Almost a year after the former Dear Leader lost the election and his seat of Bennelong, the ABC is “heavily promoting” (something of an understatement) The Howard Years. Will we never be quit of this man? Personally, I intend to watch Good News Week. I’m sure this historical record will mainly be emblematic of the deep sense of self-satisfaction the various interviewees have, and their propensity to knife each other – all the froth and bubble that went on beneath the iron grip that Howard had on all of them. Does anyone care all that much now that it’s history? You tell me.
Meanwhile, the man himself is running out of places to hide. The US no longer offers such a congenial political climate for John Howard, although there’s still Fox News for him to appear on.
It’s interesting how times change. The “big government conservative” is now gettin’ some lovin’ from the Catallaxy crew:
Also, former PM Howard weighs into the financial crisis debate and takes the side of the Austrian libertarian interepretation. [sic]
That would be the claim that the subprime mess, and therefore presumably the global financial crisis, is all the fault of those poor people who wanted to own homes. How this squares with Howard’s own role in promoting aspirationalism and the housing bubble is anyone’s guess. But then truth-telling, and indeed consistency, were never his strong suits. It’s a rather horrendous thing to contemplate as to what sort of approach he’d have taken if he’d been re-elected and the current economic conniptions were occurring on his watch.
Elsewhere: Guy Beres, Public Opinion.
“truth-telling, and indeed consistency, were never his strong suits.”
Will always be remembered (truthfully)as the Lying Rodent.
“When he stepped down”?
No, Neil. We kicked him out.
Circular firing squads R fun so I might watch it, but then again I have to be in bed by 9:30 to get up early so I can go out for a bike ride, so I worry that it might give me nightmares and I won’t sleep thereby ruining my athletic performance on the day…..on the other hand it might give me something else I can blame him for…
But seriously, why bother? Initially (when they were in power) we guessed at all this, now we pretty well know what happened, the rest is minor detail political historians can busy themselves with for the next 30 years until cabinet docs get released and we learn more, though by then I’ll probably be as dead the Rodent is now.
As for Libertarians….well…..Ezra Klien made me laugh with this.
“the political entity that is libertarianism”
Even that’s going too far. It’s a word, but the thing to which it refers has no more to bind it than that word, when you come down to it.
Shouldn’t we learn from history? Relentless Cross-promos for The Howard Years offers the chance to suggest the word Janette would use about her Johnny. This comment is a blatant cross-promo. You can find the cross-post at Blogocrats which has an eccentric but creative commentariat. That’s two.
Anyone else see the ABC “news” last night.
The poor woman presenting winced visibly on each of the three occasions she was forced to plug the miniseries. References to Howard and the program made up about 1/3 of the bulletin.
It’s a “fucking outrage”, as David Cohen might say.
Got it in one with the iron grip thing, Kim.
The reason the Libs lack identity these days is the fact that Howard had them in a squirrel-grip for so long, the poor things turned blue and dropped-off.
This lack of goolies has definitely screwed-up them-up.
Thus we get Emo man and Truffles, without doubt a prime pair of political eunuchs, poor babies. They remember what it was like to have a pair and it must fairly break their little hearts to be powerless, politically impotent and to have to put up with Howard telling them that he did it all for their own good.
“Howard’s back!”
And weren’t we glad to see that.
That would be the claim that the subprime mess, and therefore presumably the global financial crisis, is all the fault of those poor people who wanted to own homes.
.
Well it was – partially. It was really the fault of people who were spending money they didn’t have on stuff that wasn’t really there. As usual. The person that takes out a loan they can’t possibly repay is a sub-set of this. The crucial difference between this sort of person and the Wall St high-flyer selling dodgy financial products is pretty clear. The former will probably face consequences for their actions.
.
How this squares with Howard’s own role in promoting aspirationalism and the housing bubble is anyone’s guess.
.
Look you lefty scum. When the government does a Popakid Grant and a Buyahouse Bribe it’s not an irresponsible electoralist ploy designed to perpetuate a boom and keep the govt in power – no. It’s isn’t; as long as it’s a Tory govt that’s doing it. Remember what Nixon said: If the president does it that means it’s not illegal. Same thing. If the Liberals do it that means it’s not stupid.
.
Apparently Howard’s gonna say he would’ve given Petey the job if Petey hadn’t leaked. It’s Petey’s fault you see. It always is.
.
I want to see more of Howard. I want to see more of Howard on the skids and forced to clean toilets for a living.
Adrian,
I get it now. If only Petey hadn’t said anything, the leadership would’ve been his….clever this John Howard..very clever…
You people seem to know these things, so please inform me.
Is this show going to include learned, objective,informed input and commentary on the doings of the Coalition such that we get a glimpse of the truth and backroom deals with respect to Iraq, WWB, children overboard and so on?
If so I might watch it, well no I won’t I just tealized cos my wife has just acquired 7 years worth of the ‘West Wing’ and she has commandered the telly. But I might take an interest.
Or..
Is it just Howard and his cronies telling us their version of events? [Like that other show some months ago.]
If only Kevvie hadn’t said anything Johhnie would still be PM. He’s happy now over in the States getting the
petrodollar kickbacksrespect he deserves for beinga first class arse kissera Statesman.hannah’s dad, the latter.
Part of the promo is “no commentators, no academics”.
Pure unmediated Howard. And the rest of his mob.
I’ll also be watching Good News Week!
Imagine the rodent using the Global Financial Crisis as the excuse for the “never-ever” extension of SerfChoices. Australia would have raced downwards to compete with the Third World on wages and conditions.
This scenario remains a distinct likelihood should the miserable Liberals ever get back in.
For the sake of our kids, let’s hope it never happens.
Hannah’s Dad, those events you refer to were not the major decisions faced by the government during the Howard years. Instead of extensive plotting by henchmen they were impromptu events, which happened on the fly, & quite possibly were not discussed at all, except peripherally.
Even though the background to those events are seen by some people as some major conspiracy, the way there were done wasn’t really all that big of a deal.
Sight unseen, I expect “The Howard Years” should be a retrospective which may give anyone who could be bothered to watch some background on the more mundane (but more important) decisions which the government had to make re the business of governing.
We’ll have to wait for someone who bothered to watch it to report.
Thanks folks, but its really a moot point.
I informed my wife I may wish to watch 4 corners but she told me she heard a preview on Radio National with Michelle Grattan and apparently the show is full of Johnny saying this and Pete saying that and it sounds awful. Trust her on this.
As she headed back to the tv she suggested that if I wish to watch political fiction I could watch ‘West Wing’ with her.
A far better program than I thought it would be. I esp. liked all the archival footage and had forgotten the sequence of some of the events.
Fark, still can’t believe they weren’t pinned for a conspiracy for the Howard-Reith-Corrigan affair and Reith is still lying/getting the dates wrong all these years later.
Lots of differing accounts edited together nicely which made for good TV and for exposing what a shambles his first term was. Which we all knew. And Howard just dropping Tax Reform (GST etc) on Fahey and Costello on some talkback show.. – the other mob really put a lot of thought into their policies and priorities…not.
