Unlike this writer I did find Kevin Rudd and the ALP inspiring, particularly since they did post plenty of policy details on their website in comparison with the Liberals who posted little more than wall to wall anti-Union mug shots. I found his capacity to persuade and the willingness of the fractious left to be persuaded truly awesome. His self-discipline, equanimity and courtesy, and that of his team, was masterly throughout this past year, and particularly during the campaign proper. Now that the fear, smear and negativity of the Coalition has brought them down and we have a new government I am delighted with the quality of our elected representatives. We have a truly talented ministry. Already we are warmly welcomed by the world as full participants in Kyoto. I am convinced that this government has an agenda for social justice and inclusion. Rudd has already demonstrated a capacity to reassure and unite a community like the disparate left behind him so I am optimistic he will fulfil his promises for the country at large so far as economic constraints allow. And yes, I would have voted for any party which could bring an end to the Howard era. It's exhilarating to know that the alternative looks so promising.

I find it interesting that the oft repeated claim that the ALP ran a positive campaign and the coalition a negative one seems to go unchallenged.

The ALP may have outsourced the most negative aspects of their campaign to the unions but the massive campaign around workchoices was clearly negative and clearly part of the strategy of getting labor elected.

Leave the workchoices part of the campaign out and the coalition sounded a lot more negative but then leaving that out might have caused a very different result at the ballot.

R0bert

R0bert

I suppose if a Party were saying they were going to rip up WorkChoices and introduce real fairness into IR, that they were going to give people back their overtime and leave conditions, and that they were going to restore balance into the IR laws, then it's contestable to say that that was a negative campaign.

By contrast, the Howard campaign was about hanging on like grim death to WorkChoices, which they said was 'working well' and didn't ned any further reforms, yet was clearly on the nose with the majority of electors. So this position might be interpreted as a negative campaign in the sense that they were reinforcing something the electorate had said in successive opinion polls that they felt insecure about and wanted changed.

Negative and positive are not neutral terms.

The author says, "I truly hope that positive idealism in Australian politics has not died at the hands of pragmatism."

Firstly, I don't think you could ever really kill off idealism. A particular episode of it maybe, but never totally.

Second, there's nothing wrong with idealism taking a back seat so long as it does so at the hands of POSITIVE pragmatism. At some stage, the country has to get into the groove of practising what the idealists preach in order for us to ever make progress nationally. This might require idealism to exit stage left for a while.

Although I voted Liberal I am looking forward to the display of 'Economic Conservatism' from Swan and Rudd. I can't wait to see the hand-wringing and whinging from those who think Rudd is about positive idealism.

Who are the Howard haters going to hate now? Brendon Nelson?

Patricia of WA wrote: "Unlike this writer I did find Kevin Rudd and the ALP inspiring". Me too!

While the campaign was somewhat in-your-face and Lowest-Common-Denominator - to me that reflects:

(a) "dumbing-down" of the electorate during the Howard years;

For example, I remember nodding along when Rudd said we need more maths teachers. How can so many people not understand simple arithmetic of compound interest on their mortgages? Or how more than 60% in polls thought Howard/Costello were "good economic managers"? Because they have been told what to think in 30-second soundbites and slogans for nearly 12 years? I don't think its because they actually know the first thing about it, and incapable of forming an "informed" or "educated" opinion on it. Its no wonder Labor had to do the same thing, Aussies have been conditioned into 1st grade level of understanding.

(b) and second reason? Innate conservatism of the Australian people, or a majority of them anyway.

When so many supported the wedging tactics, Tampa action, quite comfortable with Children Overboard and the NT Intervention (or didn't care one way or t'other, as long as *they* get their 'pork'), its no wonder they wouldn't accept anything "inspiring". They would probably happily vote in Mugabe, Pol Pot, Pinochet etc as long as they get their "lollies".

I think swinging even that small percentage of voters to something slightly left of Attila the Hun, was a task of Herculean proportions, and a truly 'inspiring' effort