For those of you who follow this column regularly, you will recall that I have written on a couple of occasions about the forecasts of social researcher Hugh Mackay. He predicted last year, before the Federal election, that not only would Howard lose, but that a string of State Labor governments would fall soon after.

Mackay put it down to a sudden re-engagement of society in political matters after a period of "dreamy disengagement" during the good economic times of the past decade.

Mackay's prognosis rings more true as each election passes, with incumbents - be they entire government's or parties which have comfortably held a seat for a long time - copping a backlash at nearly all elections held since November's fall of the Howard Government.

But what will result of this shake up of the political landscape and what will it mean for the bush?

For a start, many rural people who are fed up with what they describe as "State Labor's anti-farmer policies", will be overjoyed at the prospect of change. Think native vegetation laws in Queensland and NSW, water in Victoria and SA, and regional infrastructure in WA.

But of course, change is only as good as what replaces the current situation.

The end of the ideology wars that defined Australian politics means that the battle between parties now seems to be a fight over which side has the best team in place to manage the State. In that respect the great weakness of the Coalition opposition in each State - and now Federally - has been their ability to govern themselves.

But in the case of NSW the State Government has become so dysfunctional that not even this argument is likely to save Labor. Indeed, it has not stopped major swings against Labor in both WA and the Northern Territory, where the argument was used as part of Labor's campaign.