unfairly targeted by Tony Abbott because she is a woman and he is a bully. Perhaps the people of the western suburbs should be very cautious of who they vote for because Abbott has already alluded that he would increase the GST to 15% and introduce Workplace Agreements! These two initiatives will single-handedly negatively affect those in the lower socio-economic class. When this happens and you voted for Liberal, don't start whingeing because you deserve the party you vote for!

Abbott the misogynist; Gillard the misandrist. Who cares anymore!

The gender war is lost. The federal election is going to be won by whoever can hand out tax cuts. And Tony Abbott is holding the trump card.

Katie which would you prefer, Gillard, with no workplace agreement, because you have no job, or Abbott perhaps with a work place agreement, & a job?

It is quite obvious the ordinary people western Sydney, & Wane Swans electorate in Qld would prefer the latter. Could it be they are somewhat smarter than the true believers?

Katie, you are being quite silly in your remarks.
Gillards accusation of Abbott was just a vicious stunt proposed by her
imported campaign manager. He did the same thing to PM Brown in Britain.

It had better be understood now and be prepared for the cutbacks that
will inevitably be put in by the Lib/Nats when/if they get elected.
They will just have to be very severe and I could not guess where the
axe will fall.
Someone has to do it, the Labour government has just not been brave enough.
That Labour has done cutbacks on palliative care is surprising but
they probably assume the recipients won't be voting anymore.

The government will have to aim for a lot more than a one billion
surplus as that would take 265 years to pay out the debt.
They should aim to reduce the debt by at least $50 billion a year
although that will not be possible in a zero growth economy.
The interest bill at the moment must be about one or two billion.
To my mind is the question, can we pay the interest ?

....When this happens and you voted for Liberal, don't start whingeing because you deserve the party you vote for!

Gee Kattie, now that's the pot calling the kettle black!

I kind of remember a time, not that long ago, where our country was booming and everyone who wanted work, had a job.

Not only a job, but many options for other jobs, even extra work if they wanted it.

And guess what, we also had agreements.

History is hard to dispute.

feminism and ethics don't go together. That is why our Government is an international embarassment.

Runner stated that "feminism and ethics don't go
together..." and therefore no buts about it - our
government is an "international embarrassment."

A man must be both ignorant and uncharitable
who believes there is no virtue or truth but his own.

Lexi.
Wasn't the original slogan of the second wave Feminists "Make the personal political"?
The fact that women voted for Julia at all is evidence that extending the franchise to women was a mistake, you ladies will clearly vote against your own long term interests and those of your kids on the strength of "feelings", ie the "feeling" that we should have a female prime minister just so that things would be "equal".
I'm sure the poverty stricken former recipients of the single mother's pension will be lining up to express their "feelings" about Ms Gillard and the sisterhood.

Perhaps we should start a thread about what Julia and labor HAVNT stuffed up, as it would be much easier, albeit, very, very short.

Dear Jay,

I did not vote for Julia Gillard. And I don't think of
myself in terms of any labels either. I've been too busy
raising a family, studying, working full-time, looking
after two elderly parents with dementia, to worry
about any "isms".

As for the PM. I think that it would be
easy to blame her for the general behaviour and
direction of the party she formally leads as she's not
solely responsible for the mess Labor is in at present.

As Eva Cox has pointed out:

"the PM has done a good job
in holding together a diverse and quite difficult group
of votes in the Senate and the House of Reps. and has
pursued the business of government with some efficiency,
with many bills going through unopposed and many others
passed with narrow margins. In that sense, her role, as head
of the executive process of government has been impeccable.
So why suggest she goes?"

Eva Cox sums things up nicely when she states that:

"Fixing the problems of the ALP policy making requires more
than changed leadership. The control by party machine men
and relying on bad research to justify egregious policies
that prove the government is tougher than the opposition
would still be there if the PM was removed or left."

You can't change of relive the past but I feel that most
voters realise that you can plan for and shape the
future. Leadership is not about gender. The role of the
PM comes down to designing and delivering policies that
gets our children a better future.