We’ll have to wait for someone who bothered to watch it to report
I also watched it – expecting the usual ABC propaganda, but I think they actually did a reasonably balanced job. Most here would not have enjoyed it.
This first program took us through Howard’s first term in which he tightened up gun laws, sacked Pauline Hanson from the Liberal Party, and socked it to the MUA (about 70 years too late).
All unequivocally good, and we have three Howard terms to go!
I suppose that if you are going to make a “Let them tell it in their own words” retrospective you are always going to suffer a lack of narrative direction, particularly as many of the participants attempted narratives are often plainly created after the events related, but all in all I thought it was worthwhile, if not ground breaking. The only really strange bit was watching Peter Reith doing his gigglin Sgt Schulz – “I know nothing” impression. God, that man is a disgusting piece of low life. I expect he even lies to himself.
Why so dismissive? The show was similar to Labor in Power, which was good. I was too young to be politically aware when the events detailed took place.
I have left-leaning friend who admitted to dry retching every time he sees Howard’s face, who watched it to see if it would moderate his attitudes.
‘… sacked Pauline Hanson from the Liberal Party …’
Did they show how he then praised himself for allowing her to roll back all that awful political correctness for him?
I’d go part the way as to Jo’s comments. There was much of value inthe show. but the thing was very narrowly focussed and left out alternative interpretations of some critical events.
Lindsay Tanner asking the question of Reith concerning the Dubai scabs, for example. No interview whatsoever with any Labor politicians, other alternative viewpoints apart from a retired wharfie official, or any attempt to explain Webb Dock in terms other than as “reform”. For many people it was obviously anything but, but as a poster earlier more or less said, this a privileged “history for the Howardists” dressed up as “objective” history.
The treatment of the 1998 election was also shallow- no explication of Gareth Evans’ pre election gaffe and the turn-around of 8% in op polls in the half dozen days before the poll, in its wake.
But with Howard starting to slip from peoples memories as new bogies are drummed up for us by the MSM, it was good to remember why the country got fed up with him. Costello picked the reasons early, but luck sided with the previously unlucky Howard, right up to the removal of Beazley for Rudd and Gillard.
I’ve been missing the lying bastard – great to see him at faux news!
I watched it. Twas Howard’s view of what ‘history’ is and how it should be defined.
Nevertheless, it was a useful reminder of how the media (including the ABC)constructs a particular and peculiar reality.
Yes, quite surprising – not the hatchet job many, including myself, were expecting. Which leads me to wonder whether Fran or her producers had to go cap-in-hand all the way to board level for approval of her working holiday from RN. And whether they in turn agreed, but only subject to strict editorial conditions.
Not history, not even documentary, but I loved it.
I was reminded why I could never quite bring myself to dislike either Reith or Vanstone—they were the only ones who showed any sense of insight or humanity. Reith could out-Richard anyone playing Richard III.
Minchin, on the other hand. Mmmm. Minchin.
Reith, Liam? You gotta be kidding. He’s one of the most evil and least appealling of all of them!
As I said before, it was promoted as the inside story with no commentary or analysis.
It was apparently an explicit condition of Howard agreeing to be interviewed that this would be so.
So it’s no great surprise.
It was well worth seeing. First rate in fact. We should never forget just how far to the Right Howard tried to drag this country and just what a low, cynical period the Howard years were.
If you ever had even the smallest doubt that there is only one decent side of politics these days you should drag a tape of this out to jolt you back to your senses.
There were things I’m ashamed to say that I had completely forgotten about – like the very large stripping away of funds from Aboriginal affairs when Howard first came to office. Remember last year, during the intervention, the sincere and heartfelt concern that Libs had for indigenous Australians, concern that only the most rabid Howard-hater could doubt?
Did they show how he then praised himself for allowing her to roll back all that awful political correctness for him?
I must have missed that bit. Did it really happen?
I am sure that they missed out the bit where Labor shamelessly try to wedge conservative voters over Hanson even after Howard had ejected her from the party. Howard took a courageous decision on gun laws which made him vulnerable to the Hanson assault. Are you honest enough to give him credit for sticking to his guns?
Yes, Ken, they did. Cossie nailed it as “the wrong speech, in the wrong place at the wrong time”.
Cossie also had the best epithet for Howard – “relentless”.
It was very noticeable how they wrote Greg Combet out of the MUA dispute. He simply didn’t exist. The ABC is still basically gutless.
Liam ..and Elle McFeast who used to jump all over and try and pash Reith on her program in the last days of the Keating years. (An ‘orrible TV moment I had to share.)
Yeah they did Ken, the very speech. The program is putting time into the many splits between Costello and Howard for obvious reasons – including their split on One Nation. According to Tip, he decided to put Pauline last and announced it without the Party/Howard on board – Howard couldn’t remember the 45 min telephone call to Tip in the wake of….Anyway Ratty wasn’t going to direct preferences but this started the ball rolling.
Dunno what show you were watching PeterTB.
I was in Vic back then and Kennett was particularly anti-Hanson and Victoria had the smallest One Nation support – whether this was because of demographics primarily as well as Jeff’s opposition but either way, I suspect it may have emboldened Tip towards a similar position.
Mine crossed with Brian @ 31.
PeterTB, the speech I’m referring to in 31 above was Howard to the Qld Liberal Party 6 months or so after not commenting on Pauline where all he said is isn’t it great that people can now express their views. The program also emphasised, perhaps by selection, that Pauline was more concerned about Asians than guns.
I did not get much further than the intro before I was cursing Foxtel for being knocked out by the storms and I just had to stick a DVD on instead of having to relive the Rodent all over.
But I will say that I noticed that all the adjectives applied to Howard all centered on his basic lust to attain and retain power. Nothing more, nothing less.
Fran Kelly is not even a closet Tory. I can’t stand her. Everything she writes and says may as well be subtitled “written and authorised by Fran Kelly and Liberal Party of Australia”.
I think the program was pretty well put together, and despite what a lot of Coalition supporters (e.g. Christopher Pearson) have no doubt been fretting about excitedly, Fran Kelly and the ABC did not turn the program into a anti-Howard hatefest. It was pretty well balanced.
Sure, Kelly did not have a lot of people outside of the Howard Government groupthink bubble giving their opinion, but then that was not the point of the program. The point of the program was to present the insights of those who were actually involved in the government’s machinations. It was interesting to see a few of the folks we haven’t heard from in a while (e.g. Reith, Anderson, Fischer) and a few folks we basically don’t hear from at all (e.g. Costello’s advisors, Howard’s former chief of staff Arthur Sinodinos) offering their points of view.
Oh, and Costello was dead right about Howard’s response to Pauline Hanson. It was seven months late.
Howard’s tenure as Dear Leader convinced me we need a second amendment.
Crossed again, jo. I agree very much with your comment back at 17.
Also what wpd said.
Now I’m off to bed.
GB #29, are you of the belief that funds used in the aboriginal industry were used to improve the lot of aborigines? Bwahahahahaha… as if that was ever going to happen.
There may be only one decent side of politics, but whichever side that is, it currently has no representation in Australia. Decency is the exception, in all parties. In case you are wondering, it is politics which comes first (actually it is votes first, politics second, everything else only gets considered once those two are fed & watered)
Tyro @ 35 – yep, Fran Kelly is one of the biggest Liberal spruikers on the ABC – part of their generally disgraceful “news” coverage.
