KERRY O’BRIEN: How do you test the mood of your colleagues?
JOHN HOWARD: Well, you talk to them, you talk to a whole range of people. I do that all the time. It’s a constant exercise and…
KERRY O’BRIEN: How do you know the ones who are going to tell you what you need to hear rather than what you might want to hear?
JOHN HOWARD: If you think I’m going to go into that, it’s like asking you to disclose your sources as a journalist (laughs).
KERRY O’BRIEN: But no, I’m not saying names, I’m saying how do you know that the people are going to answer honestly when you eyeball them?
JOHN HOWARD: Kerry, I have an understanding of my colleagues………
Matt Price is strolling the halls of Parliament House.
Comments redirected from an earlier thread:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/11/its-the-team-stupid-or-its-1993-or-something/#comment-401852
I don’t believe Howard is the problem with the Liberal Party’s electoral chances.
That is, replacing him is unlikely to make a difference. They stand to lose regardless of who is the leader.
“Howard Deathwatch”??? Catchy…!
“That is, replacing him is unlikely to make a difference. They stand to lose regardless of who is the leader.”
It’s Time.
Dear LP Agony Aunt,
I have a bottle of champagne and a cigar put aside with which to celebrate the hopeful electoral defeat of Howard. If Howard’s time is up before the election, I’m not sure if the pour a drink and light up on that news or wait till polling day.
I should I simply buy another bottle of champers and an extra cigar and double the celebratory fun.
Bolt has gone quiet. Looks like it might all come to a showdown at tomorrow’s cabinet meeting. Probably a mad rush of telephone calls going on now…
The best outcome of this is Howard stays but it keeps happening. If his own colleagues don’t believe he’s the best PM… Having said that, Labor can still paint any switch as cynicism and panic. And Costello would be terrible.
By golly, isn’t there going to be a lot of crow having to be eaten if Howard actually wins the election?
Dead Man Talking (sorry, couldn’t resist it).
What was fascinating about that interview was Howard’s not even attempting to move away from the subject of his impending failure. It was a conversation which could only reinfoce impressions of his weakness, yet he failed to turn it remotely to his advantage. A thousand times before, we’ve seen him avoid questions, make: “Kerry, but the point I want to make is …” statements. Which he could have done, then moved straight into the (few) strong points he has. O’Brien must still be wondering what’s happened.
All Labor needs to do over the next few days is shut up….
Graham Young on why Howard will lose the election but is still their best hope of defending seats:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6364
There is a really eerie paradox with this “It’s Time” meme. If it really IS “Time,” then why is Labor being so invisible? If it really is time, why are they not setting out a very bold agenda, for which they will thus have no legitimacy/mandate issues in implementing if they win?
“By golly, isn’t there going to be a lot of crow having to be eaten if Howard actually wins the election?”
There will be, but what are the chances?
According to Centrebet, Labor $1.37, Coalition $3.10.
Howard and Red Kerry? He was just tired. Give the old bugger a break - he’s 68 years old and spent a week on a bender with GWB and Vlad the Impaler. When the berocca kicks in, you’ll get some action again.
On the champagne question: buy a case. Play the “Howard Deathwatch” drinking game in slow motion. Every day the speculation continues, chug and smoke. If Howard is pushed, sober up. If Howard quits before the election, kick the cat. If he makes it to the election and loses, run whooping down the street like I will be, champagne in hand, filling my neighbours glasses. He must face the democratic process - I will not be cheated of election night victory over the bastard.
If he makes it to the election and wins? A big bottle of scotch and a bigger box of kleenex will be required. I’ll cry like a baby.
Hyacinth is off to Bunnings for another pallet of Araldite.
David Rubie, unfortunately Howard hasn’t the ego to be worried by losing an election. He has been around and has had too many knocks to care what anybody thinks.
Not to be confused with a nose (or lack of at times) for what people will vote for. But as far as being kicked out, I would be surprised if he gives it a second thought.
Not only that, but he knows that history will show him to be one of the most successful prime ministers Australia has ever had.
