Er, plerdsus, Fielding voted against WorkChoices, so I don't see how their preference deal would have made any difference.

As for your misery index, in what reasonable way does it measure misery? Plenty of unemployed people are not particularly miserable, and plenty of employed people are.

Oh, and the country with by far the lowest sum of unemployment and inflation is Norway (totalling somewhere around 4%), whose governmental policies are about as different from Howard's as imaginable.

[[[[A sympathetic coherent world view could have dealt with....WorkChoices.... It could have kept battlers less grumpy, and it could have soothed the middle classes.]]]]
No this is not correct. Workchoices could only be possibly accepted by those who understood right wing idealogy, to wit, that an employer has sovereign right over his own business to hire and fire, for whatever reasons he chooses. It is this idealogy that is not understood, or agreed with, by the blue-collar people.

The only way to implement right-wing platforms, is to first of all teach the people the idealogy that underpins such platforms. The people need to be taught the theory, and then put on notice that the platforms are about to be introduced in accord with such theory. The theory was never taught to the people.

More importantly, the people need to see that right wing idealogy is in fact correct, by virtue of the fact that left wing idealogy is simply institutionalised theft.

Given that most people become set in their ways as they grow older, the most efficient way to teach the people right wing idealogy is to teach them when they are primary school students. This will involve visits to schools by politicians well-versed in right-wing idealogy.

Without the teaching of what it means to be free (as distinct from being economically free), the Western world will continue to spiral into socialism, and will probably never return to that which made it great in the first place: the understanding of individual liberty.

It is better to be free and poor, than rich and under the authority of another. This is what right wing idealogy is.
And the result of such idealogy is that the poor free will very soon become richer than the rich not-free. For the greatest motivator of wealth that ever has been and ever will be, is freedom.

Funny you say that Liberty, I'm sure those who wish to impose communism upon us could say much the same thing: it is necessary to understand the ideology first, where it is better for everyone to be equally poor, than for some to be poor, many to be comfortably well off, and a few extremely rich.
Fortunately we have a democracy, so you can pick whatever ideology you like, but ultimately the people as a whole get to decide what sort of country and government they want for themselves.

And for it's worth, in general I am philosophically attracted to many libertarian ideals, however a) the social regressivism of Howard would never allow me to vote for him and b) the evidence that they actually produce a preferable result is, to say the least, thin on the ground. I don't like the *idea* of big government, high taxes and strong regulatory control over businesses, but the countries that do implement this in practice (in particular the Nordic nations) seem to produce enviable results, both in terms of overall wealth, and the extent to which poverty and suffering is kept to a minimum.

[[[[Fortunately we have a democracy, ...but ultimately the people as a whole get to decide what sort of country and government they want for themselves.]]]]
Yes we all know this, and implying it was not understood in my post shows you are either trying to misrepresent me, or you are in need of remedial reading and comprehension classes.

[[[[And for it's worth, in general I am philosophically attracted to many libertarian ideals, however a) the social regressivism of Howard would never allow me to vote for him]]]]
So you like libertarian ideas, except when they are libertarian.
Further, you seem to hold to the bizarre view that politicians can effectivily change the morality of others. Ever wonder why the "breach of promise" law disappeared? Ever wonder why homosexuality became legalised?

[[[[and b) the evidence that they actually produce a preferable result is, to say the least, thin on the ground. I don't like the *idea* of big government, high taxes and strong regulatory control over businesses, but the countries that do implement this in practice (in particular the Nordic nations) seem to produce enviable results, both in terms of overall wealth, and the extent to which poverty and suffering is kept to a minimum.]]]]
You also are therefore one who does not understand right wing idealogy. That is, you do not understand the infinite value of freedom.
It is irrelevant how "enviable" and warm-fuzzy the results of socialism are; it is irrelevant how well-fed and well-clothed people are under socialism. Even if they live like Sultans, they are infinitely worse off than them who are free.

Essentially, you are a socialist either trying to pretend you are not, or trying to convince yourself you are not.

(wizofaus, posting under 2nd username, couldn't wait another 20 hours to respond to that!)

How is Howard's social regressivism libertarian? I consider it vitally important that the government does not impose on my personal liberties, a belief that Howard's government did not appear to share.
And from my point of view, it was Howard who held the bizarre view that he could effectively change the morality of others. What exactly am I supposed to wonder about why homosexuality became legalised anyway?

The reason I consider the results of the policies of many Nordic governments "enviable" is because even their most disadvantaged experience a large number of freedoms: freedom from hunger, from exclusion, from homelessness, from employer exploition, freedom to enjoy a comfortable standard of living etc. As a libertarian, I consider these far more valuable freedoms than, say, the freedom to pay less taxes, or the freedom of corporations to treat their employees however they wish. Ultimately that's a value judgement that each individual has to make. Which is why democracy is the only reasonable way of determining which freedoms are worth protecting the most.

The Libs just scored and own goal while Labor gave us a campaign of glitz and glamour with little substance.

Making the Reserve Bank totally independant will curb the worst of Labor's ill discipline,since each interest rate will make the electorate punish Labor's indiscretions.

The Libs have gone all wet and weak to win back electorate support,but will they become leaders rather than just cowering in the face of poll driven ideology?

Is Brendan Nelson the sacrificial lamb who will be expected to fail at the next election and the batton be given to the annointed Malcolm Turnbull in six yrs time?

One thing is certain,Liberal disunity will be poison for both the Party and the electorate at large.I don't think Labor will last beyond two terms.