choices as we have may make a significant difference to our own situation. Labor does deserve praise for its economic stimulus package, accepting a less brutal approach to refugees, modestly improving the distribution of wealth, and slightly improving the aged care system, amongst other things. It is difficult to believe that Abbott et al would have done anything but the opposite. Progressive groups with vision are more likely to get something from Labor. Progressive groups not willing to help to push them through may wish to contemplate the unlikelihood of an Abbott government doing so. Take the carbon levy. It (and the flood levy) would certainly have been easier to sell had it been accompanied by a comprehensive scheme to deal with the increasing extent of natural disasters, such as universal government-provided insurance in the increasing number of areas profit-seeking insurers are no long willing to touch - WA's North-West, for instance. Similarly, there is the issue of systematically redesigning our built environment to cope with climate change. A big problem is of course the extent to which important infrastructure is privately-owned, which discourages efficient adaptation and greatly encourages drastic crisis-driven reaction instead of smooth and proportionate action. All Abbott would do is delay action - Howard delayed action by fifteen years. But the costs of inaction rise exponentially. So while Julia010 may deserve to lose office, the Mad Monk certainly doesn't deserve to win it. Given that neither dominant conservative party deserves power, it is Australia's victory that both