Both leaders haven't been the most inspiring, but the point that it comes down to me is this
* Who has a third term agenda?
All John Howard has done is talk about the need for stability with the current international situation. Beazley has some good ideas with the Knowledge Nation, etc. What we need is meat on the bones, and we're starting to get more detail with policy at the election continues.
How can you argue against such a policy (ok, I've got a vested interest starting uni
- it's quite obvious that Australia needs to modernise & 'servicise' its economy more, we've been blessed with a plethora of resources for a long time, but the real economy is in the service industries. Look at Singapore for instance, jack all resources, but very economically successful overall (note that), with a hightech manufacturing industry and high value service industries a plenty. To top it off, a lot of smart kids as well.
In Australia we usually give government's two terms. They have a program, we give them enough time to implement it. My problem is at the moment is that Howard wants to win the election with nothing for the future, and I would see that 3 years later as a wasted opportunity. Frankly I think it would be a tragedy if Howard won, simply because of the war and the line of 'stability'. The irony is that the Defence Minister is leaving at this election. It's also good to see the ALP Opposition come out with positive material now, and I think that people should consider their policies - it would be sad if the ALP won just because of GST anger, and no policy.
Watched the debate, not a single smidgeon of an inkling of future policy direction, it was all about what had been done in the past - some good, some bad. As a young person, I think I'd like to see something positive.