Drivel indeed! Adam Creighton surely cannot believe these rationalisations with which the Coalition rump is still deluding itself! This is not journalism, or informed commentary. It is propagandist pap. Rudd's careful, even forensic, choice of areas with which he chose not to differentiate ALP policy from the Coalition enabled him to be seen as a safe alternative to Howard. Had Howard and his ministers been trustworthy and pro-active throughout their decade plus in government of course the electorate would have returned them at a time of booming prosperity. If Adam Creighton cannot perceive a major contrast in policies and the timing of some of Howard's policy reversals then he is not an informed reporter on the Australian political scene. Climate change, broadband, health, education funding, commonwealth/state relations, and Australia's loss of moral reputation in its pro-Bush foreign policy were all major contrasting features of ALP policy. And that's without mentioning industrial relations which is universally acknowledged as the major 2007 election issue. The booming economy for which the Coalition takes sole credit, with no recognition of earlier structural reforms, international conditions and responses by resource rich states, has been left in an inflation threatened condition because of unwise levels of pre-election tax concessions and pork barreling, neglect of labour market skilling and poor infrastructure investment. Within weeks of their demise and with focus by Rudd and his new cabinet surely former Coalition ministers and their supporters cannot fail to see their own negligence of the environment, the dental health of young and old, underfunding of hospitals, aged care, schools and infrastructure generally. For heavens sake drop this mindless mantra about Rudd being a younger paler version of John Howard and the electorate just being in the mood for a change! Voters could see what Adam Creighton and his ilk still cannot see - that Howard's was a poor government of wasted opportunities, scandal ridden from the first and shameful in its departure from the Australian way of independence on the world stage and a fair go for its citizens at home.

Cheers and thank you to Patricia WA.

There appears to be another major area of cultural difference between Howard and Rudd. I refer to the use of race politics as a means to gain political advantage.

Howard from the advent of Pauline Hanson and his claim to have renounced "political correctness" did not hesitate to exploit fear of the "other" for political advantage. He did so in 1988 when he opined that the balance of migrants had shifted too far in favour of Asians, he demonised asylum seekers and shamelessly exploited the fear of terrorism. For examples see the Tampa, Haneef and al-Haque cases.

The Rudd government has given no indication that it will pursue such
unacceptable policies.

Senaca, "get over yourself girl!": "the use of race politics... blah blah blah"

Ask yourself how many times have I read in the mainstream media in the past 15 years about ALP branch stacking utilising ethnic groups to 'fix' preselection? Be honest. Both sides do it. And what are the implications?

Otherwise, this is perhaps the most perceptive article I've seen on the latest twist in Oz politics- time will tell.

For those who think the formation of a Rudd govt. marks some significant watershed, good luck to you. A small moment of reflection should be enough; with some historical perspective it's soon seen that Howard's cultural and economic arguments, held firm for the 30 years of his public life have been embraced by Labor.

Once I read the sentence, “Howard's now-infamous WorkChoices laws were in fact extremely reasonable”, I knew the writer did not understand Australia. The Liberal IR laws took us back one hundred years and Australians rebelled. The misuse of Senate power condemned the Liberals to defeat, so perhaps we should thank Queensland for its choice of four Coalition senators in 2004, despair-inducing though it was at the time.

All governments leave their mark on the body politic. Even the short-lived Whitlam Government did so. John Howard has left a legacy which influences the Rudd Government, just as the Kennett Government’s success in changing the language in which people could think has constrained the imagination and the actions of the Victorian Labor Government for the past eight years. However, the differences between the two parties are real. In any case, the Rudd Government will influence the future of the other party in the same way, as no future Liberal Government in my lifetime will attempt something so disgraceful as Work“Choices” again.

"After all, it's what occurs that counts, not what we call ourselves - that's only important for the modern Left."

It is what people do that counts not their lies and spin... true and that is why the majority dumped Howard. And what did Howard do? An amalgum of attacks on the social infrastructure and all the social services. As well as, driving living standards backwards and driving the majority into poverty or well on the way. All accompanied by the usual lies which have gone on for some decades now "there is no money for health, education, water, housing, pensions etc., Let us not forget the politicians grabbing everything they can get their hands on and all the essential services and money spinners they sell to their cronies. The bigger question was, the ongoing slaughter in Iraq to loot the oil. Rudd has no intention of taking the troops out of Iraq or Afghanistan - he might shuffle the troops around the chessboard.In reality, the right wing arch conservative Rudd will take the attacks further - starting off with privatising electric power and putting the charges up. As well, Rudd is urging and backing Qantas to cut all new starters flight attendant wages by 25% and they will have to work an extra 30% hours. This will be a new benchmark for dismantling longstanding working conditions; not only in the airline industry but all transport and accross every industry sector. The strategy the Laborites are using is to pit one section of workers against another - those established against the new starters.

Rivergum - I could not have said it better - I too am disillusioned with what passes for 'informed journalism.' I have little problem with bias: in fact I expect it. What I can't get around is bias posing as non-partisan.
Patricia WA - well said. Rudd's carefulness as opposed to Howard's shiftiness I found impressive. Carefully considered policies, weighing as many outcomes as possible, rather than political expedience where policies are contrived to gain advantage, found some resonance with me.