Au contraire, Costello, the second rate barrister would be terrific. It would be the final cherry on top of the rapidly melting confection called ‘conservative Australian ethos’. He looks every bit the spiv he is, and I look forward to Swan puncturing his faux fiscal competence. Costello would clear the air of the smoke from the culture wars fires for just enough time to puncture the legend of economic magicianship. He would be toast at the least sign of a journalist able to master the integration of our little battler bewdy economy down under, with hitherto benign global conditions. While I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for some lazy overpaid journo to actually read anything other than a Press release from some pollie or corporate shill, there is always hope. If Costello is in the frame for the romp to the next poll, it is possible that someone somewhere might bestir themselves to grill him about just how ‘fantastic’ he has been, as spruiker in chief for the laziest economic exhibition seen in this country since, well, since Man of Steal was Treasurer.
Every other political family practically beg their pollie relation/partner to quit and come home.
Howard’s family want him to stay away.
I had been craving him to hang in there so I could savour his electoral defeat, but I think his immediate plunge into political irrelevancy during the remainder of this term and the coming election will be even more satisfying.
The sinking of the Howard ship and all who sale within it is all I ask, that it happen on Sept 11 is just a sweet coincidence.
That is, Oz politics most successful liar and pork-barreller since …
Costello’s failure to challenge Howard demonstrates his lack of true leadership abilities. His approach is as before, “I will be ready when it is my turn”. This is in “the meek shall inherit the earth, if that is alright with you” territory. No backbone. No power.
Price’s latest update:
steve at the pub wrote:
Successful at what exactly? Getting culture warriors appointed to the ABC board? Battling the quixotic windmill of a dying union movement? Turning our foreign policy into an international joke? Keeping Downer off the unemployment roll?
His single, and only success was making eyebrow trimming socially acceptable. You never had it so good, you ungrateful bastards with your neatened facial hair.
Prime Ministers who have spent the shortest amount of time on the job.
Everbody remembers…
Forde-8 days
Fadden-1 month and 9 days
Page-20 days
Watson-3 months and 21 days
McEwan-23 days
…and nobody could forget Prime Minister Costello who lasted 1 month and (insert days).
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/parl/hist/primmins.htm
Adrian and GregM, from the previous post, I reckon, if it happens, it’ll likely be Turnbull, too. He is truly the only one who has any chance of winning from here.
Costello wouldn’t want it - to go down in history as the man who destroyed the Liberal Party? No way. Downer might be arrogant and follish enough to want it, but his colleagues wouldn’t be follish enough (would they???)
Turnbull might just be the ‘circuit breaker’ they need. He could waltz in, ratify Kyoto, water down workchoices (but stay business’s friend), block the Pulp Mill and commit to pulling out of Iraq and all of a sudden take the wind right out of Rudd’s sails…
It could happen.
On the other hand, my bet right now is Howard’s superhuman fingernails will hold strong.
Tim: Turnbull would be leading the Liberal Party, not the Greens.
Shaun,
Buy another bottle of champagne and cigars.
Shortly off to watch the bloodsport of Question Time.
Anybody care to join me?
Given that Howard is still there for Questions, is the show is over for today?
I suspect the Cabinet will fall in behind the PM (leave your pride at the door, gents) and this little item will be top of the agenda for tomorrow’s Cabinet meeting. Show of hands and then… either a new PM or maybe a reshuffle?
I’ve got ten bucks riding on it!
Turnbull would be interesting - as it may improve his chances in Wentworth. But they have to come up with someone who’ll actually challenge Howard and they’re all gutless spivs. To quote someone who must also be breaking out the champagne and the cigars.
That’s right SATP, he’d be leading the Liberal Party, not Howard’s New Tories. Turnbull is philosophically aligned with all these positions. And I forgot to mention the Republic, of course!
Turnball has not appeared competent in the media spotlight - especially his recent stoush with that other rich prat.
However it is very hard to see who else would step up to the plate from this amazingly talentless front bench.
How many of his troops would be, though?
