i was surprised to not see the postal "reform" mentioned in most of the coverage, but then it's hardly news that the financial press has a vested interest in obscuring discontent with neoliberalism.

At the moment any set back to the freemarket consensus is a good thing.

The next (scheduled) election for the House of Representatives is in 2009, right?
That's two years away; so Abe still has some time for a course correction.
Nevertheless, his response thus far seems to be of the Bush variety (that is, "I'm right; the voters are wrong"); if he insists on going forward with an agenda the electorate clearly has rejected, I reckon things will get as bloody for the LDP in the lower house as it was in the upper house this past Sunday...

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde

The interesting thing about that quotation is this thought: suppose Howard had retired gracefully in April 2006 and were now the back-bench Member for Bennelong, campaigning for the election of a Liberal successor in that seat whose name, of course, would now have become known. In that circumstance the Shanahan opinion would now look quite reasonable.

It would even appear to be an impartial assessment.

Instead this is the situation in which Howard and his party now find themselves.

In the opinion of several observers (including myself) the Liberal Party at the federal level now has only one senior figure with any credibility, the Treasurer, Peter Costello.

And how does the party treat him? Essentially they have put him down at every opportunity. While he is sure to be their next leader, he will, very probably, never be prime minister.

It is a fact of Australian federal political history that the first leader of the opposition after the electoral defeat of a government has never become prime minister. Or rather, not since the early years of Federation.

So the fate of Costello is that he will be the next leader of the opposition, will contest one election from that position and lose. He will then leave politics and make very good money in business. The history books will record Costello as the most successful minister who never became prime minister. The Liberal Party will be recorded as having handed to Costello the poisoned chalice.

The vanity, malice and spite of Howard will have prevailed over common sense. Why is that so?

Howard should have had good sense to go gracefully

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

I always take as a good sign anytime an election moves an elected Parliament or Congress Left! Way to go Japan...and setting new precedents on the way!! (And thanks for writing this up, wu ming!)

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia

Thanks for this Wu Ming. Out of curiosity, where does the name Liberal Democratic Party come from?

Thanks for this; I hope tuasfair, bruno-ken and Zwackus will add to it.

Some notes:

While I'd be happy if the neoliberal, Iraq war, and nationalism issues would be the primary ones in LDP's defeats, my impression is that while it started with postal reform, a series of scandals were number one. Including two corrupt agriculture ministers in succession, another that explicitely called women child-bearing machines (I suspect some female voters finally had enough), the strange case of a defense minister who used to attack the USA (even deviating from the government's pro-US line on Iraq) but then fell after justifying the bombing of Nagasaki as necessary to end the war.

I think (and hope) Japan doesn't become a two-party system, but stays with more parties, even if potential main coalition partners increase only from one to two.

I wouldn't class Lula's government line as radical pushback, not at all, though it is true that neocons hoped in vain that his market-friendly social democracy can be influenced to oppose Chavez et al.

I also wouldn't list Merkel alongside Howard, Harper et al, that's a more complex situation. Merkel is an Atlanticist, and often appeases a strong pro-neocon faction within her party, but can also oppose the US  and some market policies (Sarko too, though that seems to be more theatrics than policy).

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

so how do you think this will affect Abe's efforts to move the Japanese Defense Forces from a purely defensive mission?

This is very informative. Thank you, wu ming.

Can you write about the connection between the postal privatization and rural voters?  I don´t get it, at the moment.

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.

Thank you very much for this diary. Let me add a few observations:

1. Abe has suffered seriously from his quasi-noble upbringing. He is a grandson of a prime minister (who was a war criminal as a cabinet member in 1941 and was also instrumental in running Manchuko) and son of a foreign minister. While women support his good looking youthful style (and his presumed toughness against North Korea), most men are alienated. I don't think he can recover much.

2. Koizumi's myth has, at least partially, been debunked. His stronghold failed to elect a komeito candidate for whom he actively campaigned.

3. Democratic Party's head Ozawa just refused to see American Ambassador who wanted to persuade him to change his opposition to Japan's support to the war on terror (whereby JSDF vessels refuel American fleet in the Indian Ocean). Now, this is supposed to be support for the Afghanistan operation and can be very tricky. I called a DPJ friend to suggest they should frame the opposition as a move to thwart America's adventure in the Persian gulf against Iran.

I will become a patissier, God willing.