While I was writing this in "Word" Tao posted a more succinct version but here goes anyway

Col Rouge

I am an Apathetic Dullard and at present I am very happy to be one. Once again the "We are born to rule because we are more intelligent" Liberal Creed has been trotted out by another conceited, arrogant and ignorant, in the sense that he has no manners and demeans anyone who does not agree with him, Liberal voter.

In case you had forgotten this is a Democracy, and if an election is won 51% to 49% that means that almost half the nation is unhappy. Well now it’s your turn and I believe it will be for at least two terms.

Now, if we had a decent alternative to the Labor Government in Tasmania I would vote for them. But we don’t and if the Liberal opposition cannot defeat the likes of the Lennon government then what good are they?

I have just watched Gerard Henderson on Lateline compare Howard with Hawke and Costello with Keating as best PM’s and treasurers. So he must be a dullard too. I don’t know what his level of apathy is.

Not only are the current crop of Liberal oppositions in each state, and now also federally, looking very ordinary, but for them to be in opposition they must have been pretty ordinary in government as well and deserve to be where they are. That only leaves the Labor Party to vote for. So if you lot are so intelligent and smart how did you get into this mess?

Take off your blinkers Col Rouge, unless of course you wear them to hide your eyes.

Ulysses

On Lateline tonight Gerard henderson also indicated he thought a Turnbull for leader with Julie Bishop as deputy was his pick of the new leadership.

Turnbull has already agreed that Kyoto should be signed and Workchoices should be wound back as per the mandate given to the incoming party. Now, if Wilson Tuckey has anything to do with the outcome we are in for some very interesting debates.

I know who my money will be on, and its not "Iron Bar".

Ulysses

'They know Rudd won't be much different, but are hoping that he will.

It won't be long now before ordinary people come into conflict with the reality of a Rudd Labor government.'

I agree Tao but I suspect we may have a little different reasoning.
The 'ordinary people' you refer to might need a precise definition to give your idea greater depth and broader understanding. I'd define 'ordinary people' as the class of people who switched from Howard to Rudd. They are not the 'workers' or the 'elites' who habitually vote labor. I'd hazzard they are mostly small business people who employ people. What do you think?

Keith

Col Rouge -- "it does not mean that a whole block of Australians do not still support the liberal policies" You said it.

Dead right Col - I never thought we'd agree on anything - trouble is nearly EVERYONE agrees with the Liberal policies - but 53% voted for the ALP and the rest voted Liberal! Why? Because the policies between the two parties are indistinguishable, that's why -- didnt you read what I wrote earlier??

We now have the front runner for the Leadership, Malcolm Turnbull, as a self declared Kyoto supporter, an avowed Repbulican, agreeing with Rudd in his intention to say sorry to the indigenous population, and agreeing that the ALP has a mandate to chuck out Workchoices

On the other hand we have Rudd the conservative, keen to exercise Federal control over hospitals( a heart felt Liberal desire), committed to the market economy that only Keating had the guts to embrace, committed to the maintenance of a system without tarrif protection that stagnating Liberals stuck by for decades in stark contradiction to a truly Liberal ethos - spot the difference between the two groups - I doubt if any one can.

There is no natural party of Government - but there is a natural and increasingly clearly identifiable Australian consensus on Government- that is represented by a party free zone - the Liberals on this occassion were just to dumb to pick it.

I'd disagree Keith. I'd suggest the biggest swing would have been in employees of small businesses. From experience these tend to be mostly Liberal/National voters, as they are more likely to recognise that good business conditions lead to good employment conditions, and its often the case that in small businesses (and I am defining this as those with 5 or less employees), the owners tend to pass on good times to the workers. I havent come across a single small business owner that is pleased with the election outcome - this is generally from fear of interest rate rises, and fear of increased union power (unions have a much easier time bullying small business than large).

And yet, Country Gal, small (and medium) business owners deserve to share a large part of the blame for the outcome. To the extent that WorkChoices was a deciding factor, if businesses had not abused the flexibility that the legislation gave them, then the Unions campaign against it would have run hollow. I largely thought it was an exaggeration until I started to hear real stories of employees getting screwed over - then we had the fairness test, and the fact that something like half of the AWA proposals put before it were failing the test. Indeed, my opinion of employers and business owners has definitely taken a battering over the last few months. OTOH, my own personal experience with employers has been nothing but positive, and certainly my current boss is more than happy with the election result (he's an ALP member) - but the way he treats his employees guarantees that there is no need for unions to ever become involved. In contrast, from what I've heard of the management practises of the company that my wife works at, it's no wonder that employees do choose to form and join unions in order to get a decent break (and yes, obviously they could also find jobs elsewhere, but people have various reasons for preferring job stability and wanting to make existing arrangements work where possible).

Further, the vast majority of small businesses aren't really going to be affected significantly one way or another. Their owners might do well to choose a government based on more just its ability to serve their own narrow business interests, and to look to themselves and the way they treat their employees rather than expecting the government to keep those "nasty unions" away.