adelcrow wrote on Aug 5^th, 2012 at 1:01pm:


Credibility failure #2... keep going. Let's see how many arguments you can make that you look foolish. This one was really successful!

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 5^th, 2012 at 2:40pm:


While it would be nice to see detailed complete policies 12months before an election (and isnt the election over 12months away so why are you complaining??) that can only work if all parties do it. ANd since no one has done that since 1996 after the 1993 experiment, you can hardly complain. When I hear people bemoaning labor doing exactly that (refusing to release policies when in opposition) then we can debate on reasonable grounds. At the moment it is just the same old people cheering for the same old party and complaining that the other team is doing exactly what hey did in the same situation - only more successfully.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 5^th, 2012 at 2:52pm:


Well you beleived Gillard and here carbon tax promise. Now who's the fool?

Quote:



That's all Gold_medal -  ( Longweekend )  ever does.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 5^th, 2012 at 3:13pm:



We are supposed to debate the Libs policies in dribs and drabs during the 2 weeks before the election.
So far they are going to destroy overseas investment, unravel everything Labor has done for 6 yrs and create a new tax so wealthy people can have free nannys for their spoilt kids when they come home from Geelong Grammer for the holidays

adelcrow wrote on Aug 5^th, 2012 at 3:12pm:


Feel free to break the cycle and actually contribute something of credible substance. You are still a vomitting spectator.

gold_medal wrote on Aug 5^th, 2012 at 3:27pm:


I tend to ignore those that have nothing to say except simple minded abuse but up until now Ive excused you..
Get back to me when you have something to say..toodle oo and good luck finding someone to join your little game for longer than a few minutes.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 5^th, 2012 at 3:13pm:


I said it at the time (1993) that honesty and transparency in election would die. THe libs put forward a comprehensive plan and suite of policies well before the election and were comprehensively punished for it by an electorate that was dumb. And there's the rub. voters actually are dumb and parties have to manage that stupidity carefully. keating was a spectacularly good politician. It takes quite a genius to campaign so savagely and effectively against your own preferred position (GST). Keating lied, misrepresented and took advantage of his opponent in a brilliantly effective way. But he was still a liar and an epic hypocrite. And the people rewarded him for it.

And ever since then BOTH sides refuse to release detailed policies before and election because they know that voters are stupid enough to believe the constructed nonsense of the other side (both sides). The small target approach is now how the game is played byt everyone. But dont blame the parties. Blame the voters. If the voters in 1993 had rejected keating as they originally intended to and werene sucked in by nothing more than a charismatic snake-oil hypocrite we would probably be seeing detailed liberal polices now - just as we would have been discussing Rudds in 2006 instead of 2007.

Yes I am sure it is frustrating but the rules of the game have changed. Havent you already seen the almost desperate attempt by labor to invoke the ghost of WorkChoices? do you think for one second that labor wouldn't call liberal industrial relations policy WorkChoices 2 no matter what it actually said? the level of dishonesty exhibited by both parties but especially an increasinly desperate labor party is apalling. But while the electorate rewards charisma over content and re-elects lies over vision, the small target campaign will always ensue.