Quick sentences.

OK, i did begin this with the intention of writing the question - which short sentences do you respond to ... but my thoughts then drifted off into the difficulty of trying to explain complex issues.

So, media bias (and this was found elsewhere, not 'original', and slightly rewritten)
 If Julia Gillard walked on water - 'Faux' news would trumpet "Gillard can't swim".

Political "lies". If Julia Gillard changes her mindset according to reality - it's a 'lie'. If Tony Abbot makes a decision, writes a letter to confirm his decision, signs it then - a few days later "changes his mind" and denies it - is it a 'lie'?

Is this Government 'dys.........l'? No, will not repeat that word in relation to the Australian Government, since the repetition almost inculcates a belief that it is true. It's not; as the Roman church well knows. (Repeat a mantra often enough, for long enough and the belief that "Jesus" was born on the 25th of December ... become "truth" - but won't go there in this post).
Looking at facts as am aware of them - the 'government' of Afghanistan IS dysfunctional; as is the 'government' of Libya, Syria and a few others. The current Australian Government is not. Laws are passed and upheld - by BOTH sides. The Australian bureaucracy continues, as a stable entity.

So, a few more short sentences (as perceived by me).
 Basic "Liberal" party beliefs as headed by Tony Abbot.
  "Maximise short term profit" (ie, short term gain; long term pain).
  "Command and control belongs to the elite".
  "The 'workforce' are only here to serve the masters."
  "There is only one God, Jesus and Holy Spirit". (?????)
 "Australia was founded by white Europeans, and we are the masters".
  "Mega rich media and mining barons rule".
... and a few other "basic" beliefs .....

It still fascinates me that the "Liberal" politicians still refer to themselves as "The Coalition" - and refuse to recognise that Julia Gillard put together a "coalition" of widely disparate 'sectional' politicians - and HELD IT TOGETHER for two terms of government. Tony Abbot DID 'have his chance' at the last election when Australian voters found themselves faced with a 'hung" parliament - in which neither side gained a "majority".
 
Says more for the negotiating skills, and strength of Julia Gillard than it does for Abbot; who was, apparently so "arrogant" that the three "Independents" chose to support the Gillard Administration.

So, let's look at the achievements of the Gillard Administration.

Faced with the "Global Financial Crisis" (created, by the way, by the same sort of 'conservative' American policies and politics that the Howard administration supported and applauded)  The "Labor" administration negotiated the best way to save the Australian economy from disaster. And yes, remains regarded by the rest of the European "pundits" (and supported by 'facts") one of the BEST MANAGED economies in the OECD(?).

"refugees? - it could be argued that without the "intervention", and 'destabilisation' by George W. Bush and 'allies' in the 'Middle East" there would not BE so many 'people fleeing';  but don't want to go there in this post, either. Would be interesting to compare the numbers of "before" and "after" the Iraq and Afghanistan 'intervention'; but that is beyond my expertise and resources.

Now, short summations of the Julia Gillard Administration and the "Labor" Party:
Not easy, they're a fractious and factional bunch - where even the 'backbench' parliamentarians are not afraid to 'front the media' and speak their mind. - surely this is what "democracy" is all about - as distinct from a 'wooden puppet' who parrots the strict "Party script" and refuses to let any of his 'minions' get caught with a 'gaffe'.

Best that i can say about the "Labor Party" is that they seem to be far more interested in "Social democracy", and preservation of what little natural environment that we have left - but can't figure out a way to actually 'spread the wealth' enough to pay for it.

Que sera sera ... as long as the Libs don't cut my pension ... heh.