Trench warfare or trench foot?

At the end of the penultimate week of campaigning we were warned that trench warfare would be the battle orders for the remaining period. Given so little real information has come out of the major parties so far that could only mean an increase in negative campaigning.

Negative campaigning here in Australia is far different from the US experience during the 2006 mid-terms. There are no local battles, as party campaign secretariat’s have strict control over the whole show.

In essence, the methods break every rule of campaigning I would subscribe to. For a start repetitive advertising from each party is focussing on the opposite number, a guarantee of securing ‘own goals’ and promoting the enemy.

But people are generally turning off the whole thing, I hope with some consequent drift to minor parties and independents. For my part, and after many years of mixing with but rarely voting for, I’m going Green.

In the past I saw the Greens as too narrow in focus, but they have matured to a broad based issues party. So they should, as few issues don’t impact on the natural environment in some way.

I a impressed with our local Greens candidate, Suzie Russell and can see real value in ensuring Greens hold a balance of power in the Senate. Obviously there is no real acceptable difference between the major parties and neither should have a rubber stamp in the Senate.

So while the leaders wallow in the shit in the trenches, while the feet slowly rot out from under their campaigns, so my choice is made.