Rudd was encouraged by the unions to resurrect the old Labor party fears about the evil employer and the powerless worker to rejuvenate flagging interest in the Unions which, together with the local councils, are the breeding ground for aspiring Labor politicians. Without good membership numbers, the financial backing for Labor party aspirants is severely diminished. The best way to change this situation was to demonize Workchoices and put fear into the workforce about their future work conditions.

Unfortunately, this may now backfire because with a Labor Govt Workchoices is finished and there is no need to join the Union. Watch the Unions put increasing pressure on workers to join up and Labor revisit the fear campaign before the next election regardless of the policies of the new Liberal leadership.

Rudd will not back the unions> he knows the only way to go is where the money is, and that is with business, small or big.

Workchoices will not be reversed: this was a con. He will only tinker with it at the edges. Essentially, it will be retained, for that is what business wants.

Most of the posters on this site, along with most Australians who fancy themselves political commentators, are naive, and that is because they do not understand the motives behind socialism, which is essentially a religious dogma.

Socialists will stop at nothing to promote their religion, and unfortunately their supposed opposition cannot even begin to stop them because they no longer know what it is they are supposed to stop.
For the Liberal party today is also essentially a socialist party: Menzies would be turning over in his grave if he knew just what red tape and taxes the Liberals have implemented.

So Howard comes along and tries a little right wing idealogy with his IR reform. Only one problem: he didn't tell anyone WHY he was doing it. So all of a sudden you get a couple of million idealogically-ignorant blue-collar workers declaring that Howard has decided to arbitrarily make their lives rotten for no reason. And so they kick him out.

The fact remains, and needs to be stated time and time again: UNLESS THE LIBERAL PARTY BEGINS TO TEACH ITS IDEALOGY TO THE PEOPLE, IT WILL NEVER EXIST AGAIN AS THE PARTY IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE, BUT WILL SIMPLY BE AN ALTERNATIVE LABOUR PARTY WITH YUPPIE MEMBERS.

TEACH YOUR IDEALOGY LIBERALS. TEACH YOUR IDEALOGY.

The ALP will probably win more than one more election if the Coalition Party and its supporters continue to be pathologically incapable of calm analysis of the multiple reasons why the Australians people voted so overwhelmingly to throw them out.

The poverty of conservative thinking about the election defeat is nowhere more evident than in the first post here on OLO by Leigh.

It's all due to a single reason - "the loss was entirely down to John Howard".

How can it help the Liberal cause when the reaction to Johnson's analysis is to hurl abuse at her ("seemingly a Labor Party hack") and lampoon her analysis ("all the ‘ethnic’ stuff she mentions")?

Liberal supporters would have cause for pessimism when posters like Leigh engage in crude emotionalism while accusing the author of "emotionalism and ideology".

It's crass in the extreme for Leigh to accuse the author of not understanding "the average voter" when it's clear that his simplistic opinion is based on having no understanding of the average voter - they who turfed the Liberals out on Saturday. "The government lost," said Leigh, "oppositions do not win".

Has Leigh never met anyone fearful of their future under WorkChoices?
Who wanted better hospitals?
Who wanted better schools and universities?
Who wanted an exit strategy from Iraq?
Who were worried about global warming and a looming oil crisis?
Who thought the Liberals mislead them on interest rates last election?
Who despaired at ever being able to buy into the housing market?
Who were appalled at the crass intervention in the NT?
Who hoped for a fairer and more decent society?
Who thought our treatment of asylum seekers, and Australians like Cornelia Rau and David Hicks were draconian?
Who thought the corrupt wheat deals a national disgrace?
Who were tired of being told they'd never had it so good when they couldn't afford to fill up the family car?
Who wanted something better for the future?

Simple minds rush to simple explanations. The Liberals need calm, rational analysis if they are to recover from one of their worst ever defeats.