The interesting thing about all this is that Howard has at the same time demonstrated that you can turn an entire political party into craven crawlers and that when they turn against you, they’re too weak to do it properly - only further driving the whole caravan into the mud.
Gummo: Howard has been very successful at Pork Barrelling and Lying. Who else could have got away with the “never ever” GST and “non-core” promises and maintained electoral credibility? (state politics not included)
And under Fraser he was responsible for retrospective legislation (which should have given the nation a clue as to what he would be like as Prime Minister)
But I was meaning his stewardship of the nation. Everything Howard has done has happened properly. We are rich, disarmed, our dollar is now sky-high so we can travel overseas, we all have jobs, etc etc etc.
David Rubie: The Union movement was indeed their own worst enemy, however prosperity and a determined government were very important to stopping the union rot.
The ABC board is the biggest side issue in history. The ABC news & current affairs is biased to high hell, & getting more like SBS every month. But the board has little say in that. As a national issue, the board of the ABC rates alongside the variety of tea offered in the parliament house dining room.
Our foreign policy is far from a joke. It is taken deadly seriously by our neighbors. East Timor, Solomans, Afghanistan and Iraq all show that Australia is likely to plonk troops on your doorstep if you play up.
Think of how Fiji reacted to the presence of Australian ships off their coast at the time of the Blackhawk crash.
Howard may indeed be hated (rightly or wrongly), but he was not in any way an administrative, legislative or political incompetent.
All this talk of Turnball makes me chuckle.
Certainly, on paper, he’s an appealing choice, but people seem a littler o’ereager to ignore party structure when it comes to his incipient leadership.
Costello, Downer, Abbott, etc. You think these cabinet dudes are gonna stand idly by and say, “Oh yes! Let’s give the leadership to this guy, a possible billionaire (makes Costello’s lack of common touch look positively prole), who has been in parliament for not even four years whilst we, who have been waiting for decades say hurrah!”
Will never happen, never in a million years. Sides, as already pointed out, talk about a poison chalice. Turnball (if he was smart, and apparently he is) wouldn’t want it in a million years.
Here’s what it’s come down to:
If Costello challenges Howard, the leadership is all but his.
If there’s no challenge, Howard will remain Prime Minister and contest the next election.
I’d be amazed if Costello challenged Howard. Why would he take on the leadership knowing the government is on the cusp of electoral oblivion and looking at, at least two terms in opposition?
David Rubie
For Howard’s faults you would have a time getting away with this
Come on, do you really think more than 23 people give a damn about the ABC Board. I couldn’t give a flying fuck about it! As for our international standing. A joke? WHO is laughing, exactly? From where I sit, Australia’s global stature has never been higher than under Howard, and it is in another galaxy compared to the mire of the Keating years.
That’s spot on, delrio.
Without being aggressive about it (I’m actually seriously interested) could someone hazard a guess as to the positives that Howard could be noted for in historical texts? Apart from the fact of having a long tenure, what would a positive political assessment look like?
My Fellow Australians, shall we be saying a year from now, that “Nothing became John Winston more than the manner of his departing”?
He was so lacklustre in the chair with Kerry on 7.30 Report, I interpreted it as the PM having a private conversation with his Ministers and backbenchers, broadcast nationally. Saved a few $ on phone calls
It sounded like he was up at the whiteboard at a dreaded “workshop”, brainstorming possible rhetorical ploys he might use with the voters, ummm, I could talk about the next 3 years, … ummm
Making Kevin look sparkling, and golly that’s quite an achievement, Mr PM!
Jobby,
Whatever the background forces that were in play, he WAS Prime Minister when Australian troops went in, after so many years, to assist East Timorese who preferred independence.
And he DID attempt to improve Australia’s ‘gun control’ laws. He stared down a hostile crowd of farmers & ’sporting shooters’ at Sale (Vic) during the ensuing uproar. Supposedly wearing a bullet-proof vest, but good luck to him.
These two I count as positives.
cheerio
Steve: I rekon global commodity prices have more to do with our current level of affluence than anything Howard has done. And there are screwups, care to look deeply at health care and education. Hell even that arch lefty Rupert Murdoch was telling the government years ago they weren’t investing enough in tertiary level education.
