You are right, but the havoc will be for their own party mostly, which is long overdue - Kim Beazley is IMHO the strongest Labor man around, but he got chopped in favour of a "young go-getter" - Latham. If Beazley had been opposition leader at the time of the election he may have actually got his party over the line - scary thought. But the fact that they are doing this after losing, breaking up, falling back, resigning, etc etc etc, shows they were never coherent enough to lead this country. The Liberal/National Coalition would definitly have made changes but I think it would have been a shuffling of attributes rather than a bailing out of so many senior statesmen. As you said, Good Lord!
God Bless John Howard though - Him I "get".
Here's my two cents on the matter of Aussies's not choosing Beazley and going 2nd string -- like the US Dems choosing Kerry and not first string: The first string operators are still working triple time in their "shadow" modus of operating a "global shadow" government; ergo these first stringers were needed moreso "behind the scenes" than out front. Campaigning takes a lot of work and energy, etc. So, for example, the minute I hear that John Kerry says he's supported by "X" other country governments -- I know somewhere some negotiations are going on behind the scenes of Kerry's candidacy -- with other "liberal-like minded" entities in other countries.
OTOH, President Bush is perfectly centered -- and this is why he can run his campaign AND do his functions -- not behind the scenes; but right up front.
Old Adage for the "shadow" groups: Dishonesty never pays.
:)