In contrast, I would suggest voters are acting in a stable and consistent manner.

Many Australians do not appreciate politicians who patronise them, lie to them and break promises. What we are seeing in the ballot box is the result of rational judgment, not some imagined "volatility".

Wal Collins, Scullin

We share blame

Comments on the weekend's electoral backlash in Queensland and the parlous state of the federal government have run riot in all facets of the Australian press. To a person, they have blamed broken promises and undisclosed budget cuts by new governments trying to kick-start ailing economies and fund ignored infra-structure projects that our country badly needs.

Perhaps we, the public, should take a lot of the blame for these problems. There are many reasons why we no longer vote majority parties into upper houses, one of the main ones being that we are scared of change. For example, does anyone consider Campbell Newman or Tony Abbott would have gone so hard to set major budget changes in place if they had a four or five-year term to carry out their agenda. The common-sense answer is a resounding "no".

Our three-year terms (most times less) do not allow for any major changes to be put in place unless governments control both houses of Parliament. Perhaps the time has come for Australians to stand up, vote in a government which can set and progress its agenda, then decide on whether it is good or otherwise, and vote accordingly.

The NSW election next month may show just that, as the Liberal government, for all its ICAC problems, have at least been able to commence some major infra-structure projects for the public to assess and comment upon.

Moreover, we do not pay enough tax for these works, but refuse to allow governments to increase or introduce new ones to ensure Australia's prosperity for our children's future.

Dave Jeffrey, Farrer

Dyslexia claim untrue

Mark Kenny's article "Biographer claims reading problem made Keating a master speaker" (January 31, p3) reports claims by writer David Day that I suffer from dyslexia. This is completely untrue. Day attributes no source for his claim. He has never met me and took no trouble to put this specific claim to me for comment.

Day has no idea of the mountain of written material a prime minister or treasurer must absorb daily. He completely ignored the recent book of my post-prime ministerial speeches, After Words, a 600-page, 206,000-word text, as evidence of my ability to read and write with acuity.

Day's book is full of inaccuracies, including that I divorced my wife – which I have not. A reasonably checkable fact, I should have thought. It seems desperate biographers will rely on any revelation, confected or otherwise, to sell a book.

Paul Keating, Potts Point, NSW

A true public servant

Regarding Richard Mulgan's piece about Martin Parkinson ("Parkinson's fall is a lesson for secretaries", Public Sector Informant, February 3, p3), it was good to see the author confirm that Parkinson steered the modern public service away from the ludicrous toadying of Yes, Minister. Further to this, a public servant is there to serve the public and to inform the public of the truth. Kudos to Parkinson.

Dr Philippa Kelly, Braddon

Target unjust regimes

I agree with Michael Stenning (Letters, February 3) that seeking asylum is not illegal. However, it should be a rare occurrence. If "our treatment of asylum seekers ... violates articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, surely the ... threat of death, torture, or persecution which has induced them to flee" which Mr Stenning mentions is a much greater violation of human rights by any measure, considering that the rights being abrogated are of citizens in their own countries, who should have the right to be treated fairly and justly without regard to their ethnic, cultural, religious, sex, or other distinctions.

The United Nations should be levying severe financial and other penalties on any nation states who treat their citizens so egregiously that they seek asylum in other regions, rather than blaming democratic nations which do their best to treat their own citizens fairly and without discrimination. If there are no such penalties, the offensive and sociopathic behaviour is likely to continue.

M. Aken, Holder

On the money

I was heartened to read Ross Gittins' article ("Soul-searching question for economists, BusinessDay, February 2, p10). One of the many bees I have buzzing around in my bonnet is the way the discipline of economics has, with the triumph of the neo-liberal school, become firmly allied with the politics of the right. This became very clear with Milton Friedman's adventures in Pinochet's Chile.

A discipline that sees itself as a science has allowed itself to be subverted by ideology and warped by pragmatism, as Gittins points out. I would go further than Gittins, though.

Today's brand of economics reminds me of Lysenkoism, the bogus genetic "science" designed to support the principles of Stalinism, particularly collectivisation. Like neo-liberal economics, Lysenkoism ignored inconvenient research results and made bold claims that were never realised. The promised gains in crop yields were marginal and Soviet agricultural policy as a whole eventually led to famine. Many biologists who questioned Lysenko's methods were denounced as bourgeois and sent to the gulags for their adherence to empirically based "anti-Soviet" scientific practices.

