Concentrating on the leaders seems to distract from policy.
Electorates will vote for the representatives they think will serve their area best. However, if they don't like the political parties policies, this could swing away from an sitting politician.
This next government will win or lose on marginal seats.
Therefore I give the coalition the leading edge.
I admit I have never liked Julia Gilliard or her presentation. Although it has improved since she became
the temporary PM. I rather like Tony Abbott, he seems to
present as a fair dinkum Aussie. And he has to me a better team that the Labor camp. But we'll wait and see?
2
Sunday, 08 August 2010 08:33
Don Maclean
There are two classes of pundits that raise passions, the first are those who indicate their bias by the way they make their comments (like Bush Bunny above) and hence act like cheerleaders at football for their own side. Most bloggers and some media professionals belong to this class and are of little help to the genuine undecided voter.
The second class pretend to be unbiassed but construct their comments in a way that attempts to move the undecided towards their favoured camp. This is seen most blatantly in the daily newspapers e.g. today's Brisbane Sunday Mail (8 August) which headlines on page 1 "Snouts in the Trough" revealing costs of taxpayers expenses (details on page 9 one show that Coalition MPs provide possibly the worst examples of extravagance), yet page 1 continues "these revelations come as Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the man the she deposed, Kevin Rudd, met for the first time since during the election campaign ...... etc.". This illogical linking of negative news with government identities is clearly an attempt to besmirch the Labor camp and sway the electorate. The Murdoch press and its pundits provide many examples of this including the recruitment of Mark Latham to harass the Government. I find this distressing!
I do not mind the cheerleaders, e.g. John Howard or Bob Hawke, who act mostly to fortify their own side and have relatively little impact on changing opinion (and I say this as I cheer on Hawke as a labor supporter). However I do despise those who seek to change opinion under cover of presenting news and events.
OK, let me now show more of my own bias, pundits supporting the opposition have been crowing loudly that the Julia we are seeing on daily TV is not the real Julia, but I think the opposite is really true, i.e. Abbott is so tightly controlled and scripted that we are certainly not seeing the real Tony during the campaign. Pity help us if the real Tony comes to rule us as PM by default, even though I find the man quite pleasant and personable, albeit erratic and inconsistent in his core beliefs and statements. Julia by contrast shows consistency and reason despite the barrage and is prepared to open up issues for debate.
3
Sunday, 08 August 2010 10:05
Arjay
As Zibigniew Brezezinski recently said,"There is a new global political awakening." When the people finally realise that they been taken for a ride of deception which has stolen the very essence of their civilisation,then the oligarchs and their media lackies will be in total dis-array.
4
Sunday, 15 August 2010 10:32
Mckay29Araceli
That's good that people can get the credit loans and that opens new possibilities.
5
Monday, 16 August 2010 00:29
Stewartinoz
I would be very interested in political persuasion of the parties in terms of Fabian Socialism and the push towards the inevitability of One World Government.
Anything that would delay the process would be a plus.
Electorates will vote for the representatives they think will serve their area best. However, if they don't like the political parties policies, this could swing away from an sitting politician.
This next government will win or lose on marginal seats.
Therefore I give the coalition the leading edge.
I admit I have never liked Julia Gilliard or her presentation. Although it has improved since she became
the temporary PM. I rather like Tony Abbott, he seems to
present as a fair dinkum Aussie. And he has to me a better team that the Labor camp. But we'll wait and see?
The second class pretend to be unbiassed but construct their comments in a way that attempts to move the undecided towards their favoured camp. This is seen most blatantly in the daily newspapers e.g. today's Brisbane Sunday Mail (8 August) which headlines on page 1 "Snouts in the Trough" revealing costs of taxpayers expenses (details on page 9 one show that Coalition MPs provide possibly the worst examples of extravagance), yet page 1 continues "these revelations come as Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the man the she deposed, Kevin Rudd, met for the first time since during the election campaign ...... etc.". This illogical linking of negative news with government identities is clearly an attempt to besmirch the Labor camp and sway the electorate. The Murdoch press and its pundits provide many examples of this including the recruitment of Mark Latham to harass the Government. I find this distressing!
I do not mind the cheerleaders, e.g. John Howard or Bob Hawke, who act mostly to fortify their own side and have relatively little impact on changing opinion (and I say this as I cheer on Hawke as a labor supporter). However I do despise those who seek to change opinion under cover of presenting news and events.
OK, let me now show more of my own bias, pundits supporting the opposition have been crowing loudly that the Julia we are seeing on daily TV is not the real Julia, but I think the opposite is really true, i.e. Abbott is so tightly controlled and scripted that we are certainly not seeing the real Tony during the campaign. Pity help us if the real Tony comes to rule us as PM by default, even though I find the man quite pleasant and personable, albeit erratic and inconsistent in his core beliefs and statements. Julia by contrast shows consistency and reason despite the barrage and is prepared to open up issues for debate.
Anything that would delay the process would be a plus.