Yep, Labor are in! It's the result I wanted along with the vast majority of Australians. A lot of people were predicting a tight race, but even after only 5% of the votes were counted it was becoming fairly clear who would be the victor.

I got a little bit drunk last night while watching, and being a silly bugger on here. It was interesting and I'm glad Labor have won. It means that there will be more fair funding for public systems such as health and education and it also means that Australia will finally ratify the Kyoto Protocol which to my mind was one of the most important issues.

As Mr Rudd (our new PM) spoke clearly about during the course of his campaign, Australia can now move forward and become leaders who set precedents instead of the followers Mr Howard has turned us into.

The election coverage from the tally room was interesting. At random times there would be cheering, sometimes loud enough to disrupt the coverage. I eventually worked out that the cheering happened whenever the count for Bennelong was shown by one of the three broadcasters.

And they still haven't announced who the winner of the seat was yet.

And what a shock that Peter Costello resigned from politics. I feel a bit sorry for him to be honest, although he did win his seat as opposed to John Howard possibly losing his.

Maybe Mr Downer will take over the Libs. I believe he'd be their best bet. He's done a fabulous job as foreign affairs minister. I think Malcolm Turnbull might get the nod though. I hope it's not Tony Abbott!

So what does this mean for the future of Aussie's? I mean other than pulling support for anything the US does in international politics.

The plan is, we stay in Afghanistan but want to leave Iraq.
Also we sign the Kyoto protocol, formally apologise to Aboriginal Australians, and swing somewhat center-left on social policy and industrial relations.
And we are more likely to say "no" to the next Bush adventure.
Also the new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, was a diplomat in China and speaks Mandarin fluently. There is some thought that he will be very good at bridging East-West issues. And getting us sweet trade deals.

Downer has declared he has "little enthusiasm" for the job. The leading contenders are Abbot (oh I hope not) and Turnbull (too smooth by far).
But whoever takes the job is looking at a minimum of three and almost certainly six years in opposition - possibly more. And it's quite likely that whoever takes it now will be a caretaker leader for the next six months or so and then be rolled by the real one. For that reason I would have thought Downer or Costello should have held the tiller until the party has sorted itself out and the new person is ready.
To get all political, I hope Abbot gets to be leader for a while, looses the next election, and gets dumped ... better that than him to become leader in a few years and possibly PM in the fullness of time.

Yes, dear foreigners, the Australian Liberal Party does feature two major players named Abbot and Costello.

I heard on the news that Tony Abbot is not going to contest the leadership of the party. I suspect that if Mr Howard is able to retain his seat (still undecided) that he'll stick around for that six month period until someone else raises their head.

Maybe Brendan Nelson will give it a shot although he's not too popular with anyone up north. It'd be nice to see him get slammed too (in my opinion). I think we'll end up with Turnbull in opposition. He's very smooth I agree, but I think he'll trip himself up because he's really only with the Libs because they were the first ones to offer him a job. Apparently (a little inside info here) he doesn't really identify himself as right wing or anything else. He's one of those ones who'll just say whatever he thinks the person he's talking to wants to hear.

Definitely not the sort of person you want leading the country.

That's my impression of Turnbull too, not from any inside information, just my perception of him. He doesn't seem to believe in anything, he just likes being in the spotlight, getting the attention.

What do you mean he can stick around? I thought you all voted him out? Or is this like the government of India where the major party votes in their guy after the party is voted in? Damm, you all have copyied a democracy like India??

Mr Howard has said that he would retire some time during the next term regardless of whether he won or not. In my opinion this was a bad move and lost him votes, but that's a side issue.

The problem is, Mr Howard looks to be in grave danger of losing his seat anyway, which means he technically can't lead his party if he can't even get enough voters in his electorate to vote him in instead of his opposition.

So, if he doesn't win his seat, will he simply bow out gracefully and let someone else take over? Or will he force someone else from his party to give up their seat so that he can retain leadership until the party can find a suitable replacement. Mr Howards second in command, Peter Costello has already announced his retirement along with the leader of the other major party from the Coalition government, Mr Vale which basically leaves the party without a leader if Mr Howard loses his seat.

The party is in disarray which is why there's a lot of speculation around Mr Howards seat and what the consequences of either a win or a loss will be.

The opposition party (because we have basically a two party system over here) still needs a leader.

We don't vote for a Prime Minister in Britain. We vote for our local MP only.
The party with the most seats in Parliament - as long as they hold a majority (ie enough seats to be able to carry a majority vote on issues) forms the Government. It has happened twice in the last 20 years that the Prime Minister has changed without a General Election being called - Margaret Thatcher to John Major and Tony Blair to Gordon Brown.

Wait, so a particular district might vote in Guy X, but then are instead told that Mr. Howard will be taking his seat and Guy X won't actually be representing them after all??

We have a bi-cameral (two house) parliament.
In the lower house, there are 150 members each returned as individuals by separate districts. The ex-PM Howard was one of these. He got to be an MP by being elected by a district. Then, when his party got the majority in the lower house (thus forming government), the party elected him as PM.
The upper house has 76 members, having 12 from each state (and two from each of the minor territories), elected as a multi-member group from the whole state. These are normally elected on a party ticket - although independents can make it - and if one party member resigns or dies, the party can chose their replacement.
So I guess the idea is that if Howard were to miss out on his electorate, someone could step aside from the upper house ticket and he could slide in on that.
I don't think he'd do this. Senators are supposed to serve for 6 years and its time for Howard to retire, I can't imagine him shunting someone out to serve as opposition leader for six months, and then ... what? resigning himself and letting the first person back in? warming a bench for five years? It's time for him to walk.

That's exactly the way it would work and it is legal, but I agree and don't think he'd bother doing it as the coalition is definitely finished this time round. Had they won overall but Howard lost his seat, I think it would have been possible.

This couldn't happen in the UK. Gordon Brown was voted in as a Labour MP and still represents his constituency as well as being Prime Minister. Tony Blair is no longer an MP, having retired as PM and there was a by-election (an election for an MP for one constituency only) to replace him.