Incidentally, does anyone remember whether “Labor in Power” was similarly restricted to Hawke/Keating government pollies and insiders? I just searched the ABC shop to see if the dvd is available, and surprise, surprise, it’s not.
I thought the gun control laws was a terrific legacy of Howard’s first term. But I do get annoyed at all the stuff about brave Johnny forcing through this unpopular measure. There was massive support for gun control at the time and bipartisan support from the ALP, for which poor Kim Beazley is never given any credit.
Lefties complaining how the lack of commentary is what made it pro-Liberal, obviously don’t remember the explosive back-biting and dysfunction that was shown in Labor in Power, which was presented in exactly the same non-commented way.
ABC news coverage is at times disgraceful, but to suggest there is any bias toward the liberal party is a joke beyond parody.
One only has to watch the evening news to see the glaring slant which can be put on stories, or which stories are ..well just plain absent.
It can of course take a bit of practice if one is one-eyed to begin with. Those who strut around calling John Howard “rodent”, George Bush “dubya” the Australian newspaper the “g-g” (as if these expressions are mainstream slang) are unlikely to recognise bias in ABC news covereage (far more subtley done) as it only reinforces their personal prejudices.
WTF!?
What planet are you from, Mark? Fran Kelly is one of the most anti-Howard journalists in the media, and fits in well with the culture at Radio National.
It really weighs heavily on your credibility when you make ridiculous statements like that.
Elsewhere: Guy Beres.
I believe it was originally released on Video, but hasn’t recieved a DVD release, tho I’m pretty sure any decent University LIbrary will have a copy on video acquired via ABC Content Sales.
“no commentators, no academics”.
Yeah, when I saw that I read ” no analysis, no criticism” , but watched it anyway, and thought it was great. I’ll be watching the lot.
What I loved about it was how their own conflicting versions established beyond doubt a. That Reith couldn’t lie straight in bed, and b. what a pathetic weasel Costello is, whining now about Howard, but never drew the sword.
Its no snow job, to my mind – some of the edits are vicious i.e. “the man who just spoke was lying, according to this former colleague”.
It brought back a full on time- that first Howard govt promoted more or less constant struggle and protest in my world… not to mention Hanson.
Stephen lloyd – the point’s been made here on numerous occasions in critiques of the poor quality of ABC news journalism that Fran Kelly’s sole idea of presenting a story and interviewing people is to recite the latest Liberal Party talking points. It may well be that when Howard was in power, she recited the latest Labor Party talking points. It’s this level of vacuity and “balance” that produces bias, not necessarily whatever her personal politics may be (and I have no idea what they are.)
It was also reported in the endless build up to this thing that Howard had an effective veto over the interviewer as well. If he’d thought Kelly was “anti-Howard”, she wouldn’t have been there. Full stop.
Aussie pollies at their worst are still complete wimps (and nongs) compared to the serious geo-psycho-sexual-cultural knife fight politics that go on in other G32 countries.
Sure locally they talk big and rude but even Howard never stooped as low as McCain/Palin did in late October this year. I was there in the US during the final weeks and even Fox News was visibly repulsed by the depths of the barrel that was being scrabbled in by hard right christoPAClicking Republicans. They made the NSW ALP right look cool, classy and competent by comparison.
Even tho ugh both Australian political parties went the hardcore attack in 2007, it was still pretty fucking wimpy by US standards in 2008. Which itself was bloody wimpy by US standards in 1876.
When it comes to Aus pollies, they all have to live among a 20 million+ community and well beyond their career trajectories. This enormous empty country’s too small for bitter empty spoilers in the long run. And ones that could be like that never really do.
Now I’m looking forward to Janette Howard writing an autobiography that’ll make Nancy Reagan’s ‘My Turn’ read like a smug yet bitter ghostwritten trompe-l’œil a clef.
Or vice-versa.
Great viewing tonight.
The Lord Dolly pulling his pants down – without request.
Has there ever been a more unctuous character in all the canon than Graeme Morris?
Reith seems to have developed early onset something or other, but the rest seemed prepared to tell it almost like it was. Striking how aimless the first Howard term was. The only time Howard seemed to care was when someone was having a go at him – guns and Wik got him up and about. But unless he’s taking heavy fire- it’s like he has no purpose. Little Digger indeed.
But why does Peter Costello have such trouble walking when there are cameras around?
That feeling will only get worse when we get to E Timor, Jenny.
Addendum.
Of course, when benchmarking local pollies against elsewhere, one should remember that Australia’s made a tasty global career out of both betting…and bidding…low.
Mark.
You can get Labor in Power on DVD here.
http://www.enhancetv.com.au/shop/product.php?productid=103497&cat=328&page=9
And here is the first segment of Labor In Power.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=9QfS_I-4wd4
And I “think” that’s Fran Kelly doing the Narration.
Hendo has opened both barrels on the program and more broadly one of his fave targets the ABC; although as far as I can tell he does not actually make any criticisms of the two episodes he has seen, besides lamenting that there’s nothing really new on offer.
Is Hendo ever happy (about anything), I wonder?
Fran’s as objective as they come, we can safely conclude.
Not often, Kim. Mainly only when he’s considering the remarkable virutes of Janette Howard.
It almost reads like Hendo by rote.
He seems more excited by the Chifley and Menzies docos. Bob Ellis is a leftie! Chifley wasn’t that anti-communist! No righties were interviewed about Menzies!
And it’s got his usual Santamarian McCarthyite tone.
Does anyone else really care about this shite? I mean, how much influence on “history” will these programs really have? Boring obsessions subsitute for debate as usual.
I thought it wasn’t that bad. It’s a good reminder of what an opportunistic, slimy character Howard was at his core. Everything was up for grabs, anything could be used purely for political advantageous reasons. Shame his rabid anti-unionism was the very thing that brought him undone. A real shame.
wbb @ 50,
I know at times Graeme Morris can come across as dodgy but honestly out of all the Lib commentators I’ve ever heard I still think he comes across as the closest to being balanced. Or at least seems pretty fair whenever he’s on Sky’s Agenda with Bruce Hawker which is usually weekly.
The format of the program lets the pollies get away with too much.
For example, Costello was said to be “ashen-faced” when he “discovered” after the 1996 victory the “truth” that the Federal government was $9bn in debt.
Costello was well aware of this fact before the 2006 election, yet used his disingenuous ignorance as a pretext for the big cuts in his first budget.
When it is possible to prove that pollies lie, that should be the first duty of both journalists and historians.
Hanson was disendorsed prior to the 1996 election.
Quite a bit of history packed into one hour – I would have liked a longer format. And we’ll have to wait another twenty years for the cabinet documents to find a bit more out on what really happened – the “personal recollections” are going to be self-serving. Also – Sinodinos clearly a very handy operator.
Peter Brent makes a good point about the “narrative bs” involved in these sorts of things.
I’d forgotten how awful the speech to the reconciliation convention looked.
