In short, on principle alone, the electorate should elect a different government just to send a message that such ineptitude will not be tolerated. Instead, the election has largely by-passed significant policy differences and remains focussed on the fear tactics employed by one-side to scare voters about what the main opposition might do if elected -- a common tactic in elections: vote not for what I might do but out of fear for what I claim the other side will do (even if rational analysis reveals that is not what they will do).
Why do electorates huddle into the comfortable lies of those who claim to be coddling them but in fact will limit their individual freedoms and responsibilities? Why do parties advocating stasist intrusion into everyday life get away with lies and broken promises, generous (even gushing) media coverage and shrugged shoulders when their deceit is revealed?
This article offers some good insight.
For most people, it seems, the very idea of individual freedom and responsibility is itself a daunting prospect. Why not have personal irresponsibility, situational ethics and social justification as excuses for all actions: in short, why not replace your parents with the government?
Sad that so many are so scared by so few. Churchill must wonder what has happened and why we have not kept faith with those who fought and died to give us freedom.
Given democratic freedom, society regresses into the very governmental oppression that the truly oppressed die trying to escape from. As Heinlein writes, every time society reaches this stage of evolution, it is time to start anew, with principles and people that recognize their intrinsic value.