The upcoming election will be held against a back-drop of a
fast changing world. The central challenge for our political
leaders is to ensure Australia's economic resilience in this
time of change. Voters shall decide who deserves to lead
the nation. There's still six months until the next election
and in politics that's a long time.
Anything can happen during that time.

Lexi,

Juliar has managed to hold the greens/labor/independent coalition together with equal measure of bribery and coercion. Unfortunately when ever interests are compromised, it is usually the public that is short changed. Juliar has a fierce will to govern, it is just that she does it so badly.

Juliar might not be responsible for all Labor's failures, but she is responsible for quite a few.

Didn't Eva Cox flay feminists for being gutless in their sisterhood for not criticising Julia Gillard's poor performance?

Now we are to believe that feminists must lock-step to support Gillard because she is a woman?

What changed?

Who cares what the old feminist dinosaurs say. They are all so last century. Too many have had their snouts in the guvvy trough of taxpayers' money for far too long.

Young women, all women, are going to make up their own minds independently anyway and good for them. The feminist elite might not like that because they always presume to know better and patronise the hell out of women, but tough bikkies for them!

The previous NSW Labour government has branded Labour as dirty. There is a fault line in Labours pre-selection process as to admit so many crooked and grasping politicians as candidates something is awfully wrong. The list is ugly and belongs in an African republic not Australia. LABOUR MUST PAY A PRICE FOR THIS

Whenever hysterical Liberals start screaming about the bottom line and Australia going into debt under Labor, it makes me want to scream. Have you not the sense to realise that much of this so-called debt has been clawed back by the sale of billions of dollars of our assets, eg the sale of all our utilities (Kennett sold off Victoria's State electrical utilities and now that sad state of affairs has had the end result of Victorians paying the highest electrical bills in the country). Get real! And as for the comments about more jobs with workplace agreements .. how stupid! The Labor Party have always supported the proven guide that increased trade = increased jobs. This ideology has been proven to be successful. Even during the deepest global recession since the Great Depression, Australia was unique among the major advanced countries in avoiding recession and job losses. While more than 11 million jobs were lost in North America and Europe during the global recession 413,000 new jobs were created in Australia. In addition to the Labor Government's fiscal stimulus and the continuing growth of China, an Australian recession was averted as a direct consequence of the resilience of Australian businesses, large and small. This resilience was born of their exposure to international competition through gradual reductions in industry protection. As someone commented above: history proves it!

Workplace Agreements will stifle opportunities and hand back real power to ruthless employers who will seek to disadvantage those who are most vulnerable, eg migrants with poor language skills, factory workers (with minimal education); blue collar workers; single parents. Once again the unbelievable self-centred myopathy of conservatives is appalling. When will you EVER EVER learn that the conservative Liberal Party have a long long history of taking care of the BIG end of town: the multi-millionaire bankers, the billionaire mining bosses (Rinehart has already suggested that we lower the basic wage whilst her wealth borders on obscenity); big businesses where profits are syphoned overseas to the long-term detriment of Australian jobs and in-country profits. Take your blinkers off and wake up!

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/rineharts-welfare-comments-an-insult-to-millions-treasurer-20120830-251u5.html

Katie kid, just think a little more deeply.

You don’t have to be an Einstein to realise that nothing would have to be sold off, if you didn't get into huge debt in the first place. It would be welcome to the new republic of Grease, if those debts had not been cleared, before the rat bags started running up a new lot.

I was going to try to explain a few things to you, but why waste my time, so just a couple of questions.

Who sold off our bank?

Who were the highest payers even when they had workplace agreements?

Hasbeen, perhaps YOU should be the one to think more clearly? Whilst, it is true, both parties have been guilty of selling off assets, the Liberal Party are the ones that enshrine the practise. They are obsessed with the bottom line and prepared to sacrifice anything to get it: health, education, essential utilities and transport. Right now, in NSW, the Liberal O'Farrell government are sacking large numbers of teachers and essential student welfare staff in schools. It's a disgrace!

