It is true that voters in the middle ground vote against those whom they are disillusioned. Howard was only on the nose because he went too far with Work Choices and employers exploited those opportunities. Maybe if leaders are in power for too long they get arrogant and abrogate their responsibilities to the electorate.

I think Howard would have been voted out in the election previously if there was a strong alternative, people were already disappointed by children overboard, AWB, core promises, lack of environmental policies etc. Like NSW the highly defective Labor Party was re-elected only because of a lack of positive or inspirational alternatives.

Dear Pericles,

We all know that it takes more then 3 years
to achieve any Government's program.

And the Electorate gave John Howard 11 years to
prove his achievments.

In the end as you said he got on the nose and it
was time for somebody else.

Kevin Rudd had presented his election promises and
any clear thinking individual should realize that
to achieve such a program takes longer then one
Electoral term.

Foxy,

In My Humble Opinion. Our whole political system is dysfunctional in that it focuses on the trivial and encourages inertia than improvements.

The opposition are there to oppose (full stop) they stand to lose more by suggesting, making them a big target or the govt appropriate their policies. (shock horror the country might benefit not just their party)

For the public;
-Its easier to blame that Rudd for his failure to meet his election promises and punish him than to actually consider why and is he really to blame.or their part in the ineffectiveness of a government.
- In this way the public think in a time(absent) loop.
i.e. *BEFORE* he was elected he put his promises up.
-- Squash Work choices et al (un voted for policies...Howard's Hubris)
-- Climate Change
-- Refugees.
-- Health
-- Schools.
Rudd had reasonable belief all 5 were possible without Howard (if Labor won).
he did two and a bit but run into the business lobby and a Coalition who's new resolve was to oppose/oppose, different world than was plausibly expected, on Climate Change.
-the public fail to comprehend that to implement CC policy is more than the ETS. i.e. a magic bullet.

In truth how could have he known that:
- the coalition would go feral, that the world
- (US) would wimp out.
- The world powers to be would mishandle AGW so badly. By allowing a publicist to take the point on the topic. Allowing the debate to be come a personality war.

The public don't see that in someways it gave Labor a losing hand.

NB the Labor didn't do its self any favours by making so many unforced errors.

- Vote via the hip pocket or prejudice nerve. It is too easy for a party to tweek either rather than sensible government. i.e. I vote for practical policy; principal; party philosophy then personality.
the hard bit is up front.
parties prefer the reverse because they are easily malleable/tweeked to appear what ever the attention span challenged public want.
The media too need short attention spanned/manipulatable public too

What would Abbott have done differently and better? What about Howard?

Emerging OK from the global financial crisis and keeping unemployment low are significant accomplishments.

Swan is a nice fellow who isn't given to the endless self-promotion of Peter Costello and that is a good thing.

Most of the negative stuff about Rudd is beat-up and an example of that is his so-called loss of temper with Kerry O'Brien. As entertaining as Kerry can be, he was flogging a dead horse in that interview with no conceivable benefit for the audience and most pollies would have cut it sooner. Margaret Thatcher would have grilled Kerry on a spit.

Not being able to arm-wrestle major powers into an international agreement isn't a black mark by any means. Australia got world attention and would be well regarded for its stance. That is good enough.

People are too influenced by the faux drama created daily by the media to win an audience.

Dear Examinator,

Spot on!
Wise thoughts and words as always.
Great summation.

Dear Cornflower,

I always read your posts and
appreciate your input because you
always give me something to think
about.

I am alarmed and somewhat convinced by your thoughts Pericles. re >>Liberal voters don't like the direction the Party is taking.<<. responding to Foxy.

I have remarked before that Howard era took us backwards. I really fear this for the future!, should Abbott become PM.

In the area's of cultural and social and International affairs, we effectively became, (in International image term's) and reality, a mining and farming based backwater servant of another country. Iraq and so called Free Trade Agreements etc are testament.

We also didn't like boat people, even if their refugee status was legit. Xenophobia was encouraged by Howard, and lot's of money was spent on curricular in education to preserve and support a sort of black shirt view of Australian history .

In the end JH and Co (inc Abbott) were more than a little on the nose and Howard himself, lost his own seat as a serving PM.

Rudd has not done enough yet (nor has he had the time) to reverse the effect's of 11 yrs of Howard. I believe the social and cultural damage done is under-estimated and basically turned us from a progressive nation, into a digressive, inward thinking one.

On the other hand the Govt shows it's own control freak side by proposing to filter the Internet and have a secret list of blocked sites. Ala China Iran etc. I afraid I can't imagine this in a democracy and cant vote for it.

I for one, have got no idea who I'm going to vote for, come election day , but it wont be Tony Abbott.