Delrio,
He’d do it (Costello) because that is what taking responsibility is about, that is how true leaders are forged. Let’s just see if he is a leader or a wimp. Tomorrow.
Dear Steve at the Pub
YOu have made a broad sweeping statement that ABC News and Current Affairs is biased - well, I used to work in the complaints area of ABC and know that 98% of the time there is no evidence for this - most of the 2% is factual incorrectness so I would insist that you do not make sweeping statements like this when you have no evidence to back this up.
There has to be values in everything - true bias is not someone to the left or right of where you are - one has to critique from somewhere. Your personal politics, and ideological stance is the angle of bias that you come from. If you are rightwing, then someone else could say, well, you are coming from a right wing bias.
I think at the end of the day you just need to know the values involved…on a overall values basis, ABC news and current affairs barely moves from the middle, I would say -3 to the left in values output so you just need to know the values. Australia and America have the worlds most one sided to the right media. If the ABC and SBS were to outweigh the 0 to plus 40 to the right of the rest of the media you would have to make them both socialist organisations. Believe me, the ABC is far from that. In future, before making grand sweeping statements with no evidence to back them up, I suggest you start complaining about the lack of ideological diversity in the mainstream media - the famous double standard of the media is people who are centre/left leaning bend over backwards to be fair to provide ideological diversity and party political independence, when it comes to the right, the same respect is never offered. But of course, the right is always right isn’t it, so there is no merit to the myriad of other positions you could take, and that’s before you get to the middle.
Thanks Ambigulous and SATP.
Gun control, East Timor, some economic issues (general prosperity, unemployment, etc.) What else is missing? Surely the list can be bigger than this. What about the expansion of free trade or something?
The problem is obviously eliminating the contentious context from all the issues. For every potential point anyone makes, it’s very easy to contexualise it in a number of ways (eg. gun control was a populist move following the Martin Bryant shootings, economics aren’t under government control as it’s all part of the global economy, unemployment is only artificially low, etc.)
But it’s still pretty interesting to at least attempt to view the past decade or so of Howard in a sympathetic light … probably because it’s one of the last things I’d be likely to do in day to day life.
John Greenfield wrote:
The ABC board thing IS a joke Greenfield - which is why being successful at stacking it is so informative about the priorities of the Howard years.
Our foreign policy is widely regarded as a joke - between our “big Iraq” involvement of 5 blokes and a dead sniffer dog, to the “mini Iraq” over in East Timor to rip off their oil and gas. Throughout it all, the constant bumbling, fumbling and stupidity of Lexie Downer (just read what they think of him in the Taipei Times for an example) which culminated in the solomon islanders giving us the middle finger. The only thing the Fijiians are scared about is our useless helicopters falling out of the sky which they regularly do. Face it - it’s eleven wasted years of shameless opportunism and fiddling and farting about in useless endeavours like the culture wars. Conservatism needs a good thrashing to make it relevent again.
I’m with Delrio @ 1.59pm
Um…. why would anyone want to make a list of Howard positives? But as long as you are trying, you might want to educate yourself a little bit about our colonial incursion into oil-rich East Timor, which has achieved nothing at all for the people there. Sure, Howard stared down the Indonesian militants, and the domestic gun-lovers too, but as ever only because there was something it it for him and his powerful Big Business mates.
Jobby, what is ‘artificially low’ unemployment? Is it the flip-side of ‘artificially high’ wages?
BBB
Intellectual exercise, a good way to consider the past decade in a different light, and in doing so, perhaps gain some insight into how his supporters think.
Yes, of course I’m aware of the oil debacle in East Timor. There’s a debacle or contentious argument involved in absolutely every single positive you could list. But I find it genuinely interesting to attempt to get a list of ‘positives’ together, and attempt to view it as one might view a historical text of an unfamiliar leader. It’s an exercise that disjuncts normal mode of thought in order to cast new light on it I suppose.
Never mind.