Thankfully, things aren't that extreme for Keynesians today, but they are certainly excluded from serious consideration by most governments — until there's a bubble or a financial crisis brought on by the deregulation of the market so loved by the neo-liberals.

Neo-liberal policies have produced a world where 1per cent of the population now owns 50per cent of the wealth. The turmoil in Greece and even the banishing of Campbell Newman can be traced back to the neo-liberal obsession with austerity measures, regressive taxation, and cutting government services.

Michael Williams, Curtin

Whilst I sympathise with concerns by ACT rangers about potential difficulties in eradicating the introduced foxes that are devastating our turtle breeding numbers ("Foxes wipe out hundreds of eggs from turtles' nests", February 2, p2) action must be taken, as the red fox is an introduced species that is killing our wildlife.

In December 2014 , the NSW government officially declared the fox a pest species and gazetted the Local Land Services (European Red Fox) Pest Control Order 2014. I am not aware if the ACT government has a similar stand.

Regardless, foxes are quite small animals relative to kangaroos and can be taken with rifles of far less bullet energy, range and noise.

Whilst I do not know exactly the cartridge used in the kangaroo cull, I am sure that the rangers could approach the culling shooters for advice and, if not forthcoming, contact the ACT branch of the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia at Majura.

There are now "no-light" telescopic sights legally available to avoid alerting the foxes and frightening the public.

Paul O'Connor, Hawker

Check handlebars

Bicycle accidents like the recent tragic death in Deakin can be caused by one loose bolt.

Police are reported to be investigating a handlebar malfunction. Bicycle handlebars rarely break. However, they are usually clamped to the front forks and wheel with one or two bolts. If these bolts work loose, the front forks and wheel may turn in a different direction to the handlebars, taking the bicycle and cyclist in an unexpected direction, and possibly causing wheel or forks collapse. If very loose, the handlebars may even detach from the front forks.

Please check your bicycle. If you can turn your handlebars while you hold the front wheel from turning, tighten the bolts or take your bicycle to your local bike shop for maintenance.

Bruce Porter, Palmerston

The Prime Minister's address to the National Press Club on Monday, and his responses to questions, revealed more of the same. There was the usual harping about the mess he inherited from Labor; pride at the fact he had stopped the boats, the carbon tax and the mining tax; a promise to be more consultative; and repeated belief in the power of austerity to restore employment and economic growth.

But our Prime Minister had nothing to say about the real challenges which face Australia and our descendants. There was no mention of an alternative policy on climate change and the environment. There were no serious policy announcements to address Australia's rapidly growing inequality, which will worsen as a result of the 2014 budget measures, nor about our social security allowances falling further and further below the poverty line. There was no recognition that continuing national and global economic and population growth are contributing to non-viability of our planet as a home for humans, nor evidence that he sees a constructive role for Australia in dealing with countries less affluent and less fortunate than we are.

Tony Abbott emphasised that he is committed to lower taxes and lower spending, despite the fact Australia's tax burden is about 26per cent of GDP compared with the OECD average of 33per cent.

Could Bill Shorten or Malcolm Turnbull or Julie Bishop do better? I sincerely hope so.

Bob Douglas, Aranda

Something doesn't add up

After watching the PM's address to the national press gallery, I am once more bemused by the Coalition's repeated mantra "Labor left us in the dark about the extent of debt". Mr Abbott claimed, yet again, that before the 2013 election, Labor [or should that read Treasury?] provided figures showing a deficit of $18billion.

When the Liberal-National Party took office, they claim this deficit was, in fact, $48billion. I cannot imagine the $18billion was arrived at by Wayne Swan personally determining the amount of the deficit at that point in time: governments rely on the Department of Treasury for such figures. In effect, the current government's persistent claims of a $30billion black hole lead to the conclusion Treasury provided rubbery figures to both the Labor government and the opposition.

Can someone out there publish the true figure given to the opposition prior to the 2013 election, and the veracity of the claimed $30billion blowout, within a matter of weeks? The Australian public deserve to have this matter laid to rest once and for all to assist them in how they will vote come 2016-17.

Maureen Blackmore, Pearce

Last chance squandered

Isn't there a Graham Freudenberg in Tony Abbott's office? What an appalling speech the PM gave to the Press Club. Incoherent and totally devoid of content and vision. Other than his own backbench, I don't know who else would have been interested in what he said. His answers to the journalists' questions were even worse. He has definitely squandered what was probably his last opportunity to regain some credibility and keep our support.

