Federal Politics - too much to bare?

It seems that Australia is already gearing up for another election, despite the fact that we shall see neither hide nor hair or a ballot paper for at least another four months. It is quite depressing when you turn on the television, or open the newspaper, and are greeted with the latest in political shenanigans. I can see how politics would make some want to slit their wrists. And then, as that probably wouldn't be enough, their throat as well.
However, it would seem that Kevin Rudd (Leader of the Opposition) has escaped quite unscathed from the debacle of Common Law employment contracts used by his wife's business. I must be honest and say the whole system seems to have gone a bit soft. One almost expects that there will be tragedy, disaster, shouting down, the institution of a witch hunt, and the desperate cries of some back bencher or lobbyist for the immediate letting of blood, or cutting away of dead flesh, or whatever other turn of phrase you wish to use to describe the bumping off of a leader. So while Rudd and his family leave us out in the cold, with no entertainment, we shall return to the words of Dame Edna Everage, who on the subject of Mr Rudd said "Do we want a prime minister who looks like a dentist?" And to make herself perfectly clear on where she stands, "Do we want a prime minister called Kevin?"
However, Kevin seems to have attempted to redeem himself in Federal Parliament, when he proposed a censure motion against the Government. Something to do with advertising and the environment. Of course, when you have Peter Garrett on your team, of Midnight Oil and Australian Conservation Fame, you can understand why advertisements about the environment are naughty. (Johnny, you've been told. Don't try and tell people useful information.) Needless to say, the motion didn't find its wings, let alone get off the ground; when you come up with a motion that will cut along party lines, and your the Opposition, you are almost guaranteed a fail. Better luck next time, Kev!
And just to really make things interesting, the Opposition has decided that Australian Workplace Agreements are evil/latest variety of the spawn of Satan, it jumped at the idea of supporting the changes. Their answer, care of always smiling Julia Guilard, was that while they "know" that AWAs are worse than having you teeth pulled without anaesthetic, the changes were important to make the system "more fair". Of course that makes so much sense coming from a political party controlled by unions which in some industries make life difficult, and in others act like the Gestapo. Of course the stupidity of the AWA, is that Labor need not support it for it to get through the House as the Coalition has a comfortable majority. Therefore, it could have said that while these changes are welcome, it wishes to to make a token stand on the injustice of the entire AWA system, and therefore, will not vote for anything which supports it.
Then again, I guess they would then make sense.

Walsingham Nut