Cheers
BBB
I was referring to the argument that the current unemployment figures are low because ‘unemployment’ has been redefined (i.e. currently, people working 1 hour per week or more aren’t included in the unemployment figures as opposed to the whatever-the-hell-it-was-previously).
Are the Indonesians still there, then? Well if Pilger is your authority I guess that you’d be prepared to believe they are.
“Um…. why would anyone want to make a list of Howard positives?”
Because it is really easy. It is a very short list.
I do think gun control would be viewed as a positive.
GST may very well be viewed as a net positive in the future also.
Depend on what happens if Rudd gets in, people may very well look to Howard as someone who started the death of federalism, which could be seen as good, or bad.
Senate majority will be seen as a rarity, if not a positive.
GST and related could go under the category of ‘taxation reform’ I suppose. It’s hard to see it as a positive from where I’m sitting, but it would definitely get a mention.
What about broader issues though? The ‘tone of the nation’ kind of thing. There’s been a lot of commentary about how Australia has become less egalitarian and more ‘aspirational’ in the past decade. What would be the positives that could be mentioned in this area?
I think I made the comment on another thread, but these comments tell their own story. The fact that people have moved on to discussing how Howard will be perceived in the past tense and how Rudd will handle various issues (and it’s happening in the MSM too) really does show where the whole thing is at.
BilB wrote:
Challenging Howard, at this point, could hardly be characterised as an act of courage. Howard is ripe for the picking. Unfortunately for Costello, the Liberal leadership has been reduced to a disease infested carcass. Only a fool would go near it.
And if, for argument’s sake, Costello does challenge, his motives would have nothing to do with taking responsibility. Costello sees the Prime Ministership as a trophy. It’s all about craven self-interest.
gandhi,
I think independence for Timor Leste was worth achieving, regardless of either the ensuing difficulties, or the motives for the intervention. BTW, in characterising the intervention as a ‘colonial incursion’, are you implying that the Indonesian ‘incursion’ in 1975 was NOT colonial? In your book, is ‘colonial’ something only Anglo countries do?
Piffle!
I’m sorry, gandhi, with the gun control, I just can’t see how there was “something in it for him and his powerful Big Business mates”. Rich pastoralists and their employees use guns on their huge farms. Gun and ammo manufacturers, importers, etc are businessmen. I think that in this instance your characterisation of the PM and his motivations are cartoon-like in their simplicity…. or were you satirising that old Top-Hatted Capitalist imagery??
Howard responsible for the high dollar, says Steve at the pub. You’re kidding right? The $A is strong, because the $US is weak, because commodity prices are the best they’ve been in 50 years and because our interest rates are among the highest in the OECD.
Like the other economically illiterate Howard lovers who don’t understand the difference between causation and correlation, you continue to suppose the electorate is dumb enough to give Howard credit for an externally generated boom.
As to John Greenfield’s nonsensical claim about Howard winning respect through his foreign policy, how do you rationalise as a positive signing up Australia for the biggest debacle since the Vietnam war?
Opposition to Howard’s foreign ‘policy’ (in effect a blank cheque to Bush) isn’t some fashionable trendy left position, unless you think the Democratic-controlled US Congress is full of latte drinkers.
The fact is Howard will go down in history as the most divisive, most radical prime minister this country has ever known, and as someone who wasted a once-in-a-century boom on keeping himself in office.
A pox on this miserable, mendacious little man. But please let him stay on so we can saviour seeing him rejected by an electorate finally determined to rid the country of the filty stench he has created.
GregM
Sorry, I didn’t see you had already answered that East Timor bit. Viva Timor Leste!
cheerio
Ambigulous,
Oh yeah, I forgot: if they are bad, then we MUST be good. Just like Al Quaeda. Viva el Wedge!
Gun control was a huge vote-winner, which helped keep Howard in power. The kanagroo-shooters vote for him anyway and they still have all their guns.
patrickg & Jobby,
I was initially suspicious of GST on the grounds that sales taxes are regressive [hence, for example, in the Federal Tax Enquiry, circa 1974, it emerged that those at the bottom end of the income scales were paying very high % tax rates* because they spent all their earnings and high excise on ciggies, grog, and some sales taxes, all hit them hard]
But now, several years on, I’m not sure about GST. Any economists care to comment?
