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.

A Ruddslide that never happened
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22889385-5014046,00.html

KEVIN Rudd and Labor owe their election victory a fortnight ago to just 0.1 per cent of the national vote after fewer than 12,000 people across nine electorates dumped the Coalition.

It is a remarkable statistic, revealing that despite an impressive overall swing to Labor across the nation of 5.6 per cent, the Rudd Government holds office by a slim margin.

A relatively small number of voters out of the total 13.6 million people enrolled decided the election outcome.

Labor supporters are jubilant after the party needed to take 16 seats from the Coalition to win and, with 92 per cent of votes counted, appears to have scored at least an 18-seat majority.

The swing to Labor that ended John Howard's 11-year reign was the biggest to either side since 1975, when the Coalition led by Malcolm Fraser trounced Labor after Gough Whitlam's dismissal.

In two party-preferred terms, the result eclipsed the 5.07per cent swing to the Coalition when Howard first won office in 1996.

The swing to Labor was also much stronger than the 3.63per cent to Labor for Bob Hawke's first victory in 1983.

A breakdown of the 2007 election results in marginal seats, however, shows the difference between Labor and the Coalition is much closer than the landslide some observers first suggested.

Labor scored its best results, giving the overall swing, in safe and marginal seats already held by the party

ChrisPer,

Can you run that past me again? The ALP won government because 'fewer than 12,000 people across nine electorates dumped the Coalition'. It was that close?

Despite an overall swing to Labor across the nation of 5.6 per cent (the AEC says 5.62% but let's not quibble about such small numbers), you say that 'the Rudd Government holds office by a slim margin'.

Needing to take 16 seats from the Coalition to win the ALP appears to have scored an 18-20 seat majority. As you correctly point out, that's the biggest turnaround to either side since 1975 (Fraser v Whitlam), bigger than the swing to the Coalition when Howard first won office in 1996, bigger than Hawke's first victory in 1983.

So what are you claiming? Labor didn't do as well in Coalition-held marginal seats as it did in Labor-held marginal and safe seats? What the heck?

Go spruik that to the 20 or so Coalition incumbents who are now unseated. Maybe your definition of marginal seat needs revising.

Anyhow, if what you say is somehow statistically valid, Brendan Nelson should start looking for those 12,000 voters before Rudd gets at them for 2011. Textor-Cosby, here's your big chance!

Yeah, honestly ChrisPer - despite that 12,000 vote point, overall, there was still a massive swing.

In raw numbers, the swing was as overwhelming as has been widely accepted. The key point in this article, is that the difference was made by just 12,000 votes in the marginals.

Nevertheless - in overall numbers, there was just as much of a swing, it just wasn't distributed right throughout the country.

So there has been a Ruddslide - and though the numbers are on a knife edge in terms of victory, huge numbers of people switched to Labor, and the end result was also huge numbers of seats to fall.

And quite frankly, the harsher gun laws didn't bite Howard. Most approved, on either side of the political spectrum.

Certainly, in terms of the voters minds, the gun issue ranks pretty low. You say the issues in this article haven't changed voters minds, but quite frankly, it seems like a convincing case can be made for the fact that given this occurred early in his term, it's far less likely to be an issue with voters.

I don't think many people care. If they do, most, regardless of which side of the political divide they were on, though it was a good thing. Julie Gillard acknowledged it as a good deed on election night. In fact, it's one of the things I do give Howard full credit for.

It's the best thing he ever did.

To claim that only 12,000 voters decided to "dump the Coalition" assumes that the rest of the 13 million+ voters were never going to change their minds anyway. In fact there is at least 30% of the electorate that do change their votes from election to election if there is good reason to. Any change in government requires millions of independent, thinking voters to make up their mind one way or another.

Patrick Baume, I am not sure what your big victory is? But it will most definitely, not be a victory for most.
At no stage of your ramble do you explain that Rudd has played a cruel and treacherous hoax on workers expectations. That this Labor government will shift further to the far right and is being primed to carry out some of the biggest betrayals in the tradition of Labor leaders; Rudd is a very "slick" operater. The 'buzz word' he likes to throw around in the corridors of power is the "productivity revolution" and translated, that means boosting the exploition rate of workers to very high levels. 'Big business' backed Rudd and gave Howard the flick because 'Work Choices' to their pockets did not go anywhere near far enough in its attacks.
Moreover small businesses are going to be squeezed even further so that the multinationals dominate.
Usually small 'l' liberals are referred to as "wets" or bracketed with closet liberals - in parliament they still vote day in and day out for 'big business'. And that means they take society backwards.

ChrisPer - spank me if you can, but my old maths teacher would defend me like this:

Say 5.5% (swing to ALP) x 13,500,000 (AEC voters) = 742,500

Spin it however you like, but this points to a Rudd-slide.