I wasn’t in Aus until 1998 (my goods and chattels were held up on the waterfront, as it happens) so some of this was new to me. Out of these comments, the most interesting thing to me is how often “I’d forgotten…” and similar phrases are being re-iterated. I was rivetted, and couldn’t believe Peter Reith. He seemed like a fictional character in his stupidity.
M-H, I think that’s my answer to Mark. Reith had a sense of theatre and self-awareness most of the others lacked.
He was never of the American style of genuine political Badness, in the Dick Cheney/Spiro Agnew/Henry Kissinger mould. He wouldn’t even have been much of a match for genuinely awful Australian reactionaries, like Reg Withers or NSW’s own David Clarke.
Reith was the right-winger that lefties want to exist, an anti-union thug from Central Casting, a bit silly and always willing to tell the audience all about his Evil Plans. You could well imagine him appearing stage right in a puff of smoke behind the Hero and the Cat In Boots. The Minister for Industrial Relations? MISTER SPEAKER HE’S BEHIND YOU!
I didn’t find Reith’s little panto of absentmindedness and ineffectuality convincing at all.
It beggars belief that he didn’t know of the training program in Dubai, or anywhere else for that matter.
He wasn’t going to offer $250m as redundancy payments to Corrigan unless he could be assured that there was a workforce ready to replace the previous one.
Why wasn’t he asked that question? This is another example of the failing of the format of the program.
I’ve read the Hendo column twice and still not sure on what point he was making (other than the ABC is full of lefties). Is he trying for a redundancy from Fairfax by being redundant?
First Dog on the Moon has some insight into what it would be like to breakfast with Gerard.
Katz and Liam:
I thought the program nailed ONE of Nice Mr Reith’s evasions, when it pointed out that the guard dogs arrived on the wharves at precisely the moment when Mr Reith’s office put out an 11pm Press Release. [I mean, why did such a Nice Minister have his staff working back so late?]
What still amazes me (from “Bastard Boys”) is that an insider tipped the unions off to the Dubai training scheme BEFORE the lads even reached Tullamarine to fly over there. TV news cameras poked in the faces of taciturn volunteers. Priceless.
You’re quite riught about Mr Reith: he never could keep his trap (sufficiently) shut.
Was he really the best choice to have carriage of “Children Overboard”? I think not. A little retirement gift to the Govt. Semi-competence abounds (though in that case, near-to-incompetent press “scrutiny” has to take a bow, too.)
In Hendo’s simple minded world where everything’s either good (conservative) or bad (leftist), the Howard government, and in particular Dear Leader himself committed the cardinal sin of entrusting their version of history to the hateful leftist and terminally biased ABC (except for Insiders). The only one with any sense was Dear Jeanette, who refused to participate.
Round #56814 in the Cuture Wars.
“I’d forgotten how awful the speech to the reconciliation convention looked.”
And Howard’s (possibly unkindly edited to be his only) comment on that?
“In retrospect, if I’d been less [casts about for the right word] enthusiastic it would have made for better television”
BETTER FUCKING TELEVISION?!?!?!?
Another funny moment, when Howard’s talking about the dogs on the wharves. “Well I knew it’d get some skin and hair flying”.
Ummm… yeah, okaaaay… You could see him realising the Freudian slip as it came out of his mouth.
First Hendo. David Day’s thesis on Menzies’ wartime relationship with Churchill has been around for years. David Williamson used it as the basis for the first part of his TV series, The Last Bastion. Few historians agree completely with Day on this, regardless of their political alignment. My book, The Brisbane Line Controversy, which covers most of the same material in its first half, disagrees with Day here, and that was years ago. Menzies certainly was mightily pissed off with Churchill for abandoning Australia, and there’s no doubt that’s precisely what Churchill did.And they certainly argued heatedly.The main criticism that can be made of Menzies’ London sojourn is that he was diplomatically ineffective.
And btw, he was well aware he could never become war-time PM of Britain.Its not mentioned anywhere in his papers, including his extremely revealing diary.From 1938 right through to 1941,on his several trips o/s, Menzies was duchessed by a whole stream of right wingers, in Britain and to a much lesser extent in Europe, including Adolf Hitler.
Now to the Howard Years.
Peter reith lied all the time.
John Howard lied most of the time.
Dolly and Costello seem to have told the truth, so far.
And why didn’t Fran Kelly interview Pauline Hanson. Whatever one might think of her, she was a major political player of the time. Was Kelly as gutless about her as she was about Greg Combet?
One can only hope we get a fuller picture in future episodes, but I doubt it.
I think it’s interesting how different political perspectives view series like this.
It seems to me that those that would never vote Liberal in a fit tend to write this series off as a Lib talkfest whilst Liberals like myself think it’s a non-partisan, interesting series giving some insight into the cabinet dynamic during the period.
On the other hand, I remember watching Labor in Power and thinking what a self-indulgent Labor bitch fight it all seemed to be. Meanwhile, my ALP mates were wetting themselves over each episode!
All this goes to show how hard it must be to produce critical documentary journalistic exposes of former governments analysing cabinet tensions in such a way as to cut through the often tribal political affiliations of the audience.
Generally, I’m happy with the analysis-free design of the series. The last thing series like that need is a dose of the usual suspects: Hendo, Marr, Kingston, P. Kelly etc.
Couldn’t stand to watch the lies, self justification, pompous evasions, not to mention unasked questions and Peter Reith playing the village idiot for all it’s worth. Which isn’t much.
Mind you, Good News Week was also unwatchable. Back when it was on the ABC it was generally good, witty and amusing and occasionally satiric.
Now it’s full of people who think that they’re funny because they talk about sex all the time, but are actually boring and trying way too hard. What a waste of Paul McDermott’s talent.
The best bit (glossed over) was when the International Longshore and Warehouse Union closed the whole rotten Dubai scam down.
Australian government and Corrigan’s shadowy `Plan A’ completely defeated by international solidarity, in about 10 minutes.
With regard to Howard, Katz, that might have involved perhaps an 11 year long documentary to document all the lies.
Hmmm, though contra Hendo, it’s hard to see who else would have made it. Sky News? Wouldn’t have had the money. Commercial free to air? Ha! Yep – the Howard Years – bigger than Australian Idol?
If the Howard Years was made by commercial free to air, it would be entitled,
“See How the Sun Shines Out of his Arse”, or something similar.
I missed the first 20 minutes or so, but I think wbb nailed it at 50:
I always wondered why he was so keen on the GST – it kept Costello occupied for the best part of a year and gave him plenty of fuel to be indignant about. What a strange, narcissistic little man he is, to be so fuelled by negativity.
I agree that adding the usual suspect commentators would have devalued it. Damn it, the Libs got their 11.5 years in the sunshine, so I want to hear from them. I don’t care if they lie, or tell the truth – I just want to hear them say it. Watching Reith lie barefaced to the camera with a smile was good telly.
Bias this, bias that – rubbish. It’s their story in their words. If it was going to be an ABC hatchet job, we wouldn’t hear anything from them. The irony is that all these pollies from the right actually trust the ABC to do it properly, despite accusing them of left-leaning bias for so long.
