It is disturbing to us all, I suspect, that there is more discussion about the hermeneutic (here) of the election campaigns, than the policy content.
That is, how the plans are structured, composed, written...and by whom...and to whom they are directed...is actually proving to be more interesting than the policy itself. (see this cartoon)
When you think about it this is not really surprising.
When 'opposing' parties actually seek to ensure they are keeping up with the other in the bidding war then we see (as is clearly observable) that policy looks remarkably similar. It gravitates to a centre of mediocrity.
It is differentiated not by substance, but by degree. It is not (if you like) 'this is my ideology' that drives policy but "anything you can do I can do better".
So we look rather at the (only slightly) more interesting campaign structure and hermeneutics.
"Who is making the decisions?", and "What is the process (eg focus groups) that is used?". "What role does media play in driving the campaign?"
But, in the end, we all realise that this is not what the real game is about.
So we will content ourselves with deciding on whether we think Abbott is more of a bastard than Gillard is a bitch!