Belly are you aware of the fact that the ALP spends less on social welfare than the Coalition? (Take a look at the figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.)
I am not bitter - I am just alarmed at the unthinking support for Rudd and his cohorts when everything points to them making a total hash of government - then we are back to square one with the Coalition having to make the unpopular decisions to get the country back on track - only this time it may not be possible and Australia will be left behind even the so called 'developing' world.

Communicat I am sure if we met over a cup of coffee you and I would not be enemy's as we left one another.
However your posts for me at least highlight why John Howard is about to harm his party for years to come.
You again and again use fear as a weapon not policy's, and while it is true interest rates under Keiting hurt far too many ,you ignore that had been much higher under Howard Treasury days.
You find room to forgive Howard his faults but sheet home the blame for the very same sins to yesterdays ALP.
It would appear from your posts the well known reforms of Hawk/Keiting did not take place?
That you try to sell one sided and wrong views that Labor always ruins the economy?
And above all Communicat the resemblance to a host of front bencher's in this government in your posts is uncanny.
fear and lies miss information and a dogged refusal to see the voters no longer believe it ,no longer trust it, no longer fall for it are a picture of a government that understands it is finished.
OH welfare, so we spend less? giving weight to the fact it has been 11 years are we?
Just maybe the cash handout bribes are not being used for the kids welfare and I doubt Labor will waste it lets us hope not.

Just as well I do not drink coffee Belly. Fear? No, I don't think so. Fact? Yes.
I am not suggesting the Howard government has been perfect. Far from it. No government is.
Compared with what we might have had under Labor and what we will have under a future Labor government though then Howard's mob looks pretty good to me.
Labor would take us back to a prehistoric industrial relations regime that countries all over the world are trying to get rid of. Far from liberating workers and protecting their rights they have found that union dominated workforces make it difficult for workers as well as employers. Reminds me of working at tyre factory one summer - got told to leave a mess in the mould because the siren went to down tools for the break. Asked why not finish the job (and save the company money and the workers the job of clearing out the mess). Got told the union did not allow that - then threatened if I did not obey.
You just have to love those unions. They do so much harm while claiming to be working in the best interests of workers.

Communicat again you are very wrong, yes I am union forever, but not all unions not all actions of some of them.
Here and now I say openly SOME UNIONS DO MORE HARM TO WORKERS THAN GOOD.
And in the name of non existent solidarity some who do not think like radical unions prefer not to openly oppose them.
My view of unionism is based on one central idea, they exist for the members no one else.
The fact you appear not to understand Howard has already lost this election, and that workchoices plays its part in that defeat amazes me.
No reform, workchoices is warfare on all who work for a wage.
True IR reform is long over due Kevin Rudd will bring it.
I again remind readers a difference exists in unions and not every one is the same.
I look forward to increasing membership and constant improvement from the best.
No coffee? no need to worry after I get back from my polling booth I will heat up the PC and say good day here.
Maybe have a not very quite beer.
Tune? well I may hum by by by by Johny good by!

If K.rudd hands out 12 mth free passes to melbournes strip clubs, brothels and other fine institutions of respect for females and their continued emancipation, l might be tempted to put in my first valid ballot ever.

Lead from the (full) front(al).

This article has had a wider circulation than just OLO, having been, as stated, published in Eureka Street. See: http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=3256 .

It seems the article is preparing the public for an election result, perhaps a bit like the 1987 one, that despite a significant general swing to the opposition failed in the marginal seats to deliver it government. Ever so gently (and perhaps, just perhaps, wisely), the article seems to be cautioning against the indicative validity of virtually the entire opinion polling industry showing around a 9 - 10 point lead for Labor. See: http://www.crikey.com.au/2007-Election/The-polls.html .

What I haven't seen is how many seats this lead would translate into if it was relatively uniform across Australia. My impression is, much, much more than just the seats required to win government. Why is not more being made of this? Could it be that it might be seen as putting a hex on a hoped-for outcome? The FEEL in the electorate is that the swing is on, but there seems to be a reluctance amongst the recognised commentariat to extrapolate its foreseeable effect. The betting market is accepting it. What does the commentariat know or suspect that the rest of us don't?

Could its caution perhaps be connected in any way to knowledge of claims contained in "Australia-Aggregate Enrolment Levels 1947-1987" that, at the roll close for those 1987 Federal elections, the enrolment level amongst that part of the population eligible for electoral enrolment was 104.39%? It is interesting that a surge in nett enrolment level of around 220,000 enrolments, or 2% of total enrolments, is claimed to have occurred in the week before roll closure for those 1987 elections. (The enrolment level figures come from a table accompanying Submission 123 in this link: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect04/subs.htm )

If there is a belief amongst the commentariat that the 1987 experience may be repeated, that would explain this article's caution.