Kim, it could have been shown on channel 10, in which case it would have been called Howard and Co: The Sexy Years…
Peter Reith’s claim that he didn’t know what was going on in Dubai was followed by Corrigan saying in essence, he asked me directly and I told him. But Fran gave Corrigan the last say on the MUA thing, always a problem as to who is granted that advantage, but in this case inappropriate without a word at all from Combet.
On the whole it displayed what a scungy mob they all were, and I’m sorry that includes Amanda Vanstone. She may have redeeming features, although they have never been obvious to me. She began badly by her enthusiasm for university funding cuts, her general stupidity on education policy and didn’t get any better from there.
She only looked a bit decent on immigration in comparison with the zombie who preceded her. Coming to think of it, where was he in the program? I suppose he’ll star in the next episode.
Steve at the pub: there’s no argument that many in the “aboriginal industry” as you call it misused funds or that those funds weren’t used effectively. But there’s two things to remember here. First, ATSIC – which is what I presume you mean by the “aboriginal industry” – had its areas of responsiblity steadily reduced, so there was less and less chance that the “aboriginal industry” was ever going to do much about improving the lot of aboriginals, especially in areas like health. And second, it was Mark Latham who effectively ended ATSIC when he said that he would abolish ATSIC (the government soon followed his lead).
Who in their right mind would argue against taking money away from programs that weren’t working? But a government that quarantined cuts to the defence budget could also do the same for aboriginal affairs and instead spend the money more wisely (if they cared so deeply about the welfare of aboringals).
One good side effect of the intervention is that it has shown just how little aboriginal communities were getting in the way of resources.
….by resources I mean very basic services that the rest of us would take for granted in communities of similar size – a police presence, teachers that actually live in your community. If there was an “aboriginal industry” it didn’t do a very good job of getting its fair share of the pie.
“She only looked a bit decent on immigration in comparison with the zombie who preceded her. Coming to think of it, where was he in the program? I suppose he’ll star in the next episode.”
He’s in the hold of a ship bound for Bremen, in a box full of dirt and rats.
Why would anyone watch that crap. It was offensive when it was real. To watch a rerun would have to be some weird kind of voyeurism.
The most interesting thing about “The Howard Years” doco has been the pre and post commentary from some of the converative commentators. Pearson in the The Australian on the weekend did his “we don’t trust the ABC and we will be wataching and will judge if it has been fair in our eyes, event though the Boss agreed to be on it”.
Then today, Gerald looked everywhere to find a spec to be critical of, and then ended by saying, in effect, it must have been a wonky program because Janette refused to be part of it (which just goes to provide that SHE was really running the country for a decade!).
I thought it was an interesting show which dealt very kindly with Howard’s first term legacy. The two most interesting people were Costello who came across as bitter and twisted (was he like this for the whole of the decade?) and Reith, who, long after he has left the scene, is such a pathological avoider of the truth, that he just doesn’t know when he can be honest with the rest of us let along with himself.
Repentance is not in the liars interest. It amazed me that so many believed these serial deceivers for as long as they did.
Am I correct in my recollection that the only interviewee in the first episode who wasn’t a former Liberal or National party staffer, politician, party official or public servant under the Howard government was Meg Lees?
What other Australian media organisation do Pearson and Hendo imagine will devote necessary time and resources to making such a program?
Sadly for the Libs, it was the ABC or no one.
(Although it would be amusing to see “A Current Affair” “do” the Libs in the same way as they “do” purveyors of dodgy weight reduction programs and failed building contractors. “Why don’t you want to come out and talk to the people you cheated Mr Howard?”)
Andrew – also Corrigan.
You are right, Katz, the Libs hate the ABC, but they know that no one else will do anything so they are stuck with what the ABC will do such a program. This explains why they went to such trouble to “change” the culture of the ABC through stacking the board.
With the demise of “Sunday”, there is absolutely nothing left on the commercials which could considered as quality journalism.
Another thought. Could you imagine what the ABC would be like if it was run by someone like Gerard Henderson?
We would have gentlemen in tweed jackets sitting on stiff backed chairs rading Menzies biographies…or worse!
There’s precious little ‘quality journalism’ left at the ABC, unfortunately.
SBS could have probably done a better job – they seem to have a little more courage, anyway.
No doubt Dear Leader would have thought that broadcasting it on the multicultural broadcaster would have sent the wrong message. Plus, he’d have probably got a smaller audience for the coalition’s version of the history of the greatest government Australia has ever known.
On the topic of Ratty’s YouTube star turn on RupertWorld, Ratty warned against comparing the current economic crisis with the Great Depression. Apparently such a comparison may stampede the herd.
Howard deprecates commentators who say the the current crisis is “the worst crisis since the Great Depression”.
This, of course raises the very practical question what is the current crisis the worst one since?
Is it okay, for example, to say that the current crisis is the worst crisis since the crisis of 1919-1920 (unless one doesn’t count the intervening event what should not be mentioned)?
Cossie comes out of this mess the best : looking like a superannuated Hamlet who never drew his sword. You don’t need outsiders to condemn the Howard government , they do it with their own mealy mouths.
I interviewed Reith once whilst doing some research. He was an odd character. Very friendly, alternating between smoking eating tic-tacs, terrible posture. What was really striking was that he not one iota of an idea that there might be just a bee’s dick of difference between the concepts of what’s legal and what’s ethical. If something’s legal – just do it.
“Another thought. Could you imagine what the ABC would be like if it was run by someone like Gerard Henderson?”
It feels like it is already.
Andrew, FDB – also Pat Dodson for a snippet about Howard being cranky and not talking to him after being heckled at the reconciliation shindig.
They asked for a single-word description of Howard. The best I could do at the start of the show was two words (lying c**t). By halfway through the show I’d added “racist” and towards the end it got ridiculous, with “union-busting” and “self-obsessed” (are those one word or two?) added in as well.
He’s far too complex to sum up in a single word, although Tip’s “relentless” wasn’t a bad attempt.
Am looking forward to next week’s episode – the herbal tea bag that destroyed a political party. Should be fun.
93 Fine
Ha! I’ll never forget the first time I saw Reith in the flesh.
I thought “Good Heavens, this guy has missed his calling – he should be playing ‘The Hunchback of Notre Dame’ on screen or on stage somewhere!”
There needs to be a warning before programs such as this just as for violence, drugs, boobies and stuff.
“The following program contains lawyers doing what lawyers do better than just about everyone else….”
Such an odd background to serving your country and it’s inhabitants.
Yer, I wonder what that is all about Andrew @97.
I am a bit surprised that no one on this thread, that I have noticed, has taken up the shows challenge of providing one word to describe John Howard. Maybe it would just get out of hand.
99 joe2
I think the one word focussed on the person is a symptom of the problem.
It’s the democracy (all of us) who let that person do what they did that’s more important, and where the word should be aimed.
He reflected who we were, both internally and externally for 11 years,
“dumb” is my word – it works for the individual and the group.
I always thought it was a Rhodesian Ranger disguised as a South African Student unionist in your party’s case Andrew.
Mark – Part of the promo is “no commentators, no academics”. Pure unmediated Howard. And the rest of his mob.
.
.
Indeed.
.