A possible GST side-effect was the eventual wrangling in Democrats Parlt. Party (that issue and their Leader’s cave-in on it, was hot hot hot in the Dems, they say)
* at the time, a friend got angry about this and wrote to the Treasurer Dr Cairns about it. He replied that low income earners received higher social security payments, so it wasn’t really so bad [here endeth the paraphrase]
Looks like they’ll have to pour several bottles of red into Pistol Pete if they want to get him to take Howard on: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/11/2029653.htm
Huh? In what world would it be seen as a positive?
It will be a hollow election night if it is PM Turnbull conceding defeat.
If it’s Costello, that will be half as good as seeing Howard do it.
The one good thing that will result if the Liberal Party commits rat-icide and turfs Howard is that for years to come the Howard loyalists will feel a deep sense of betrayal and they will engage in a ruthless jihad against their enemies in the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party could be unelectable for half a generation at least.
Exaggeration? There are powerful forces today in the British Conservative Party who are still embittered by the coup delivered to Margaret Thatcher in 1990.
Mr Denmore
The issue is Australia’s “international reputation,” which has absolutely nothing to do with whatever your views on foreign policy might be.
,
He’s up against quite some competition there. Gough might feel that the mantle of being the most radical prime minister belongs to him and Malcolm Fraser was considered pretty divisive in his time. Then, looking back a bit further, there is Billy Hughes.
Christine Milne:
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=general&story_id=1051523&category=general
@Mark, yes almost everyone has moved on haven’t they. And deep down all the Howard acolytes know it too.
Now they just want him to go but don’t really know how to make it happen. Betwixt and between. Their unquestioning following over the past few years has left the party a hollowed out shell totally unable to think for itself because Howard has done all the thinking for them.
gandhi
Are you for real? Dude, it’s 2007.
Well, Question Time looks like a dud - Labor is not even pushing the leadership issue early on.
But Tony Abbott refuses to say that Howard has the full backing of his cabinet.
C ya tomorrow!
gandhi, … mahatma, maaaate !!
Indonesia invades half an island. Bad.
A group of nations kicks them out, after too long a delay, a referendum supported by UN. Good.
I’m certainly NOT saying that everything Australia does is “good by definition”. Just that the Timor intervention seems to me, on balance, to have been worth doing.
And I have to admit that JWH was PM when we did it, and that the Australian public, after apparently being somewhat indifferent to events in East Timor, supported the intervention STRONGLY. And hundreds of individual Australians, dozens of charities have given time, $, etc since.
Are you blinded by oil? Wipe it out of your eyes, gandhi. It seems to be obscuring something sweet and lovely.
Dont reckon Turnbull has a hope in hell of getting australia to back him. All you need is any of the vision of his arrogant, concieted, self serving ARM lectures that sabotaged what could now have been the Republic of Australia!
Whoever was responsible for the high $A until the other day, I’d like to thank them very much.
Jus’ sayin’…
I before E, except after C.
Now please come with me to the holding cells, sir.
The GST replaced an extremely regressive and illogical sales tax on goods (in which fine distinctions were drawn between say, chocolate-confectionery taxed at one rate and chocolate biscuits taxed at another) and spread the burden of taxes to cover services, thus levelling out and per item taxed reducing the tax burden on goods. Its introduction also led to the repeal of a whole raft of other regressive taxes, such as stamp duties, mainly levied by the States, which impeded economic activity. At 10% it is a fairly low consumption tax by OECD standards and it probably would have been better (if politically unfeasible) to have introduced it at 15% and to have done away with other taxes on economic activity, especially payroll tax.
A very unlikely rat deserts the sinking ship:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22395985-7583,00.html
(my emphasis)
Exactly. And that was when I resigned from the Liberal Party and have never voted for them since in federal or state elections.
And, no, I was not involved in the bottom-of-the-harbour scheme but strongly against the principle of retrospective legislation.