I am not a supporter of privatisation of public assets under any circumstances and by any political party. The ideology of privatisation has always been flawed. The idea that private always does it better and cheaper has been shown here and around the world to be untrue. As does the idea that the public actually benefits from such sales in the long-term. There have been too many examples of the opposite.

Even though a government may be making money by selling off their public entity, one has to wonder what proportion of that purchase cost is made back by the privatised corporation against the tax system. I therefore wonder what proportion of that sale price the government actually makes in the long-term taking these factors into account. The infatuation with the "Bottom Line" has a huge cost and long-term impact in human terms.

Interesting that Hasbeen should refer to Katie as "Katie kid".

Nice try at age deprecation.

Perhaps we should refer to you as "Hasbeen - old duffer".

Katie, you had better take a bex and have a nice lie down after the
election and the opposition has had time to go over the books.

Neither party has been prepared to take seriously the world wide
decline in GDP, and it is the GDP that pays for all these govt programs.
The Liberal & Nats will act quite quickly when they see what is
happening, but I think it would take labour at least two or three
more budgets before it sinks into their heads that the situation is very serious.
There will be very severe cutbacks in all government services.

There is no choice, start reducing the debt while there is time left
to at least get it down somewhat, or pay the penalty of default.
Sooner or not much later Europe and the US will either default or
have Zimbabwe like inflation.

This is a nifty thread - such a variety of ideas and compelling argument. Lexi has made some very good points, and so, I think, has Katie - though I can't agree with all of Katie's conclusions, as I see many failings (both past and present) in a too heavily socialist agenda. I believe that balance is the key; and to hasten slowly. No effective government can live on debt indefinitely, or rely on the Blue Moon just around the corner. You either make opportunity for affordable growth, or you (or WE) live to bear the pain of crisis cutbacks in the future - usually by an incoming change of government, which unfortunately gets the blame. People have such short memories. (Doesn't everyone feel for Barack Obama?)

However, the most telling thing for me in the current situation is that I cannot recall since I began taking any interest in politics, in Ming Menzies' time, when we had such a poor choice of candidates in total on either side of Federal politics, let alone on BOTH sides! I truly despair.

Gough had some good ideas, but rushed in with both barrels blazing and went down in a screaming heap. (He can't really blame Kerr or Fraser.) On the other hand, Hawke was one of our very sanest federal leaders, and he pulled in the unions' and the socialists' 'horns'. Balance; though still leaving a substantial national debt.

The next federal term is not going to be pretty, but if Julia and Wayne still hold the reins we are going to slide into such a hole it will take a full generation to dig our way out. (My assessment.) Already Julia is pumping out more and more promises, most of which can't be kept, in a near manic thrust to retain government in September. Will Aus be fooled into believing. If it looks too good ....! But, Labor has one gleaming light - Bob Carr - who could just sway opinion.

Tough times ahead. (PS - so little comment Poirot?)

Just returning to the subject of the thread, Gillard's attack on Abbott was deliberate and crafted to proof her against criticism.

Her misogyny attack failed because it was simply not credible on so many levels. Julia Gillard herself is not credible to the electorate and especially women who see right through her.

Julia Gillard and her minders infantilise, patronise and abuse women, treating them as easily led automatons. Julia is not a sensitive, empathic person and it shows in her poor judgement concerning women.

Honestly, who was the brains trust who thought it was rather clever to launch a misogyny attack on the male opposition leader in a debate where Julia Gillard herself was defending Slipper for crudely comparing female genitalia to shell-less mussels? Did Julia Gillard's arrogance lead her to imagine that women were too stupid and forgetful to notice that?

Saltpetre,

".....such a poor choice of candidates...on BOTH sides..."

That about sums up my outlook on the current state of federal politics.

I can't get excited about the situation enough to comment at length.

Alas, they're at best "uninspiring" and at worst "repellent".

(good post from you as usual:)

".....such a poor choice of candidates...on BOTH sides..."

Is that intended to totally absolve the Greens from any accountability, while at the same time being the last resort in the defence of the indefensible? What a lark!