John Rodriguez, Florey

Abbott in Wonderland

Tony Abbott's topsy-turvy policy pronouncements should be no surprise. It's well-known that his political inspiration comes from the 19th century English writer and mathematician Lewis Carroll, which is why my T-shirt is emblazoned with the slogan "Abbott in Wonderland".

Philip Telford, Tarago, NSW

So, in response to extended unpopularity capped off by the LNP rout in Queensland, Tony Abbott abandons the only good idea he ever had: the paid parental leave scheme. That just leaves him with the outdated agenda of the 1980s New Right. Giant minds are at work here.

Gordon Soames, Curtin

Why are Liberal supporters so surprised and dismayed at Tony Abbott's dismal performance as Prime Minister? It's just the same charmless blend of arrogance and incompetence that characterised his tenure as opposition leader.

Gaynor Morgan, Braddon

Leader not a president

"The public elected me as Prime Minister." Does the incumbent really believe that? Is he such a messianic megalomaniac? Does he think the public is so gullible? Is his grip on political reality so tenuous? Unfortunately, the answer to these questions appears to be "yes". The public is stuck with the leader chosen by the party for which it chooses, often on balance, to vote, and if the party chooses mid-term to change horses, it is stuck with the new incumbent. We do not have a presidential system of government. Maybe the present system is a good one.

The responsible party should be able to choose its own leader. We elect members of parliament. It is their job to choose their leader and ministers. We should be able to expect that the Prime Minister understands how he became and may unbecome Prime Minister.

Peter Benson, Greenway

Tony Abbott believes that once a leader has won an election, his party cannot remove him from the prime ministership. "It's the people that should fire." If his government becomes discredited, his party have to wait until he resigns. If he doesn't resign, they have to follow him over the cliff. This is a novel constitutional doctrine. There is no likelihood Liberal MPs will be foolish enough to adopt it. Electors vote for local members, expecting them to continue to follow their leader. But electors certainly expect their members to sack the leader if he or she begins to act like an idiot.

John Kilcullen, Macquarie

I did not vote for, or elect, Tony Abbott as Prime Minister. Yes, I voted Liberal and have done so for 50 years, but I voted for the Liberal Party in the expectation that they would elect their best representative to promote their policies and address my concerns. If Tony Abbott is the best they can do, maybe it's time for me to reconsider my support.

A. Wilkinson, Gowrie

STOP IMMIGRATION

With welfare rising ("Long-term unemployed at record levels", February 2, p1), why are we still accepting migrants and refugees? Further, what is the extra welfare cost of this extra population adding to our existing home-grown problem?

Greg Cornwell, Yarralumla

ALREADY ON HIS BIKE

Photos of Tony Abbott on his bike definitely give the wrong impression at the moment.

Peter Baskett, Murrumbateman, NSW

WHY DO WE MISS OUT?

Why don't the people of Canberra (or indeed the Canberra Times itself) ask the free-to-air commercial television stations why we have no access to their stations via Foxtel, when it is accessible in Brisbane, Gold Coast, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. The responding silence will be deafening.

Steven Hurren, Macquarie

DEMOCRACY IN ACTION

Note to journalists: when a single organisation doesn't have unfettered control of government it's not "a hung Parliament". The word you're looking for is "democracy".

Fred Pilcher, Kaleen

LOCKED OUT

I am really pleased that the National Capital Authority is set to remove locks from the National Carillon footbridge in Canberra ("Love is the loser as lock removal begins", February 3, p5). I would hate to see Canberra developing a personality.

Liam Perrin, Nicholls

DIPLOMACY AT WORK

When Amanda Vanstone ("It's a team business, PM", Times2, February 2, p4) remarked "Sure, prime ministers get some 'captain's picks'. But they are to be used few and far between", she should have added "especially for making ambassadorial appointments to Italy".

Lisa Robins, Turner

DICTATOR IN DISGUISE

A captain who makes all the "picks" is known as a dictator.

C. Lathbury, Fadden

FUNDING INEQUITIES

Very sad that the ACT government has insufficient funds to keep public toilets open or to properly maintain Canberra's public spaces or to keep roadside verges in decent condition or to deal with knee-high grass in the gutter at one point in Creswell Street, Campbell (despite multiple complaints to FixMyStreet). How fortunate that there's nonetheless enough in the coffers to pursue light rail to benefit a single community corridor.

Lynn Harden, Campbell

Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attached file. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 7155, Canberra Mail Centre, ACT 2610.

Keep your letter to 250 words or less. References to Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (suburb only published).