For a long time Rudd was ridiculed by both "left" and "right" of politics. Well, the "left" woke up first, and the conservative "right" was left languishing under John W Howard's last century view of politics.

The 'cold war' ended years ago.

Most people now understand that this left/right hoohaha is just that. Sure, we get extremists on both sides, from communists to the neo-con capitalists.

It seems people are waking up to the need for convergence. Rudd recognised it and was able to convince the electorate.

The small 'l' or moderate Liberals recognised it but was hog-tied by Howard and the extreme 'right' wing - a pity Costello didn't have the gonads to make a challenge on Howard.

The Libs have got some thinking to do, Nelson is still far too 'right', Turnbull is more moderate but has much to learn - the ballot was 50/50, really.

The next 3 years will be very interesting for the Libs as Rudd's Labor gains in popularity. Maybe they can try by getting something workable in the 'States'?

“…the Howard government’s social conservatism…” eh?

Why did all of these voters who were so “appalled” by a perfectly legitimate social philosophy tolerate almost 12 years of a Government which had always indulged in “social conservatism”? It’s because most Australians are socially conservative, and so is the Labor Party they voted in.

They also put up with 12 years of what the author emotively calls “attacks on civil rights”, even though they had 3 elections to dump the Howard Government. Nobody’s civil rights, by any sane definition of the term, were attacked by the Coalition Government. The Iraq involvement has never been the vote-loser people trying to compare it the Vietnam War would like to believe.

And, it is impossible to believe that anyone can seriously believe that the free enterprise philosophy of the Coalition could produce less economic freedom than Labor. But the author does believe this, even though he refers to the excellent economic performance of the Coalition with his next breath. He probably goes along with Julia Gillard’s scary threat to, “turn the economy around”. To what, for heaven’s sake!

The statement: “Most Australians are happy to tell off colour jokes and stereotype minorities, but they don’t hate those people and they don’t feel threatened by them”, highlights the double standards held by the left: when anyone of an opposite political persuasion says what “most Australians” think, there is a shrill chorus of, “don’t presume to tell me what I think” from the left.

The main reason there was a change of government is because there were enough younger people voting who have not experienced a Labor government. They have a very hard lesson to learn.

Are you that blinkered Leigh by saying "The main reason there was a change of government is because there were enough younger people voting who have not experienced a Labor government."

Leigh, these younger people never had it so good (that was Howard's call), so why would the young vote Howard out if they believed him?

Really, I would like your opinion - interests rates were still "lower under Howard", unemployment was low, economy was going gangbusters, etc.

Your blaming the young? Give me a break.

No Leigh, there is another reason - you just don't want to admit what the Liberal machine is starting to admit themselves.

The reason Rudd won was because Howard had been around too long and many perceived Ruddy as a good bet, as, by not saying too much, he was omnia omnibus. As the author put it: "Rudd’s agenda was to nullify... by not actively offending anyone whose vote he could possibly win."

But, social conservatives and the small 'l' mob who were uncomfortable with hard line industrial and refugee policies etc, are now facing the ACT City Council forcing their hands to openly declare that, 'tolerance' will trump majority opinion on marriage.

If Rudd fails the minority test - ie. resist a very specific agenda group - and overturns the traditional understanding of something, say like marriage, then the Left will have truly triumphed over those people who are not prepared to be labelled 'right wing socially conservative.'

So, following the author's train of thought, is there any major party prepared to stand for traditional 'values' and that can still be elected or will the 'wisdom' of the 'Left like George Miller' media industry keep winning elections? This is where the balance lies.

As for the young, like the rock stars they scream over, Rudd may well turn out to be a 'Britney' down the track. Just ask Peter Garrett...

Leigh no ones civil rights were effected during Howards reign, what a load of crap, does Howards intervention in Aboriginal communities ring a bell, or is it because they are Aboriginal that in you mind it doesn't count.

I happen to be a small "l" Liberal and have been for over Thirty-years and I am personaly glad to see the back of Howard and his NSW right faction.

Ordinary Liberal members like myself and our branches were being treated like children by the school bully. Not allowed to decide on candidates for the area, but being expected to fund there campaign and run it even when the candidate was clearly not up to the task. This only resulted in more people resigning from the party, leaving even less people to support the campaign.

In my humble opinion what cost Howard his job is the fact that our membership is at an all time low and old people from 68 plus are running the show. This is clearly why our recent policy decision's over the last five years have sucked because they came from Howard's past.

Whilst I am not happy we lost the election, the people have spoken and we now have to live with it, so hopefully Kevin won't stuff it up because the Australian people deserve to get a government that understand and listerns to its problems.

John stopped listerning to the people and ran out of ideas, Kevin had plenty and seemed conservative so he went after the conservative vote and you know what he succeded.

No-one's civil rights were affected by the Howard government - except shooters who got publicly degraded by legal means, followed by years of media-driven moralising vilification.

The truth is now out that the news media unintentionally drive mass shootings via the copycat effect - news reports provide rewards and instruction.

As for the author of the article that started this thread, he should be spanked and sent back to school. 0.6% of voters changed sides in the big picture; and most of the things you frame as negatives about Howard are essentially non-events if looked at by a fair-minded grown-up.