Frank Gol

Work Choices: Yes many genuine swinging voters.
Hospitals: Confirmerd Labor voters blaming Federal not state Labor.
Schools: Ditto.
Universities: Labor Acadamics. (Somewhat of an oxymoron.)
Iraq: Confirmed Labor supporters refusing to accept reality.
Global warming: Greenies and young who usually vote labor anyway.
Oil crisis: Not an issue this time. (Petrol price expectation was.)
Interest rates: Confirmed Labor voters. Ahhhhh, the expectation now is Kevin is going to control interest rates and they'll fall. Eh.
Housing affordability: Ditto. Ahhhhh and the expectation now is Kevin is going to control that market and make houses more affordable, eh.
NT. Intervention: Same policy both parties.
More Fairer and decent society. Whatever policy represented this motherhood wish? So no, not an issue. It just confirms your bias.
Asylum seekers: Previous elections showed that.
Rau and Hicks. Only people who don't accept personal responsibility as paramount.
AWB. Only farmers who won't have a single desk any longer.
'Never had it so good' and petrol price. Most people accept that as true. Ahhhhh and the expectation now is Kevin is going to control petrol price and make it more affordable, eh.
Better future: Is that an expectation everyone is going to be smarter by checking their shopper dockets, or gaining a computer with internet access, or having a lower cost of living. Ahhhhh and the expectation now is Kevin is going to control intellect and make it more attainable for all, eh.

Simple minds also make generalisations which suit their prejudices.

I, who voted Liberal and worked for my local Liberal candidate, have a view workchoices impacted on the working man and woman, who always voted labor anyway. But the Howard battlers who are mostly self-employed who work with their employees voted against Howard because of that impact. Also major considerations were Howards age and inability to resign, or as Costello put it 'New Leadership', and finally an appearance of panic with policy appearing to be suddenly pulled out of the hat with the aim of causing wedging. But mainly it was workchoices being voted against by traditional liberal voting small business people

"Iraq: Confirmed Labor supporters refusing to accept reality"

So why is it that 70% of Americans want their forces out of Iraq?

And, further, the reality is that as long as a significant number of foreign troops remain in Iraq, the Iraqi people have no chance nor motivation to take responsibility for their own country and their own future. Something I thought Liberals were big on.

"Global warming: Greenies and young who usually vote labor anyway"

Have you actually looked at any detailed polling results?
Concern about climate change (and environmental problems in general, especially water) has spread way past the "usually vote Labor" types.

"Interest rates: Confirmed Labor voters."

Um, what? Interest rates were a big factor in Howard's swing in 2004 (after the Latham factor of course). Again, polls consistently show Coalition support being very much linked to low interest rates.

"'Never had it so good' and petrol price. Most people accept that as true"

*Most* people, perhaps, but not necessarily a large percentage of the swinging voters that decide elections. And very few people like to be *told* they've never had it so good, when they don't necessary feel any better off.

(Personally, I think Rudd was being highly irresponsible by implying he might be able to keep petrol prices under control. By next election they could easily be double what they are now. What he needs to do is convince people that there are or will be alternatives to being so dependent on petrol.)

Keith

You can indulge in denial and abuse. I’ll stick to the facts to explain the third largest swing against a government since World War 2.

Separate surveys of voter reasons conducted by Swinburne Institute and Auspoll on election day found that the four main issues for people who voted Labor were: health, education, industrial relations and climate change; and for Coalition voters they were health, education, water and leadership. The Coalition stressed none of these issues.

Management of the economy was not a single entity for voters. It broke up into jobs, interest rates and taxation and people voted on those issues rather than economic management as a whole. The mortgage belts in Melbourne and Sydney swung heavily against the Coalition. Of 27 mortgage belt seats held by the Liberals, Labor won 11 and is just behind in 4 more.

Voters who swung from the Coalition last election to Labor this election agreed the four top issues (above) were the most important, but prices of petrol and groceries were significant too.

The threat of wall-to-wall Labor was an issue for only 17% of Coalition voters and union influence was an issue for just 12%.

Immigration was an important issue for 40% of voters - of those who voted for the Coalition just 14% said the treatment of refugees was very important compared to 40% of those who voted Labor. A significant number of swinging voters said the treatment of refugees was very important.

The votes for Petro Georgiou and Russell Broadbent were fascinating. They risked their careers to stand up for the rights of asylum seekers - and bucked the voting trend.

Contrary to media reports, voters in mining towns in WA (many on AWAs) swung to Labor at a rate higher than the national rate.

The most dramatic swings against the Coalition were in Aboriginal communities in the NT and Queensland – a clear rejection of Mal Brough’s intervention by the people he said it would help.

Surely these surveys will tell the Coalition something worth knowing?