When Howard tries to implement his agenda of privatisation, industrial relations 'reform', welfare 'reform', an aggressive and world-destabilising foreign policy, allowing the woodchipping of Tasmania's forests, etc, etc, it is likely that many who did vote for Howard will start to have second thoughts about the choice they made last Saturday. (If they don't then we are in for a very grim future, indeed.)

If popular opposition does emerge, Howard will no doubt employ, to the utmost, as he has done before, the argument that he has a mandate to do whatever he likes, except, perhaps to reverse the direction the earth spins on its axis.

However, if at that point the Australian public can be reminded of just how blatantly he abused his positon of incumbency for at least the last 12 months, and how almost the entire news media backed Howard to the hilt, abandoning their responsibity to give accurate and objective information, then perhaps the 'mandate' argument may not stand up quite so well.

This may not be enough to stop Howard from wreaking much of the terrible havoc on Australian society that we are all now fearing, but at least it may help to ensure that he will pay a much higher political price this time, and it may lay the groundwork for resoundingly booting him, or whoever his successor turns out to be, in 2007.

The name of the web site could be something like:

www.democracyperverted.org.au ; or www.democracyperverted-2004.org.au

Other suggestions are welcome.

It is important that there is not too much emotive, politically loaded language. We need to show with clear argument and evidence how, due to the way the major issues were reported (or not reported) that a good many voters were highly likely to have been very ill-informed about many of the issues which were at stake during the elections, and if they had, instead, been properly informed, they would have voted very differently. If I am right, many who voted Liberal or National at the last election, if they could be pursuaded to read the material on this site, would quickly come to understand how they were duped. If this happens, the moral authority, that Howard appears to have estabished, may quickly unravel.

The site should be focussed on the election but should also extend, right through the whole 'phony election' period to at least back to the Gulf war. It would include a number of informative analytical articles in the styel of Alan Ramsay and Margo's 'Hope Trimphs for a day' article at Webdiary

However the bulk of the content will be from the newspapers and transcripts from TV and radio. Site visitors will be able to see over the months that various newspapers took one stance one week in the heat of the moment in order to maintain credibility with their readership, but days later when the issue is no longer in the forefront of the public's mind, to take a contrdictory stance.

I believe there is an edtorial from The Australian on the www.johnhowardlies.com site, which condemned Howard over the most recent revelations in relation to the 'children overboard' incident. Yet days later, there was an article (or editorial) which argued that it was unreasonble to expect Howard to tell the truth on the eve of the election and of course, it had been completely forgotten by the time they wrote their edtiorial which endorsed Howard on Friday just before the election.

There must be so much similar material which could be similarly juxtaposed and which we could easily show for all the world to see. The evasions, subterfuge and self-contradiction in the way the elections, and so it would be more the words of the newspapers themselves that could be used against them.

Am tired so must leave it. I may be happy to initiate it and lend a hand, but I would not be able to do it on my own.

(It's late and I am fading. More some other time.)

Best regards.