There is always Rudd for a fall-back whipping boy for Julia. In fact Julia's camp continues to blame Rudd as well, while demanding that he do his best to hold back the tide against this dreadful prime minister who has brought that very office into disrepute.

".....such a poor choice of candidates...on BOTH sides..."

This is our unfortunate reality. However, if Penny Wong and Bob Carr were both on the Liberal side, under Malcolm Turnbull as leader (Penny as Deputy and Treasurer, Bob in Foreign Affairs and Trade), now there would be a line-up one could place some faith and hope in! (My assessment.) Not that I'm all that keen on Malcolm - but possibly the best of a weird mob. Unfortunately Tony and Joe just don't cut the mustard, IMHO, except maybe as the 'Bobsy Twins' - and I'm a dyed in the wool Lib/Nat! I may be forever cursed for my outrageous opinion of MY chosen mob. Can politics be our new Religion perhaps?

How about we just line them all up, and, like picking sides for a friendly touch-footy or an amateur theatrical, we just say ok, we'll have you, you, and you - and the rest of you, well, thanks for coming and see you later.

Julia's 'misogyny' attack? Pure 'combative' personality to the fore. On whom can she be modelling her personality? Emmeline Pankhurst and the suffragettes, replete with makeover 'schoolmarm' overtures to conjure images of a modern day female Attila, a faux Boadicea or an enobled Jeanne d'Arc? I have a lot of respect for truly capable and inspirational women in high office, but, urgggh, a wolverine that dons the cloak of matronly ewe is nonetheless a serpent 'recumbent'. (Visions of Black Widow beckoning unsuspecting male suitor to the 'lunch' table?)

Hot/cold Julia, a spirit in torment? (And Wayne, faithful, ever-adoring pekinese?)

Katie,

If Labor did not spend like drunken sailors and leave nothing to show for it, the liberals would not have to sell the family silver to balance the budget.

Saltpetre,

Bob Carr from the party of NSW corruption and Penny Wong of Federal financial incompetence would not be welcome in the liberal party or any other reputable organisation.

<Julia's 'misogyny' attack? Pure 'combative' personality to the fore>

More like gutter tactics previously unthinkable for a Prime Minister or ministers. Keating was caustic and an opponent to be reckoned with, but there were places he wouldn't go. He would never stoop to that low.

Gillard has dragged the most senior representative position in the land through the sewer. In abusing the opposition leader as a misogynist she insulted all men who have similarly been open to such gross feminist attacks. Women have shown that they do not believe that of Abbott and they certainly do not support such abuse of men. Gillard and women voters have parted company, permanently. They see through her and probably always did. That is after the electorate, both men and women, gave her so much rope.

No wonder we get such dreadful governments when anyone feels sorry for Obama, the fool destroying US industry, while pouring taxpayer money into the pockets of the green industry hypocrite. He should be locked up for payola.

Then to suggest Bob Car, the worst premier NSW has suffered in a century, & that Wong twit, I'm at a loss for words.

Hasbeen, your myopic views are based on lack of information and/or poor education, total misunderstanding and prejudice. What you say about Bob Carr is an absolute farce! The worst NSW State Premier we ever had was Robert Askin who ruled over a period of intense corruption and died leaving an inexplicable estate of more than 14 Million dollars. Of course, the tone of your comments indicates that you are a bit too young to remember Robert Askin or Bob Carr as Premier, am I right? Bob Carr has all the virtues completely lacking in the Mad Monk, Abbott, ie he is extremely intelligent, articulate and has a vast and exemplary record as NSW Premier. He led the Labor Party in New South Wales for seventeen years, ten of them as premier—the longest anyone has served continuously in that office. Among the achievements during his premiership were the custodianship of the most successful Olympic Games ‘ever’; the retirement of $12 billion of public debt; the creation of 350 national parks; reform of tort law and the police service; and the improvements in literacy placing NSW school students among the best-performing in the world (see Wanna & Williams 2005; West & Morris 2003).