I don’t recall that Labor in Power had much by way of academics or commentators featuring either.
.
Won’t be watching it. No TV. I remember Labor in Power, it was very good. I have my doubts that Libs will be as entertaining. They are famously boring. Perhaps Mr Downer can be persuaded to wear the fishnets and stilettos that I feel certain are commonplace in private life for some reason.
.
I do wish Howard had passed the leadership on. Peter Costello seems to need to have it demonstrated in the most brutal and final way: he just isn’t very popular. He’d lose.
.
Course, Howard was a loser for about twenty years.
A lot fo people hate John Howard I know. I don’t. I think of him more as the smeely fellow in the adjacent veal fattening pen at the office. Y’know the one who likes to listen to the radio at a reasonable volume and enjoys trimming his nasal hair at the weekly staff meeting. Like that only on TV every night.
.
But we were all children once. And l’il Johhnie was as cute and full of life as any precious little darling.
.
Um
“Am I correct in my recollection that the only interviewee in the first episode who wasn’t a former Liberal or National party staffer, politician, party official or public servant under the Howard government was Meg Lees?”
No – there were words from the MUA union guy – John Coombs? Bill Kelty? Time has not been kind to whichever it was.
Interesting quote from Bill pertaining to the ABC “…I would find it abhorrent to take on the ABC – it would be like suing my mother”
Makes a nice bookend to Barry Cohen’s comment to Phil Adams “Oh, by the way, Phillip, of course the ABC has a left-wing bias. Why the hell do you think we love it?”
Tell me again how the ABC is unbiased – I love fairy stories
Peter TB, FYI the ABC is currently biased – in favour of the conservatives.
The 8.30 news break had lead story that an ex Liberal premier of Victoria had criticised the state labour govt. WTF?? This is the most important news of the day?
ABC News is currently little better than the commercials – in some cases worse.
“No – there were words from the MUA union guy – John Coombs? Bill Kelty? Time has not been kind to whichever it was.”
It was John Coombs. Surprising what ten years can do to you when you were mid sixties to start with. Maybe we can all be Peter Pan like you. Anyway, enough of that.
I always thought the wharfies got away with murder so a bit of a wake up call didn’t do them any harm. But I was appalled by Howard’s sledgehammer meet walnut approach.
I have one very distinct memory of this saga. I was working in the same building (BT Tower, 1 Market St) at the time of negotiations. I stood in the foyer, absolutely dumbfounded, as Corrigan (quite a big bloke) was hustled in, surrounded by at least twenty goons of various description, all talking into their sleeves, straight to a pre-booked lift. Thirty seconds later, Coombs wandered in – on his own, literally (his helpers obviously followed without being noticed or were already up on L15). He was smallish and carried nothing but a briefcase. He had a smile and a g’day for everyone and anyone who wanted one. And then suddenly the little man was gone. That cameo told me all I needed to know about who was right and who was wrong. Last night’s farcical coverage of events also told me another thing. The winners don’t always get to write history. I don’t know about anyone else, but I could see Auntie Janet’s dab hand all over this.
I’ve just made it through the section on Port Arthur and the gun laws; it was just nauseating.
How politically brave is a Prime Minister acting with support from both major parties and 70% of the population? And the “people that put him in office” weren’t the rusted-on rural conservatives (who have always voted Conservative and continue to do so), but the citizens of outer suburbs of our major cities.
His only serious opposition were the rural types in the Coalition partyroom. But where the hell were they going to go?
Jesus, Adrien @ 103 – that’s a face only a mother could love … or perhaps not.
The Big O @ 106 – most people forget why the wharfies were so militant (and stole everything that wasn’t nailed down). Until fairly recently, it was hard, dirty, dangerous and poorly-paid work that made you old before your time, just like the building and mining industries. Funny, their unions are militant as well.
“Peter TB, FYI the ABC is currently biased – in favour of the conservatives”
There goes your credibility adrian. I’ll go with Kelty and Cohen I think
“Maybe we can all be Peter Pan like you”
Bit techy today Roy?
“But I was appalled by Howard’s sledgehammer meet walnut approach”
When you are dealing with hardened criminals, you have to make sure you sort them out first time. The WWF/MUA had been bleeding this country dry for decades, and those you were laid off were lucky to receive generous severance pay, and those who stayed on got the satisfaction of finally contributing something to society.
Unfair do you think? Maybe I’m influenced by a discussion I had with a friend who witnessed an earlier generation of WWF preventing ships being loaded in FNQ with supplies for our diggers fighting the Japs in New Guinea.
I finally had a listen to the Rodent’s Rant at the head of the post – we can’t watch YouTube at work (bastards! a bloke’s just trying to optimise a bit of time after all). I reckon he was pissed. Not just a little bit pissed, but three-bottles-of-red-with-a-whiskey-chaser pissed.
Fucker.
David Irving #109, Just how dangerous was it for the wharfies who went on strike in WW2? Compared to the danger faced by the blokes for whom the cargo was destined?
Here we go – it’s the death beast version of that nice old childrens story as told by Maggie Thatcher: Why Unions Are Evil.
Tell you what, try reading this document and see how many times it was necessary to use dogs and to slaver for a bit of “fur flying” as Howard, Reith and Corrigan wanted?
Notice, in that document, that all the disputes were resolved without the explicit threat of violence. Your little Howard hero didn’t even have the excuse of a war, he was just helping out his mate Corrigan. That, my friends, is just pathetic like everything he ever did (he couldn’t even do fascism right).
Wrong link DR. Nothing about dogs there – it’s all about certain cases of the use of armed forces during wharf disputes.
Is there a similar document about the use of armed forces during disputes with airline pilots?
SATP – I’ve spoken to blokes who’ve been to war (including my father). It’s 99% boredom and 1% sheer terror, apparently. Working on the wharves is different, but no less dangerous.
David Rubie, you will have noticed that many of the union claims about what could be achieved (or rather, could not be achieved) in terms of volume of work done, has been shown to have been false.
According to the Union (at the time of the dispute) it was not possible to shift the volumes of cargo that is now being moved.
This is from people who worked the waterfront their whole lives, and they didn’t even know what rate cargo could be moved at? (Until they got their arses kicked & made to do some work that is)
Indisputably, it is more than just the government of the day who was lying.
PeterTB – you’ve just made Dave’s point for him. Congratulations!
Peter Reith said “I didn’t know this”, Corrigan said “Reith actually knew this”.
As the battery of lawyers, or lawyer inclined types, who comment here will know, the above sentence would indicate that somebody is mistaken/lying, but it need not be Peter Reith.
Would it be breaking new ground (at LP) for a union-busting, scab hiring, guard dog sooling CEO to be taken unquestioningly at his word?
Somebody try repeating comment #115 loudly in an RSL club, or at the Gunfire Breakfast in the RSL on Anzac Day.
If you do, for god’s sake have a video cam, & publish the consequences…er.. I mean.. the outcome.
steve at the pub, productivity was a lot higher at the Port of Adelaide, run by a company (I forget which – it’s ten years ago) which wasn’t owned by Corrigan – with good relations with the union. It wasn’t just work practices which were the issue, though no doubt it was to some extent, and it’s well known that some MUA folks accepted that – and it was publicly stated at the time by Combet etc. that a restructuring package akin to what Hawke had put in place would have been sufficient to ensure changes to work organisation.
