All the above posts illustrate the point of the article;

The ALP government has done nothing to justify being re-elected, except for not being the liberal party. The campaign was nothing but a series of negative claims, misinformation and lies, partially on both sides, but the ALP claims really got my goat.

Yes the federal libs do the same thing, and no I won't be voting for them

A challenge for all the above posters; give me five POSITIVE reasons why anyone should have voted for the ALP?

I can't think of one.

gw

Debnam's problem was that despite his incessant whining, he offered no real positive alternatives - just self-righteous indignation.
Saying "vote for us, we can't be any worse" didn't cut it on the day.

A change of Government doesn't always mean a change to someone better, just someone different.

NSW doesn't stand for "Newcastle, Sydney, Wollongong" anymore and the problem with metropolitan trains and tollways apparently had little impact Statewide.

WorkChoices may or may not have had an impact as well, depending on your political persuasion and degree of self-denial.

As for the "sleaze" campaign, this one was cloned from the Federal anti-Latham campaign and has probably become the new standard. Look what's been happening to Rudd already.

Wot,no mention of Peter Debnam's attack on Bob Debus.

When NSW falls apart, we in Queensland will only follow suit. Having inept liars in the states doesn't mean we should settle fopr the same colour of inept liars in the federal sphere. At least Howard's economic policies have kept both Queensland and NSW solvent, and probably the other labor states as well. Woe betide us if we elect these same inept idiots federally.

If that happens I'll close up shop, retire and I guess I'll just go sailing.

"Socialists" ? The NSW ALP ?? Pull the other one, it sings Hugo Chavez tunes.

Jonathan Ariel resurrects Andrew Peacock's line: We didn't lose, we just didn't get enough votes to win. And this against a tired Labor Government which, he says, "is barren of talent and is bereft of managerial skills."

Does it occur to Ariel that if the ALP is incompetent and talentless, this can only mean that the Conservatives were unspeakable. Yet the brain plays tricks when you want to believe fairy tales. Ariel pleads for Peter Debnam to stay in his job.

The ALP won, says Ariel, only because it used dirty tricks. The Liberals should learn to do that and worse at the next election. He might have mentioned the role model close at hand - his Federal colleagues whose own President has described as 'mean and tricky'.

But Ariel's one-dimensional analysis puts Debnam and Ariel in a isolated position. Here's a sample of other commentators' views on the election.

Brendan Nelson (Sunday program): "In the end it's about the party, the organisation of the party, making sure that we don't have any so-called factional arrangements dominate sensible thinking."

Ross Fitzgerald (The Australian): "Iemma's reign had begun 18 months ago and that was all he was prepared to take responsibility for. His 'more to do' slogan, much derided by commentators, hit the mark.”

Charles Richardson (Crikey.com): “... Peter Debnam...was universally regarded as being not up to the job.”

Glen Milne (The Australian) “…the overwhelming factor contributing to the deathbed resuscitation of the shabbiness that was the NSW Labor Government was the incompetence of Peter Debnam and the state Liberal machine…”

Paul Sheehan (Sydney Morning Herald): “While the NSW election was not a vote about John Howard or his Federal Government, it was an emphatic rejection of the Liberal Party and its robotic state leader, Peter Debnam.”

John Howard was widely reported as denying that the NSW election result had anything to do with his unpopular IR laws, maintaining that the election was about state issues.

Ariel's posting is both partisan and shallow.