Election07 was not about Labor Party true-believers, it was about Australians who were fed up at Howard's betrayal of the Australian people. His Feudal attitude wherin he saw Australians as objects to be bought(unsustainable immigration) and sold(workchoices) was fit for a king and not the leader of a free nation. He has been punished.

However if Labour party members see Election07 as just a victory for the true (Labour) believers then they are swapping Howard's Feudalism kingdom for the tired old Labour thugs-lair Kingdom.

Australians expect more than that from Rudd. The Labour party will NOT last more than one term on a "victory for true believers" mantra.
They will just become as corrupt as Howard and just as offensive to the Australian electorate.

The key issue for Rudd's Labour to get a second term is ENERGY policy:

1. Put simply they must stop all Uranium mining OR go Total-PBR-Nuclear-Industries. We cannot guarantee yellowcake will not be used in WMDs but we can guarantee PBR pebbles won't. If Labor continues to sit on the fence they will be ousted.

2. Hot rock geothermal power plants must be funded and commenced for Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane within the next 3 years. Failure to do so will negate any Kyoto or other climate agreements Rudd signs and cost this nation dearly in penalties.

The Australian electorate is smart on ENERGY issues and they are WATCHING! True believers are just Labour Party baggage .. too much junk in the trunk.

Frank Gol

Please show me where I used abuse. Where is my denial anything without a good reason? I've simply stated a position contrary to yours. That hasn't occured in an unthinking manner. This isn't a media outlet that allows such outrageous distortions as your claims to go unchallenged.

The coalition had a health policy. Unlike labor's it doesn't involve the Feds taking over the administration hospitals. That was the only difference.
The coalition had an education policy. It allowed for parents to use a grant for things other than laptopos for older students.
What was Labor policy on water? I'm a bit like you here. I can't see to remember my sides opponents policy.
Coalition leadership was one of the most featured topics. Remember the proposed change to Costello?
Climate change...well really after Rudd's about face mid campaign the only real difference was a desire to sign Koyoto.

Yep work choices for the swinging voters was the reason for the change of government.

It seems to me you seem to think all the issues which were debated during the election impacted equally on the result. I think you cannot differentiate between issues that changed peoples votes and issues that merely confirmed peoples beliefs. ie the ones parties promote to ensure they retain their traditional supporters. I think both sides did a good job in that area. The libs failled when they lost the swinging 'Howard battlers'.

So where in there is my denial?

And yes petrol, grocery prices ... the cost of living... were also issues as were interest rates (the latter nowhere to the extent you imagine.) And those issues when raised by Rudd and Swan raised voters expectations about their control. That expectation will be back to bite Rudd and Swan on the bum much more than interest rates ever bit Howard's bottom.

You'd need to consider the inplication of your comments about Aboriginal communities in the NT and that effect throughout the greater community. One of the simple realities of politics Frank ... that you seemed to have missed.

keith, we were talking about voter perceptions, not your opinion on which party had the better policies. For better or worse, voter perceptions favour the ALP on almost every category except economic management (and mind you, a very limited view of economic management, seeing as it doesn't include looking after health, education and infrastructure) and security.

Keith asks: “Please show me where I used abuse.”
Try this quote: “Labor Acadamics. (Somewhat of an oxymoron.)”
Or this one: “More Fairer and decent society. Whatever policy represented this motherhood wish? So no, not an issue. It just confirms your bias.”
Or: “Ahhhhh and the expectation now is Kevin is going to control intellect and make it more attainable for all, eh.”

And denial? Try:
“Iraq: Confirmed Labor supporters refusing to accept reality.”
Or: “Oil crisis: Not an issue this time.”
Or: “Global warming: Greenies and young who usually vote labor anyway.
(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.”

And your latest post is mainly more denial.

Keith, when you say: “I've simply stated a position contrary to yours,” you demonstrate that you’ve totally misunderstood my posting. dnicholson's post is right.

My post comprised a summary of two surveys taken soon after the election. The pollsters asked people why they voted the way they did.

The reasons given were not mine. They were the reasons given by those surveyed. So there’s no point in telling me I’m wrong about these reasons. Go argue with the people who gave these reasons.