I voted for change and I expect to see it, and not in the mainstream election promises which seem to be the darling of the media, Kyoto, Iraq, but in the foundation such as a more open and accountable government, more responsive to the people it should be representing, not dictating to. And as I did with the Liberal government, I will hold the Labor government account at the election.

Despite everything, it is not about Howard and Rudd, they are but representatives of their respective parties, it is about government and its actions!

Just to leave one small thought. Liberals claims of being good money managers. Yes the goverment was in surplus, the country is in the biggest deficit it has ever been in. What's good for government might not be good for it's country.

Myth: Australia is in excellent economic shape due to Howard government.
The reality is that private debt is now completely unsustainable and the public debt was reduced (in amazingly quick time for what was sold as a Labor led disaster) solely by asset sales and running down public infrustructure.
The economy's health is a subjective thing, and most Australians over a certain age and who owned assets (OK for capital) did well for 10 years. The young and the on-the-up (ie. in the process of using education to improve over thier parents) were effectively disenfranchised by the Howard era. One commenter put it well: The older Australians were aided in stealing the economic growth from the younger generation. At a time when we should be getting more civilised, Howard took us back a step toward Lords and peasants.
Combine blatantly regressive economics, social sabotage, lies and spin and "conservative" (Spin-speak for extremely radical selfishness!) policies: Add nepotism, public service corruption and anti-science bias to the mix and you see why Howard had to go.
It's just a shame that the Right will blame next years recession on the Left, rather than taking any blame for unsustainable debt and inappropriate spending.
Cats and dogs I guess...

I'm not all Australians, but I don't know anyone who voted for a changeless change and the hope that the Howard culture would continue. Anything but. People I know mostly voted ‘against’ the Howard government, rather than ‘for’ anyone. The hope was that the culture would change but the economic prosperity wouldn't.

I haven’t heard of Adam Creighton, but from his article, ‘apologist for the Howard regime’ seems to be a good description.

Just so you know – I’m not unbiased either. I think Howard was a mean-and small-minded, self-serving, dishonest and racist ideologue whose narrowness and look-out-for-number-one mentality created a government culture that almost made Australia a homeland to be ashamed of.

Adam Creighton does us a disservice if he tells the world that a large swing in public opinion was just a bunch of yobs, a bit bored after 11 years, but even so only took a risk of change because it was hardly a risk at all.

At least he noticed that Australians’ famous hip pocket nerves took a back seat on 24 November. He might have given space to what other matters might move us. There was discernment in the electorate.

What about Kingston (SA)? They went counter to the trend because voting for a ninny was not as bad as voting for the status quo. What about Liberal-held seats with smaller swings? Several locally respected Liberal MPs just held on, but some lost because of Howard, not their own actions.

A possible reason for this unusual election result is that at last, the weight of mendacity, back-flipping expediency, selfishness and lack of charity or compassion just got too much for a lot of nice, ordinary Australians to stomach one more time.

And perhaps the last nail in the coffin was the callous opinion expressed by Howard that on average we've never had it so good, so everything was OK. Perhaps nice ordinary Australians wondered if it wasn't OK to live in a society that not only didn't look after its weaker members, but victimised and preyed on them.