Nobody expects Howard to serve through another term, if he wins. We are therefore offered a Government led by Costello - a smarmy, sarcastic, verbal bully whose principal skill seems to lie in cruel invective - Downer, so superbly characterised by Bill Leak - Abbott, presiding over an increasingly dysfunctional health system and, I suppose, Malcolm Turnbull. Hmmm. What a prospect.

I agree with Mark about Peter Hartcher's unremarkable analysis. I used to have some respect for Hartcher, but he seems to have gone native and succumbed to the press gallery pack mentality.

By the way, it will be interesting to see how the next interest rate rise (now almost certain) plays out for Howard. That will be the FIFTH since the last election, which together with the infrastructure and skills crises, makes the Coalition's claim to being sound economic managers look ridiculous.

A lot of people held their noses and voted for Howard in the last two elections. But the stench has now become so bad - and the alternative much more palatable - that a change is brewing.

Mark,

I agree that a tipping point was reached some time ago. More of a ground swell of concern on the part of the public who have put on probation many Howard assertions that are now proving to be wrong. The starting point with all of this was Howard's obstinate position on Kyoto, followed by his bulldozing of the Iraq war (which cancelled out better thoughts from a perceived success in East Timor and relief at the disposal of the Taliban). Distraction came with the tsunami but soon came proof that Howard was impotent on interest rates. All along Howard abused his control of the parliament. So when the press finally started to report global warming, leading Howard to leap on the possibility of bulldozing nuclear power, Howard started to look shifty and dangerous. So the public were relieved when Labour put up a credible leader. The real decider in this, though, is environmental secutity. The states are all labour because people prefer to have health, education and social issues overseen by government with some feeling. Now the global warming issue has loomed large and this is a significant concern that falls within the Labour stable of issues and solutions. Exit Howard, stage right

The Coalition have lost and they won't turn it around. In a sense, I'll be glad, but in another, I know that the alternative won't be much better.

I think a lot of people are going to be shocked when the election of the ALP isn't like the Second Coming.

Rudd won't completely tear up WorkChoices, he won't stop industry disappearing offshore and he won't beat up on the banks. He won't get Australia out of Iraq, at least not until the Americans get out. He certainly won't tell the Americans to bugger off on anything. He won't "save" the environment because it will cost too much, although he will make a few token gestures in this regard. He won't stop interest rates going up. There are a lot of things that won't happen because there's no quick fix on any of this. It may be satisfying to get rid of a government that's clearly on the nose and long past its used by date, but I don't think that in itself will be a magic bullet. Do people forget that's how Howard and co. got elected in the first place?

Times they are indeed changing, did anyone see Costello today?
He smiled and told jokes! outstanding!
Is he looking at post election Australia or has he information we do not have?
Howard must know he has become the problem not the answer just maybe we will see Abbott and Costello take the team into the next election.
Yes I understand it looks like the other two with those names have been around for a while.

Shorbe is right in saying there wont be much difference between John Howard and the Labour party but it might be good to just give John Howards government a kick in the bum by voting them out for three years. We can always vote them back in again in three years if labour proves to be disappointing which I'm sure it will be just like every other party that's ever been elected.

An unrealistic view sharkfin after all Howard let us down in his first term yet is still in control.
If Labor wins it will be a far different Liberal party the face at the next election.
A return to true Liberalism is more than a chance after John Howard's train wreck.
However it will take time to bandage the wounds.
And once again while true differences exist between both party's voters are the fence that keeps them in the same paddock.
Australian voters are not prepared to go far from the devil they know.
Party's want to sell themselves to voters so do not get far away from them.
Those who support minority views must be content to forever be in the minority.

I disagree with what was said by steve on today on Lavartus Prodeo:

"As far as I’m concerned the Tories can have the Tasmanian seats and sit back and watch as the tory representatives become ineffective backbench bystanders in the climate change action unfolding around them."

My blog entry today urges Kevin Rudd to strive for a "pragmatic centre" position on issues generally, and probably with this particular issue.

My partner is originally from Devenport Tasmania, and keeps close watch on the local issues affecting Northern Tasmania, so I'm being given contrary information which suggests that Tasmania could once again be critical for Labor.

We currently have an unchallenged “dry economic argument”, while the soft-left try to convince us they can solve all the world’s problems by debating the hard-right on “social and cultural issues only”.

The early days of the war in Iraq, combined with the leftist economic evasiveness that resulted in the landslide election loss against federal Labor in 2004 and the continual hardline defence by the CFMEU over threats to the jobs of its forestry and mining workers, puts in major doubt the capacity of the anti-American, anti-capitalist, and anti-development synthesis of the small-l liberal left to argue reasonably.

On the other hand, the reason Kevin Rudd is right when he insists he’s “doing a Kevin” rather than “doing a Tony” (Blair) is because the conservatives have already hijacked the Tony Blair story and argued it as “reason for Labor to move rightwards” rather than engage in more complex (but not necessarily obscure) thinking.

In The Australian today, David Burchell resorts to using these words in his article:

“Despite his recent efforts at political philosophy, Rudd is not equipped or inclined to bring a violent philosophical transformation to Labor”.

This misunderstands what Labor needs to philosophically achieve.

However, it’s equally true that we don’t need the sort of small-l liberal evasiveness of economic debate that ultimately lost Labor the last federal election and gave John Howard his Senate rule to bring about many questionable changes to Industrial Relations and the way Australia thinks about productivity.

Bearcave, I would argue that Rudd IS articulating the pragmatic centrist position. It is just that Howard has swung his party so far to the right that he has lost touch with the middle ground.

As to your assumptions about the "anti-American" left, would this be the same left who stormed the US Congress to achieve Democratic majorities in both houses recently?

Opposition to the war in Iraq, agitation and calls for radical action on climate change are not positions held by woolly-thinking dreamers, but by enlightened, feet-on-the-ground moderates.

As to the economic debate, there is more than enough fuel for Labor to challenge Howard on his supposed supremacy.

The slump in productivity growth of recent years can be explained by the coalition's frittering away of commodity-driven budget surpluses on middle-class welfare, instead of investing it in growth-generating infrastructure and skills training.

Rudd can appeal to both old industrial wing of the Labor Party and the middle class urban professionals who support Labor by emphasising an economic agenda built around those principles - investing in skills, education and modernising the nation's infrastructure so that our resource base is used more efficiently.

On national security issues, no-one could accuse Rudd of being anti-American. Indeed, his positioning is remarkably similar to the Democratic majority which now controls Congress and whose represenative will almost certainly take over the White House next year.

Trying to work out why people vote the way they do is not as simple as many make out. Their are those who vote the same all the time. I believe the minority vote along moral or environmental or even philosophical lines. I am convinced that most vote depending upon what is going on in a persons life at the time. Governments of all persuasions are given to much credit or blame for peoples circumstances. We all know that very little will be different under Mr Rudd rather than Mr Howard. A few Howard haters might feel a little better but policies will not vary much. Private schools will still get funded, troops will remain in Afganistan and Iraq and we will still mine coal and eventually more uranium.

I think the interest rate and petrol price on the day of the election will influence people more than anything. Sad but true.