Grahame Young’s “…Costello might be good in Parliament, but only John Winston Howard has shown he can cut it on the stump…” - How does he now how good or bad Costello is? No one has given him a chance - Heck Costello himself hasn’t given himself a chance. For all we know, this change of leadership might result in a reflowering of public support for a face-lifted Coalition.
Somehow I won’t be surprised if the nervous Liberal nellies upset the apple cart. But it would be a bit disappointing to see Ratty kicked into the toilet bowl at the last minute, instead of being skiddled under the wheels of the oncoming election like he damn well should be. I’ve been singing Howard’s defiant battle song for a while now “We’re going to fight to the very last man!” - a la Rose Tattoo and was looking forward to the stoush.
He’s had some very wonky moments and kicked some own goals in past election campaigns, Megan.
Anyway, my money is on Howard surviving. All he needs to do is call for a spill tomorrow, and I bet none of the gutless wonders in the party room will put their hands up.
The shorter John Heard? Howard’s job is done, we’re all conservatives now.
“Howard may indeed be hated (rightly or wrongly), but he was not in any way an administrative, legislative or political incompetent.” Oh come on SteveAtThePub, what was AWB and Iraq if not supreme examples of administrative, legislative and political incompetence?
Howard pushed out with the boy scout’s backpack and Prime Minister Downer plummeting to a fiery end would be a lovely way to work through the champagne collection.
As to legislative incompetence, have a look at how many amendments they have to move to their own badly drafted bills, or the confusing and incoherent morass that is WorkChoices, media regulation legislation and the Tax Act, to name but a few.
But credit where credit’s due.
Mr Howard knew what his pivotal invented constituency of aspirationals wanted to hear.
He milked their credulity down to the last drop.
Well I don’t know about those Liberals in the party room Mark. After all Margaret Thatcher’s band of yes-men all turned on her when it was evident that she was losing it. You just have to watch those gutless wonders ask themselves: Is it going to be our beloved leader or my very own seat/public office? Anyway, if they were really that gutless it would mean that they would be in such a state of jelly-like funk that they would contemplate throwing absolutely anything off the ship to stay afloat, including the fabled and much-treasured Ratty. Thinking clearly and strategically - definitely NOT!
I’m not saying I see it has a positive. But many, many people I talk to do see senate majorities as a positive (sadly), and, if nothing else, they are testament to JWH’s campaigning skills/luck, if not his popularity.
Have just come from watching what passed for Question Time. Reflections on that in a moment.
Re Howard’s schievements - and bear in mind I hate Howard with a passion - sending Australian troops into East Timor to stop the chaos after the independence plebescite. The ALP was so far up Indonesia at the time they would never have done it.
While in principle I agree with Howard’s gun control measures, I wonder ultimately how wise it was. We relied on rural people especially, with their guns, to form guerilla units in WW2 in the event of an imagined Jap. invasion. What wiould we do if ever we were under serious threat of invasion again, with the civilian population unarmed.
Back to the thread. What a display of Liberal political cowardice Question time was. Only about 17 minutes of it went to air, ostensibly because of a dinner for the Canadian PM. And then Howard delayed coming into the chamber as long as he could. John Stonewall Howard. I won’t even start on the Conservative Canadian PM’s disgustingly partisan speech. It surely is a sign of being in the death throes when you have to get foreign leaders to talk up your electoral prospects.
Indeed, Megan, but I imagine when it comes to the crunch Howard can stare them down. They’re mostly his creations (and creatures) after all.
Christian Kerr remembers Russell Cooper:
http://www.crikey.com.au/Blogs/Canberras-answer-to-Russell-Cooper.html
RE: East Timor intervention. Howard had to be dragged kicking and screaming into that one by overwhelming public opinion. He did not want to do it. Any claim to the contrary is historical revisionism.
If I recall correctly, the ALP being in favour of the intervention before Howard was.
Hilarious. Phillip Ruddock or Wilson Tuckey? (no one else might take the poisoned chalice)
Seriously, the Coalition is in the worst position it could have possibly imagined - it might not even have thought that it’s current position was possible.