(continued)
Moreover, through Bob Carr's fusion of economic discipline and piecemeal legislative reform, Carr provided a model of success for Labor state and territory premiers across the country. Bob Carr is a life-long academic who has a wide range of interests that extend to the arts and literacy. Unlike the incomparable red-neck fool, Abbott, Bob Carr would NOT be an embarrassment on the world stage. The only politician in this country that has a worse record for "foot in mouth" episodes based on unadulterated ignorance, is Julie Bishop (God help us!). It seems that Tony Abbott has his biggest fan base in Queensland .. the same State where the overwhelming majority of gullibles thought the unbelievable parochial and corrupt Jo Bjelke Peterson and Russ Hinze were the ants pants ... Mmmmm, enough said! Your constant rant against Julia Gillard, once again, is completely unfounded. You accuse Julia Gillard of being a liar when Tony Abbott is the MOTHER AND FATHER of all liars. Don't believe me? Read the following link:

http://tony2012.com.au/

My, my, Shadow and Hasbeen, Carr corrupt? When did NSW have a more stable state government, Labor or Lib/Nat, before or after Carr? And, are we forgetting the Labor machine pulling strings behind the scenes during Carr's or any other Labor state administration? Where were the McDonalds or Obedes during Carr? Or the likes of the state electricity privatisation fiasco? Carr may have supported a few too many toll road developments, but at least he didn't leave NSW in a total mess.

And, Penny Wong? She doesn't Invent Treasury policy or Fabricate hair-brained Batts or Education Exotica (they're down to the feeble minded Julia and Wayne - Blipwoman and Riband), but Penny sure punches above her weight, and is as steadfast as the North Star. There is one woman who does indeed have balls, and she knows how to swing em.

Poor old Barack; inherited a horrendous Republican mess courtesy of the illustrious nincompoop George of the Jungle (who was led by the nose to the GFC cliff, and sat dumbstruck by 9/11), but Barack has the temerity, the gall, to strive to live up to his convictions and his election promises despite a not so competent Democratic backing and a furiously uncooperative (and more recently outright psychopathic) Republican opposition. Yes, he took Kyoto more seriously than most of the lip-service hypocrites, and backed some dodgy 'Green' endeavors - which were ultimately managed to fail by their true-blue Capitalist (how can I get the most out of this for Me, Me,) charlatans. And his Grand Plan Medicare for the Masses was overly ambitious, particularly given the looming GFC reality-shock, but he at least endeavored, strove, when lesser men would have caved. Merit where due. VC winners did not always survive, not always change an outcome, but put their 'all' on the line for Others, not for themselves. Badge of Honour to em, and to Barack for the guts to 'have a go' under exceedingly heavy fire. (And he unwound Iraq and is unwinding Afghanistan - neither being of his creation.)

Come, gentlemen, credit where due.

Wow, Katie, I think you had better take that Bex and have a nice lie down now.
Your unbalance is so severe that you will fall right over soon.

You know so much about Labour perhaps you can tell me why Julia
suppressed the ABARE report on Australian oil supplies ?

Katie,

Your Rudd tinted glasses forgets that Carr's posting as foreign minister started with a series of blunders, but has improved as he has ceased doing anything of value.

His premiere ship presided over the collapse of manufacturing, the halving of growth during the boom years, and the establishment of a culture of graft, ings, the Obeids, paying for ministerial meetings etc. Public private partnerships became a swear word, and who can forget the desalination stuff up.

Carr simply had the nous to abandon ship before the poo hit the fan.

As for Wong, her contribution to any interview or debate is to simply reel off the labor talking points. I have yet to hear her utter one original thought.

Bazz, I think it may be YOU that is very one-eyed. BTW, you continue to misspell "Labor" as "Labour" - perhaps you should have stayed in school, pet! Also, Shadow Minister, once again you make presumptions - I didn't particularly like Kevin Rudd and never voted for him. Many people have a short memory: Rudd was thrown out because he was a little tantrum throwing autocrat with delusions of grandeur (much like Howard) whose system of leadership was "My Way or the Highway". Of course, noone in recent times will be judged as badly as John Howard who lied, lied, lied and sacrificed thousands of lives in an evil and useless war in Iraq! He, the monster George Bush and Blair should go down in the annals of history as war criminals.

