The current bout of ranting from the Angry Conservatives, has whipped itself into a frenzy of self-flagelation, where its forgotten to actually make coherent arguments. It works great for the Mad Monk in opposition, but it also fails to offer a worthwhile alternative.
Its why Abbott win never win an election (although Gillard is clearly trying very hard to lose the next one) - because when the chips are down, the only thing he's got going for him is "Not Julia" - and remember that it took the NSW voters three elections for "anyone but who we've got" to be enough of a reason to vote in someone who had basically nothing else to recommend them... And regardless of how toxic Gillard may be, she's far less toxic than Kennealy, Rees, Iemma, and the later Carr years were.
Not to mention the fact that O'Farrell hasn't given anyone reason to dance in the streets since his election.
Keep singing off the Labor party songsheet Nathan 
And by the way, you are demonstrating exactly what you are trying to say your opponents are doing, youself. Had you noticed that? 
Lastly, Ol' Barry IS doing a pretty good job, now that you mention it. He actually did achieve many of his first 100 day objectives, in spite of the crap he was handed when he took government. 
And coming straight back at you, Alistair.
If you think I'm anny sort of fan of Gillard and co, you'll be sorely mistaken - even before the election, when my enthusiasm was relatively high, I still considered her to be the lesser of two evils - the well meaning retard vs the spiteful, selfish retard.
As I've said before, both here and elsewhere, the whole political scene in this country is wildly dysfunctional - the conservative party calling itself "liberal" is probably the least ridiculous aspect... If Turnbuckle was in charge of the Libs, then Gillard would have been destroyed at the last election.
Look, I'm a lefty and I loathe the direction Abbott would take us if he was given the chance. This does not make Gillard's policies tolerable, from either an idelogical or a pragmatic point of view.
The point I was trying to make, is that people who hold differing points of view, do so for some reason. They don't do it because they're chosing to be stupid, or because they want to irritate you - just like religious views, the person who holds them
believes them to be correct.
Somewhere in the last few years, lots of the vocal right-wingers have forgotten this. Instead, they've whipped themselves into a lather, where the slightest possible imposition on them is an insufferable burden that will mean the end of the world as we know it, and every imperfection on their lives is directly and soley the fault of the government.
Which is, of course, utter bullsh.
At the end of the day, government policy is only one, surprisingly small factor that determines whether our lives are good or bad. Its like the South Park episode about the previous US election - after the election result is declared, one of the characters gets pissed, mouths off at his boss and quits his job because "Everything is gonna change now!" - and then wakes up the next morning to discover that everything hasn't changed...
Yeah, stuff like banning live cattle exports, or busting up the wharfies do make big differences to the people directly affected, but the simple reality is that no government has the power (and very rarely the will) to cause big changes to the country with one policy decision.
The population still has to be fed and housed and clothed and medicated and transported and powered. Those basic needs always remain, regardless of who is in power and regardless of what policies the implement - and if they overstep the mark, then those policies are reversed or watered down in the face of voter backlash.
So the sky cannot be falling.