For a range of reasons, Corrigan wanted to go down the confrontational route, and the ideological armoury of the NFF, the HR Nicholls Society etc. and all the one-eyed union busters were there for the asking – along with a highly duplicitous government.
An objective assessment of the management and work practices on the waterfront doesn’t preclude a realisation that Reith and Howard and others were (a) looking for some sort of confrontation akin to Thatcher’s miners’ dispute or Reagan’s breaking of the air traffic controllers; (b) underhanded and lying.
steve at the pub said:
Oh of course, which makes it perfectly acceptable for a conspiracy of government and private interests to bring in the dogs. I can’t wait for that to happen to the AMA and the various state bar organisations or the accountants steve. After all, can’t those lazy bastards work a little harder? I’m sure those accountants are wasting 50% of their billable hours on redtube. What about you? Can I bring my dog in to make sure you fill my pot all the way up or make sure the glasses are clean?
“Congratulations!”
Thanks – but Dave’s (may I call him that) point relies on nuance. He says ”
resolved without the explicit threat of violence” note the use of the word “explicit”.
When you read his linked document, you see that in most cases listed there were implicit threats, and probably actual violence against unionists. For example, in the 1951 case where ships “were loaded by RAAF personnel after naval ratings manned tugs to berth the two freighters”, I don’t imagine that the unionists didn’t try to physically oppose these actions.
In any event, in 1998 there was almost no actual violence on the part of Patricks or the Government. How many MUA members were injured?
David Irving “…most people forget why the wharfies were so militant (and stole everything that wasn’t nailed down)”
It’s actually a lot simpler than that David. It’s about leverage.
Where you have a relatively small number of workers able to inflict heavy costs on employers for little effort you get militant unions. This usually means that industries which are heavily mechanised will attract militant unions such as the examples you give, and storemen and packers at oil depots and breweries, power workers etc etc.
In contrast, you won’t find say retail workers out on strike any time soon.
What’s you point PeterTB? Threats of violence are enough to make the whole episode totally unacceptable whether anybody was hurt or not. The government and Patricks had plenty of other legal (and moral) avenues to explore to “lift productivity” but as Mark pointed out, they chose none of them.
My point is that when you confront a bully such as the MUA, which had been not only threatening violence regularly over many years, holding employers and the country to ransom on innumerable occasions, and committing actual acts of vandalism, theft and physical violence, you are entitled to use reasonable force, and to bring in the military.
Just like that earlier Government did when confronting those violent airline pilots.
Oh wait…….
Point of historical fact for PeterTB.
The airline pilots to whom you refer RESIGNED in the foolish assumption that they were irreplacable.
Then they were replaced.
PeterTB wrote:
Not in a democratic society you aren’t. In a despotic one, sure, but we don’t particularly want to live like that, thanks.
One word to describe Howard? deceitful.
Katz @ 126, you made a point I was going to make, too. i was going to ask, violent airline pilots?
How is it the RWDBs can NEVER get their union history right?
RWDB rarely get anything right. And Peter TB talks about credibility. Good for a laugh, though.
SATP, as a bloke who is entitled to march on ANZAC day (for historical reasons rather than personal war service), I wouldn’t dream of saying that war service and wharf service were the same to other ex-servicemen, particularly as that was never what I wrote. You should try reading for comprehension, mate, but I guess that isn’t your strong suit.
Paul Burns: turn up your sarcasm detection meter. Clue: “Oh wait……”
David Rubie: “Not in a democratic society you aren’t”
Sure you are. Despotic ones are characterised by the use of unreasonable force.
adrian: ” Peter TB talks about credibility”
Still smarting?
katz: “The airline pilots to whom you refer RESIGNED in the foolish assumption that they were irreplacable”
And that was OK by you was it?
ps Glad to see you back after your drubbing at the hands of MarkL
PeterTB wrote:
Peter, you’re trying to bash yourself with a clue stick and missing. Aim for the forehead son.
Yes Peter TB or not TB, still smarting all right. Your cutting wit, incisive repartee and perceptive analysis of the issues gets me every time. You are indeed an island of insight amid the shark infested waters of the left wing media and blogsphere that you so cunningly expose.
PS – You don’t work for Hendo do you? Maybe you’re employed to trawl through his e-mail correspondence, a job that would be a suitable match for your talents.
David Rubie: Let me be sure that I understand you. Are you asserting that authorities may not use reasonable force in a democratic society?
Peter, the problem is your definition of “reasonable force”. Dogs are not reasonable.
adrian – That would be a yes?
Apologies to all – I must away now – hopefully to resume festivities late this evening
Presumably yet another instance of Howard’s horribleness is not entirely OT.
I’ve just come back from down town where I ran into a Muslim friend of mine who’s just sat his citizenship test.(Where in Armidale I don’t know; I didn’t ask him.) If he passes,which he’ll know in a fortnight, he’ll get his citizenship papers. But … before he gets his citizenship he’ll have to pay a fee of $270. To say that I was shocked to discover he had to pay so much – or anything for that matter – is to put it lightly.This was one of Jackboot Johnny’s final gifts of service to his country.
It appears the poor are not fit to be citizens. I’m disgusted.
Paul B,
at least with the cost of a passport, we can say: “if she’s well-off enough to be travelling overseas, she can afford the fee.”
Citizenship is basic.
It’s interesting that Liberal supporters – who are supposed to be all about individual rights – support mass, indiscriminate sackings (collective punishment, in other words) and breaches of freedom of association.
There’s a part of me – a very small part – that wishes Howard had been allowed to fully carry out his Work Choices experiment (over a decent period of time, that is). It wouldn’t have taken long before all these union-busting headkickers here – grandsons of New Guard members perhaps? – started singing Solidarity Forever. The same goes for the current Wall St collapse – why doesn’t the Right have the courage of their convictions and say they want to market to sort this mess out?
Liberal usually beleive this rubbish right up to the point of…….reality.
Peter TB – Tell me again how the ABC is unbiased – I love fairy stories
.
The ABC is biased. So is every other media outlet in history. In Australia in balances AgitProp from News Ltd et al. It also provides a lot of hard news and analysis. A lot of the commercial stations seem to’ve forgotten what hard news is. And the newspapers are brimming with lots of important information about what Brad Pitt’s lovers say about each other.
.
I know it’s publicly funded, I know you shouldn’t have to pay for anything that might challenge your cherished views of the world. But more primary for me is that I need a range of information and with the ABC gone the range would get narrow, quick. So I don’t care.
.
I do however think that Philip Adams needs must be fed to a large animal with big teeth shortly.
IMO Philip Adams is better in his late-night, cosy spot than in his newspaper column. I think it’s because he has guests. Sometimes they debate each other, not just him.
But if you’re hinting that the ABC needs a wider range of presenters, I agree. Also agree about their huge offering of hard facual stuff: farming, science, politics, overseas news, arts, books, religion, Uncle Rupert, Parliament, BBC,….