Katie, when I went to school the teachers could spell.
Now, well I guess your teachers are like you and cannot spell.
They are now trying to do something about those entering the profession
because they have been taught by the teachers that cannot spell.
It is of course not just spelling but everything else.

One eyed, oh yes you could not even resist inserting into this;

delusions of grandeur (much like Howard) whose system of leadership

Frankly you are pathetic.

Bazz,

Sorry if this is a tad pedantic...(slow Saturday:)

The Labor Party in Australia is spelled "L-a-b-o-r" as in no "u".

The Labour Party in Britain is spelled "La-b-o-u-r".

So although he word "labour" is spelled as such normally in Australia and Britain - our Labor Party doesn't do that.

Bazz, I guess you call anyone "pathetic" who doesn't share your narrow, pathetic outlook on life. It looks like I am not the only one to pick up your lack of literacy skills. In any case, most intelligent people don't persevere arguing with a moron (like you); you're likely to wear us down with experience! One thing one-eyed Liberals DO excel in is mediocrity. Loser!

The Australian Labor Party chose its unique spelling of the word because its leaders were convinced that the people who voted for them couldn't spell. If they stood apart because they couldn't spell that was discriminatory! Unfair! Patronising though.

When Gough came to power one of the things he set about doing was introducing phonetic spelling, well sort of phonetic. So programme became program in the Guvvy's new Style Manual, organization was to be organisation and so on.

The Left still imagine that those who support them are not so smart and not so capable of making the right choices, taking care of themselves, or even taking responsibility for the choices they have made.

That is why there is a Nanny State and Labor governments continually come up with more and more laws to interfere in citizens' lives and make their decisions for them. The Greens are worse, totalitarian. But then the Greens always assume to know what is best for everyone, so there!

Katieo8,

While I think we're both on the same wavelength politically, calling people morons and losers is probably guaranteed at some stage to get your posts deleted on this forum.

(Just so you know:)

And Katie, getting deleted also gets you an automatic suspension from the forum for 7 days. No fun, I assure you. (Been there, done that.)

(Also, just so you know.)

Mind you, I think your views on the Libs are a trifle radical, and I can't imagine where or why you would have formed such a harsh opinion of them. Didn't like WorkChoices or individual or workplace agreements, I gather. A pet gripe? Some history there?

Just wondering.

Poirot, thanks for the correction, but I cannot help if the Labour
Party also cannot spell.

Don't worry about Katie, if she can start out calling me a moron think
what she will end up calling me later on.
She will probably join her idol and call me misogynist.

Thank you for your response, Saltpetre and Poirot. There have been times when I have not voted for Labor and have, on occasion, voted for the (now defunct) Australia Party. However, I refuse to ever vote Liberal because the ethos and ultra right-wing conservatism of the Liberal Party goes against everything I believe in and caters to the top 1% of earners who couldn't give a rat's behind about others, eg the Gina Rineharts of this world. The Liberal Party have a long history of privatisation of all our assets (which, I grant you, has also been adopted by some disappointing Labor State Governments), cut backs to vital services (health, education and transport); the ongoing leg-up to the big business end of town to the detriment of the working class; the dismantlement of workplace conditions that have been fought by Labor backed Unions over so many years eg equality in the workplace; equal pay for women; workers'compensation; aboriginal rights. From this comment, you may assume that I am from the working classes but you are wrong .. my husband and I are in the top 1% of earners in the country (in excess of $300K per annum), however, my family and I have always had a very strong social conscious and I believe people as fortunate as us have a responsiblity to assist those less fortunate. This used to be the Australian way. Now, it seems, that mean-spiritness is the order of the day and, sadly, the right wing factions of the Labor Party are just as selfish. Whilst there are certainly elements of the current Labor Party that need improvement, I believe that generally the ordinary people of Australia are better off under their leadership. Mistakes have been made but when Abbott hikes up the GST to 15% and introduces a slam dunk with Workplace Agreements, this is going to cause great hardship to many people who do not have the education, language skills or confidence to negotiate their workplace conditions.

