The one thing I want from this election is simple.

I agree to some extent, but I actually think the media started this whole juggernaut. Politicians aren't perfect, but they are reacting to the constant polling that the media show. For instance when Rudd was in virtually every day Sunrise and the 9 breakfast show had a poll saying that people wanted Rudd gone. Now here's the thing whether or not you personally liked Rudd, as a seasoned political watcher any government that wins by a landslide (Labor or Liberal) has got two terms in them, for a number of reasons, firstly if people elect a government even if things start going sour they don't want to admit to themselves that maybe they voted wrong, so they will usually give the government another chance, by the second term they can conveniently pretend to themselves that they never voted for that particular government, or by then their patience has worn thin.

So whether I personally liked Rudd or not I knew that under his leadership they would get back in. However the media make up these stupid polls (they probably did their polling in a blue ribbon liberal seat) the Labor Party got panicky and ousted Rudd and installed Gillard. I personally preferred Gillard to Rudd, but even I knew then it was a very bad tactical error because whilst every Australian likes to whinge about politicians and no doubt lots of people were whinging about Rudd you can tell the difference between the usual low key whinging to the serious hatred, I knew this whole 'everybody hates Rudd' polling was just a media beat up.

What every one conveniently forgets is that before they installed Gillard the media was polling her through the roof, saying things like "oh everyone loves Gillard, and they all hate Rudd" insinuating that Labor should swap em over. Then of course when it happened, the media said, "everyone thinks it's terrible what Gillard did to that poor Rudd, she needs to go". the media's complicity in all this made me livid, but of course who is going to criticise the media? Not the media are they!

And of course there was another issue, of course the public weren't happy about the swap, even many who liked Gillard, and this is for two reasons, firstly they felt that they had voted for Rudd and that the Labor had disregarded their vote (and by the way I realise that no one except those in Rudd's electorate actually directly voted for Rudd, but this is not the way many voters perceive this), secondly when you swap leaders like this it is a sign that the party themselves don't have confidence in their own leadership, i.e. "we picked the wrong leader so now we are swapping them" Even the public who were quite happy with the party, think "gee maybe there was something seriously wrong with the PM, but then again how did the party make such a mistake by picking the wrong guy?"

On the other hand no voter minds the party swapping the leader over 3 terms in, because by then only the party faithful are enthused about the PM anyway.

So the media drove Rudd's demise through their dishonest polling (yes I'm sure the polls were 'honest' but they probably chose a liberal area to do it in), then straight away they did Gillard in with polling. Even though I personally preferred Gillard I think there was some truth to those particular polls, because as I say, it shocks voters' confidence when the party themselves knives their own leader, usually that's the oppositions job! But of course the media conveniently leave out the part where they relentless crucified Rudd and kept going on about how much more popular Gillard was. And then when Gillard was in, the media said, "everyone wants Rudd back" yet Rudd came back and lost the election. Once again the media plays havoc.

And a lot of this is to do with the fact that the media was Murdoch etc controlled. Nowadays with social media I think there is a bit less chance of the media barons controlling this stuff.

But of course they did the same with Abbott and Turnbull too, though in Abbott's case I do personally think he was probably on the nose, and also his government didn't win by that great amount, (I realise some might call it a landslide but it wasn't anywhere near the amount of Kevin07). I personally had to chance channels every time I saw Abbott on TV because I hated him so much, I have never done that with any other leader (this had to do with him instituting a policy that was very detrimental to me personally). Turnbull I don't have any time for, but I didn't hate him like I hated Abbott. So maybe in their case the swap was a good idea, but then again as you have no doubt guessed I'm not a liberal leader, so obviously Abbott is going to be more on the nose to me than Turnbull, but I'm not the demographic the party needs to appeal to anyone. So perhaps swapping them over only made their party slightly more appealing to labor voters but what would be the point when labor voters aren't going to vote for them anyway. Maybe Abbott had a strong following amongst Liberals, I don't know.

But I do think the media have a great responsibility in all this with their constant polling. Oh and by the way I have never been polled. I would think that the poll that should count is the one called the election day, not the Sunrise breakfast show poll. After all government changes should be based on a mandate of the people, not what some media baron decides or based on a poll of 1000 people, who never include me or anyone I know.

Yes people need to get an idea what others think, but surely these polls should be less often, because it is also making the politicians completely impotent, because some politician announces some policy like, "let's cure cancer" and of course if you do a poll on that there will always be at least one group of people lobbying against this, and then the media interview, the "pro cancer lobby' or whatever they are, simply because it makes for outrageous viewing. Then the politicans get frightened, and think, "oh gee we have offended pro cancer people we better scrap that idea."

I also think we the public have to share some of the blame, because it is instilled in us to criticise everything politicians do, so even if we think that cancer should be cured we will immediately whinge that the way the politician are doing it is wrong. Now fair enough maybe they aren't doing it the right way and need some guidance, but the arguments become petty and heated like, "well yes they should be curing cancer, but I am deeply offended that they are calling people cancer victims and not cancer survivors, well they've lost my vote!" So some well meaning, hard working person comes up with a plan to eradicate cancer, but every one feels the urge to sweat the small stuff, then of course it doesn't come to fruition.

I am using this seemingly ridiculous example because I can guarantee that if there was a "let's eradicate cancer" policy there absolutely would be an avalanche of criticism from the public that the funds should be used elsewhere or the wording in the ads is wrong, etc, etc.

I think all of us, (myself included) maybe start to look at the bigger picture, and I figure let's fight our enemies, but for those who are well intentioned but maybe aren't quite doing things the way we would like them, well let's voice our opinion but in a respectful, supporting way. Because there is another issue here, every one loves to hate politicians, but I can tell you as someone whose family has been heavily involved in politics most politicians (with a few exceptions) spend years and years and years working their guts out, with constant criticism and with very little chance of actually getting in. Then eventually some do get in, but the fact is when they start out they have no idea whether they will eventually be successful, because it is actually very difficult to be elected. If you get into a major party there is usually huge competition to be pre-selected, so you usually have to do an apprenticeship for years and maybe even then never be pre-selected, let alone selected.

On the other hand you can join a minor party and because of the lack of members you can achieve a senior position quickly, but have buckley's chance of anyone voting for you.

So most politicians (even those whose ideologies I loathe) join politics because they have a burning desire to change something, and they get very little reward for it, except hard work and constant criticism, and a very few manage to make the big bucks out of it. My own father was a politician and we were as poor as church mice, despite him having a fairly successful career in local council for over a decade. He was rarely home and when he was the phone rang constantly, he spent a decade trying to raise funding for some projects that our local community really needed, and this was based on feedback he had from our community. He was eventually successful but he was never paid for any of this, so being on local council didn't pay a penny (I'm not sure if that has changed, but I do know a friend is on local council and they leave in a modest house). I am very proud of my dad, but when people who have never got off their rear end to do anything for the community say, "all politicians are corrupt, rubbish etc" it makes me quite angry. Yes there are politicians that are corrupt, just like their are police who take kick backs, but there are many who join politics to make a difference.