“Also agree about their huge offering of hard facual stuff”
Er that’t not related to faecal stuff by any chance?
SATP @112, I had relatives who worked on the wharves and I can assure you it was back-breaking, badly paid, dirty and very dangerous work and they were regularly shafted by the bosses and whatever government was in power. They suffered appalling injuries and were often killed owing to the extremely unsafe workplace practices.
Miners, those who actually did the work as opposed to those sitting on their fat a@ses collecting the money, were also exploited in the same way as the wharfies.
Here is C T Ryan’s rebuttal of an article by Michael Duffy accusing wharfies of theft and treason during WW2. It describes the appalling exploitation, working conditions and pay which was the wharfies’ lot during the depression and WW2.
oh, errrk; factual, factoids, facts, facets, actual; we’re not talking Sydney beachside pubs here, young feller-me-lad.
Hmmm, part 2 fails to mention: all the Tampa refugees bar about 10 ended up in….. Australia! After we blew millions on a go-nowhere ’solution’.
Complete policy disaster. Political success, sure.
I can’t watch this episode – living through it was bad enough.
Dollys wish to please Howard was/is repulsive.
The program implied that Howard and co. had the Navy lined up to turn boats around before the Tampa arrived. I had the impression it was totally knee-jerk, seat of the pants stuff starting when the Tampa showed up and I’m still not convinced there was any forethought at all.
By this time over 220 boats had showed up and the Government was asleep at the wheel. What they were planning to do was to spend $22 million turning three old defence sites into new detention centres in order to double the detention capacity. That was on 23 August 2001, literally a few days before the MV Tampa crisis emerged.
Ruddock was also muttering about tougher laws.
John Moore’s resignation and the Ryan bi-election defeat weren’t mentioned. At that stage Howard was a dead man walking. Even a week before the Tampa they were in complete disarray with Small Business Minister Ian Macfarlane putting out five different stories in the course of a week over a tax scam with party funds. Howard said on 28 August that he wished it would all go away. Luckily for him it did.
Part 2 was even more disappointing than Part one. It simply does not compare with Labor in Power. Like the Howard Government itself, it is blatantly dishonest.
Brian @ 49 has pointed out some significant omissions and a little bit of history fudging. Let me add some more. What forced JWH into East Timor was the massive protest by the Australian public. We would not see its like again until the Iraq War. Howard likes to paint himself as some kind of Prime Mover. He wasn’t. Oh, and, like others, I could see the crap on Dolly’s lips.
To more mundane matters – Good old Meg Lees – for a cup of camomile tea, she kept the GST off food and kept it on books. But they didn’t mention the latter. If I remember rightly even Fraser backed down on having a tax on knowledge. Quite frankly, I’m surprised, after seeing last night’s episode, that the Libs didn’t slap a GST on food when they had a Senate majority.
Costello spoke truthfully.
The rest, as to be expected, were a bunch of liars.
Shame on you, ABC. Shame on you, Fran Kelly. If this is what the other two episodes are going to be like, its hardly worth watching. A great part of the series can best be described, in historian’s terms, as a pretty worthless primary source.
“Howard’s back!”
Looks like he never left the gravy train, though.
Ex-PM Howard has cost more than $400,000 in just one year……
http://news.theage.com.au/national/expm-howard-has-cost-more-than-400000-20081125-6gz6.html
Ambi – But if you’re hinting that the ABC needs a wider range of presenters, I agree.
.
.
Not hinting, declaring. We must rise up and slaughter ze hippies. Phil you’re first up against the wall mate!
.
Honestly Adams has-been something. Now he’s, like, what the fuck does this guy get paid for? Really?
.
Ex-PM Howard has cost more than $400,000 in just one year
.
Yeah disgraceful. I really don;t see why we have to cough up for these people to fly around the world at our expense forever. The argument is that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. Well we pay more than peanuts and we get a monkey who likes a frog only ugly.
Stop insulting frogs.
I wrote an email to Gerard Henderson in response to his review of the first two episodes of ‘The Howard Years’.
I was surprised that Henderson felt that the ABC simply did not possess the professionalism or objectivity to do a documentary about Howard.
Is antipathy and suspicion of the ABC really so deep amongst Howard’s apparatchiks ? Henderson, like Howard, appears appalled that anyone should even critique Howard. Is this attitude the ingrained arrogance born-to-rule plutocrats, the echo of the ‘Big Bang’ of Howard’s paranoia still resonating through the Universe of Australian Liberals or just the instinctive desperation of political operatives like Henderson to spin any comment about their boss, the womb-like source of power and prestige?
And the funniest thing is that ‘The Howard Years’ is about as rough on Howard as the 1950 Grange Hermitage supped by the inner sanctum at the 2004 Election Victory Party.
This is becoming what David Stratton calls ‘a guilty pleasure’.
Ratty at his vainglorious best. (Though the bit about 9/11 was sort of gripping). And the truth came out about Children Overboard, no thanks to Reith. It also came out about the Latham handshake. A calculated trp on Howard’s part, and Latham fell right into it.
Felt a bit sorry for some of the defence guys. Blair seemed full of regrets, or am I being too kind?
The American Imbecile was – well, the American Imbecile. Would you invite Ratty into your house?)
Costello the gutless wonder – a party meeting where almost everybody applauds as The Great Leader comes on stage. I would have been chucking up in a waste-paper bin if I’d been there.
But, so far as the pollies were concerned, apart from Costello, Baird and Georgiou, I think it was all lies. Again!
Can’t wait for the train-wreck.
Fran completely glossed over the big interest rate lie.
Also I would have liked to hear what they had to say about SIEV X.
Howard admitted that pragmatic political considerations overrode good environmental policy in the Tasmanian forests thing. He was quite proud of that one.
Blair I thought came across as pretty much entirely lacking principle.
I can’t believe anyone’s watching it!
I’ve been banned from watching it, the shouting apparently frightens the children and I’ve also been told flinging the nearest thing in reach at the telly is unpleasant when it’s a recently changed nappy.
History addicts/political tragics, Mark, even if it is very recent. And those ten/eleven years certainly were a tragedy. At least that’s my explanation.
I must be a recovering history addict/political tragic, Paul! After the cloud of those years lifted on or about 24 November 2007, I have no desire whatever to revisit them – and particularly not a propagandist version thereof! I’m far too relaxed and comfortable now!
I’ll watch the last ep to see it all fall apart. It’ll be a pleasure and not a guilty one.
Yes, you may have an idea there, Fine. I might put the bubbly on ice for that one.
Really sorry about this Mark (or any other LP admin passing).
David Rubie and I have been trying to get in direct contact.
Little help?
Cheers. Feel free to delete this irrelevancy.
Check yr email!
And we’ll have to reconsider that idea of LP personals!
Goddit.
Thanks a bunch Mark.
No probs FDB!
“And we’ll have to reconsider that idea of LP personals! ”
.
All part of the ever evolving business model I suppose….
.
‘Need $20,000, will do anything …’
‘Looking for lift to Darwin ,will share costs’
‘Give me a reason to leave the computer …. please! Contact LP box 123 ‘
‘Cute jewellery made by organic ,fair trade free range children- only $100 a piece ‘