Katie08,

You would have applauded the swinging voters who looked dispassionately at the Howard government's record and chose to change their vote accordingly. That is the rational and reasonable thing to do, cast a ballot on performance.

However you yourself are limited by family history and world views that were formed a long time ago and may not be applicable at all to modern times and recent events. So you have restricted your democratic choices to following habit and feeling disregarded and dissatisfied, not voting at all and lying to the Electoral Office to avoid a fine, or spoiling your vote. All are 'loser' choices to use the vernacular.

While urgers here will (wrongly) encourage you to disenfranchise yourself by not taking full advantage of all of your choices, that makes it simple and cut and dried for those sneaky lobbyists and noisy interests to influence policy instead (instead of you!). There are influences who would much prefer that citizens do not exercise their full rights. They win. That seems to be happening a lot with the present administration in Canberra.

Katie,

I am perplexed by your harsh assessment of Lib/Nat motivations and principles. In my view there are pros and cons on both, or on all, sides of politics, and I am a moderate, a centrist, believing in balance of aspirations, and moderation in all things. Too far one way or the other is, in my view, detrimental to long term best interests of the nation and the populace as a whole.

>.. the Liberal Party goes against everything I believe in and caters to the top 1% of earners who couldn't give a rat's behind about others, eg the Gina Rineharts of this world.<

The problem I have with this statement is not with your conviction, but that it ignores the great bulk of those actually 'represented' by the Liberal, the right, or centre-right ideology and philosophy, the mass of small and medium businesses, many of the self-employed, and the rural/farming sector. The 1% are only a miniscule component.

There are exceptions to every rule, and though Individual Workplace agreements may have caused problems for some, for other workers, in mining for example, it was a breath of fresh air, an escape from the Union stranglehold which fights to put everyone in the same basket, treat all as the same, equal in capability and ethic, and therefore worth. The Union view has its limitations, for all are not equal, not easily 'boxed'.

Another aspect of WorkChoices was to give small business some greater, and needed, flexibility in staffing, hiring and firing. Now, we know some employers went beyond the bounds of the actual legislation, and adopted some distinctly unfair practices. They were ultimately reined in, and the staff compensated with damages. However, that stain tended to colour the whole of WorkChoices as 'geared' to the employer side. This ignored the very real benefits in employment opportunity and flexibility to very many workers, particularly those wanting casual and part-time employment. The Union's focus on fulltime, permanent and long term security worked to the disadvantage of many workers and many small businesses. (TBC>)

(Cont'd>)
Case study: A worker was stealing from his employer, and was dismissed. The worker appealed, and though guilty of theft, was nonetheless found to have been 'unfairly' dismissed, and awarded damages. Was that a fair 'ruling'? (Pre- WorkChoices of course.)

WorkChoices was not perfect, but sought a middle ground, and flexibility for all, and the safeguards were there, in the legislation. It worked, was successful, but fell short of far left ideals. Fair Work Australia - failing left and right, workers and employers. The Pendulum swings.

Mining or Environment; Full employment or 'Ideal' employment for a portion; Viable small business or a legislated nightmare. Choices. There is a workable middle-ground in all things.

A 15% GST and a full return to WorkChoices under Tony Abbott? I don't think so. One thing is surely demonstrated by our Federal parliamentary history, and that is that the Liberal/Nationals are there for the long haul, not the short sharp reactionary 'strike while it's hot' modus operandi of the other side. Moderation - imperfect perhaps (you can't please everybody all of the time), but with a view to 'balance' and maintaining our international competitiveness. Without viable business, no-one has a job; if uncompetitive we have no investment, no development.

The days of 'Eureka' are passed, the future lies in compromise, in good-faith negotiation, and a 'fair go' for all. It's not a them and us, we're all in the same boat, and smooth sailing requires all to be rowing in the same direction.

