I'm afraid Killarney is right. It's the party that the sponsors purchase, and ultimately the leader serves the sponsors or gets rolled. However I think the leader does respond to training to put his or her stamp on a government and will be influenced by this in addition and in part contradiction to the beneficiaries of neoliberalism - e.g. for Abbott it will be Opus Dei and the philosophy of the DLP. For Howard it was a mission to bring the gun freaks to heel. Abbott will if necessary be instructed to defer to others for strategic economic decisions.

Couldn't respond to the facts and reasons presented by McCackie as I couldn't find any, only sneers, which is pretty well all that can be expected of the emoting of the Revolt Against Reason.

Has been, I think you never were.

Actually the floods were Gillard's fault.

I saw a protest sign at an anti-Gillard rally that stated that as a fact.

It explains a lot about the mindset of some people.

Here's something interesting -

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/we-really-must-talk-about-the-pink-batts/

Oh come on rache, you can't expect anyone to pay attention to Alan Austin.

Talk about the spin doctor's spin doctor, & you whinge about bias, please.

Thanks everyone, for a mostly positive set of reviews. HasBeen, actually most serious economists here and overseas did not see anything half-cocked about the Australian response to the worst global financial crisis in 80 years. And interestingly, our government's response seems to have triggered the abandonment overseas of austerity responses to serious economic circumstances. Now, of course, we are way up on the list of successful countries. Indeed, it is arguable (and has been argued) that we are in many ways the most successful of developed countries.
Saul Eslake's very interesting concerns about the various and often contradictory approaches in the LNP camp are illuminating.