Lots of good posts. Another reason for the Ruddslide is generally well hidden from view. Paul Kelly of The Australian summed it up like this:

"On election night he (Rudd) was explicit about burying the old ideological divides, naming those divides of public/private, unions/business, economics/environment and federal/state. Rudd has no interest, now that Howard has gone, in winning the old battles with Howard (unlike most of the progressive side). He seeks, instead, to build upon the logic of his campaign to entrench Labor as the party of the future in the minds of the Australian people."

Deep down, a lot of moderate Australians are long sick to death of all the artificial ideological extremes that are trotted out by both sides of politics. Rudd has put this issue on the agenda and seems to be willing to take the big stick to it. The good thing about him is that he is intellectually smart and fierce enough to warrant him getting his chance to do something about it.

Where the Liberals, and in particular Howard, lost the this election was the back of an excellent Labor campaign of portraying John Howard as yesterday's man.
As politically cunning as Howard is, he was never able to portray himself as the man for the future whereas Rudd could. At every opportunity, Rudd pounced on the "future" whilst Howard backpedaled - watching Howard's interview with Kerry O'Brien on the eve of the election showed just how ruffled Howard was and how inept his promises were to the future of Australia (more like steady as she goes)

Regardless, the Liberal party must take note that they were in power during a strong Australian economy but voted out with a swing greater than they came in with in 96 - no matter how much gloating one can be about economic management, lowest unemployment etc, the facts are they suffered a result that had nothing to do with economics.

IMO, the Australian electorate (even though some say it's stupid) is actually one of the more in tuned political societies in the world, the Aussie attitude came out over the weekend (if l could so crude), they said "You can stick a finger in my bum once...try the thumb and you'll know what for".

Yabby, I'm also interested in this "nanny state" criticism you make.
In point of fact it was a (small-l) liberal "non-conservative" politician who stood up and said "Ask not what your country can do for you". Personally Howard and his style of government never gave me much motivation or reason to want to "do something for my country" - and at many times I felt quite ashamed of it.
But it seems many do very much expect the government to define our morality (e.g. forbidding gay marriage), our cultural makeup (citizenship tests, excessive border protection, restrictions on civil liberties supposedly to protect us from terrorism), and the destinies of the underprivileged, by failing to provide them with the support they need.

I would be more than happy to see a government committed to providing only what was necessary to allow a cohesive society and a well-supported economy. It's probably fair to say we have slightly different ideas about what classifies as "necessary" to achieve that, and while I have no interest in a "nanny state", I also believe a modern successful society and economy is best sustained by allowing the government to properly fund and maintain services that benefit us all, including welfare, health, education and infrastructure. The only first-world government that appears not to believe this is the U.S., and I believe it is paying, and will continue to pay the price for this. The ones that embrace this philosophy the most fully on the other hand generally appear to be ones doing the best, at least if you accept that measurements like the Human Development Index have anything going for them.

Wiz, you are correct, some people do want a nanny state and Govts to do everything for them. Perhaps they should learn to help themselves a bit more.

I certainly don’t believe that Australia’s smartest people are in politics and that they have all the correct answers. So I prefer a Govt which helps people to help themselves. Sure, there is a role in terms of health, education, infrastructure etc.
There is also a role in facilitating things for business. That is quite different to
what say Daggett is suggesting, which sounds to me, more like a Govt that controls
everything and dictates just about everything. I trust my own judgement and that
of some very smart people whom I know, far more then the judgement of any
politician.

Yup, Keating made some very smart changes, long overdue and I have always
stated exactly that. But change just for the sake of change, is rather pointless.
Both Keating and Costello have a great understanding of market economics,
something which many lack.

The most difficult thing being treasurer, is that every self interest group and
anyone who thinks that the Govt owes them a favour, will overrun the treasury
with suggestions as to how they should spend taxpayers money. You beaut
hairbrain schemes will come flowing in at a rapid rate. Most treasurers give
in, usually for the sake of buying a few votes, or because it seemed like a good
idea at the time. The result is commonly empty coffers and more Govt debt.

We’ll see how Wayne Swann handles it, when the pressure groups move in
and try to squeeze out the last taxpayer dollar.

As to the resources boom, I remind you that it has only just begun. Most of
those projects are still on the drawing boards and have yet to see money
flow into Govt coffers. Its been only the last couple of years that there has
been an increase, due to higher prices for resources.

tbc

Rudd won because:
1) people had had enough of Liberal Party apologists on radio via the radio disc jocks & the selected Liberal Party audiences of drongos

2) since 1996 the Australian people have not been given much hope with a Govt that sides with foreign corporations, big business, banks and anyone who can deliver party political or personal( to your pollie) 'donations. ( it all starts with real estate agents and local govt councillors and is slightly more glorified in the other two tiers of State & Federal. We all know it too.

People forget the meetings with Rupert that all the major parties leaders have with him.
Last night's 730 Report on the ABC, Rudd shows that he is a Treasury man by saying they having great ideas worth listening to and implementing !! Gimme a break !!
What ! More neo liberal economic policies to sell the nation out EVEN MORE !!
For a better set of political polices vist the DLP and NCC websites.
http://www.dlp.org.au/

Daggett, nobody claimed that Costello was an economic genius, simply that he
was a very good treasurer. We have had plenty of bad ones, it’s a refreshing
change to have a good one.

You might think that the current account is the Govts problem, we agree to disagree.

The Govt cannot stop people from borrowing recklessly. It cannot stop people from
playing the pokies and wasting their money. The Govt is not a nanny, its there to create an environment, where those with ability and aptitude can thrive. The best option is for people to learn to help themselves, rather then blame the Govt for all
their problems. Some of course always will. Anything can be rationalised away,
by blaming everyone but ourselves for our failures.

You might well peddle your bicycle to save resources. I can assure you that
2 billion Chinese and Indians have no such plans and will use them up for you.

The answer lies in innovation and eventually some sense in terms of the total
human population, which no Govt seems to want to address.

http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9811702-54.html?tag=nefd.lede

You might well panic about peak oil, but I think that these sorts of individuals
are going to make a difference, not Govt officials. As the saying goes, life
is what happens whilst we are making other plans, there is a lot of truth in that.

There are plenty of highly qualified people who have commented on Costello’s
creditials and overwhelmingly, they see things as I do. You might not, but
given your politics, your views about Cuba, you belief in a Govt controlled economy,
why should anyone take notice of what you think?

Innovative individuals is what we need, not bureaucrats with an agenda, telling
us how to live. I’ve yet to see them get it right anywhere.

That’s the beauty of market economics. Creative individuals are free to make
decisions, people are free to vote every day, with their wallets. You clearly think
that Govt knows better. On that we will agree to disagree.