Onthebeach, I am responding to your incredibly presumptuous comment:
"... you yourself are limited by family history and world views that were formed a long time ago and may not be applicable at all to modern times and recent events. So you have restricted your democratic choices to following habit and feeling disregarded and dissatisfied, not voting at all and lying to the Electoral Office to avoid a fine, or spoiling your vote".

I do not see myself limited in any way. Perhaps you should ask yourself that question. If you want real progress, generally, Labor is the party that historically have provided the impetus for change. Don't you remember the stagnating years under Menzies when Australia was a backwater? What makes you think I didn't vote? I have never missed out on a vote in my life since I was 18 so don't make sweeping lies and accusations about someone (me) you don't even know! It appears that you are the one STUCK well and truly on a treadmill of Liberal propoganda, like a hamster on a wheel. Move on, dear. There are millions of people in this country and around the world that do not agree with your views. Stop bullying, harrassing others and get over it!

Katie08,

Given that the largest and most sustained growth in real income and benefits for the lowest paid 25% of Australians occurred under Howard, I would suggest that your Social conscience is somewhat flawed. You sound more like one of those latte sipping greenies whose ideals are divorced from reality. These Greenie ideals if implemented would result in widespread poverty.

Katie08,

I said, "..you yourself are limited by family history and world views that were formed a long time ago and may not be applicable at all to modern times and recent events...".

In return you talk about Menzies.

You just don't get it do you?

You assume that anyone such as myself who questions must by definition be on the other side. The Australian people are telling federal Labor that they stink. Are they all misled?

Dear onthebeach,

Did you by any chance watch "60 Minutes,"
last might? I did. I watched Mr Abbott
trying desperately hard to convince the viewers
that he was a "changed man." He even had his
lesbian sister on the show to show us all how he
had changed. However, in the poll taken at the
end of the program - 65% of viewers did not believe
that Mr Abbott had changed at all. Are they misguided?

I think that many voters are totally disillusioned
with both major parties for a wide variety of reasons.

Lexi,

Great to have you back on board, you have been missed, and keep on keeping on. All the very best.

>I think that many voters are totally disillusioned
with both major parties for a wide variety of reasons.<

I think you're just so right. I can't see how any of us can have any real faith in the abilities of the current two-party line-ups, and the Greens have lost the plot and sort of blown themselves out of the water - not that they could ever have the numbers to be a real contender for government (nor should they in my view, given their rather specific and narrow agenda).

It is a pity we no longer have the likes of Don Chipp and the Australian Democrats to fill a middle ground and act as a viable moderating agent. It seems it may still be down to a few independents to fill this latter role, and to inject some needed guidance to whichever may be the dominant Party on behalf of the majority of ordinary Australians.

As for Tony Abbott, I think we have to look beyond the limitations of both current major Party leaders, and throw the dice towards the Party whose underlying doctrine is more likely to provide us with an effective way forward. We now have a reasonable understanding of the doctrine driving the current administration, and its vision for the future, and we have an understanding from history of the Liberal/National doctrine and approach towards development, industrial relations and economic management.

It is an each way bet, and I would not be at all surprised if we end up with another minority government in September (or whenever). For better or for worse, however, I sincerely hope it is not a minority led by Labor. Just my personal preference, and my hope would be that it would provide 3 years of stabilisation, with no radical deviations from a standard conservative, centrist, Liberal agenda.

In the meantime, I sincerely hope and trust we may be spared any silly last-ditch showers of socialist largesse from the current incumbents.

Lexi,

Still watching everything though tinted glasses? The exit poll showed that 35% did believe that TA has changed. The polls show his slow but steady rise in satisfaction and drop in dissatisfaction, and that for the first time , more women voters prefer TA and the coalition over Labor and Juliar.

I don't believe that TA has changed much, as I never believed the Labor/green vitriol. The difference is that the cycle has moved from sucessfully showing how shonky Labor is, to how well the coalition will govern.