Jump to content
Rocket Salad

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

Everyone is perfectly entitled to their own opinions on Howard, but longest serving (?) doesn't make for great, nor does the rubbish leaders we have now justify any nostalgia for 'good old Howard days'. I dare say there are also many an elderly Russian who pines for the good old days of communism - lol.

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/03/howard-australias-worst-prime-minister/ 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably the only reason he held power so long was that Labor had held power for so long beforehand, and the country was ready for a change. Then in his later years he was up against Labor leaders like Latham & Crean (can anybody remember them). Is it any wonder he held on so long.

And remember, this is a sitting Prime Minister who lost his seat. Only the 2nd ever to do so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Probably the only reason he held power so long was that Labor had held power for so long beforehand, and the country was ready for a change. Then in his later years he was up against Labor leaders like Latham & Crean (can anybody remember them). Is it any wonder he held on so long.

And remember, this is a sitting Prime Minister who lost his seat. Only the 2nd ever to do so.

you contradict yourself. if people wanted change why did he serve over 11 yrs?    

I laugh when a leader has died or near death like all the praise Whitlam got when he died. Wasn't he sacked?  and then all this sentimentality over Hawke recently. why?  that were both disgraceful leaders who made poor decisions for our country. no great legacy there I'm afraid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Prince said:

you contradict yourself. if people wanted change why did he serve over 11 yrs?

Maybe worded poorly. They were sick of 13 years of labor, and it took a while to get over it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now days they're sick of both of them, what the hell do you do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prince, get real on little Johnny mate.  He was a branch stacking sycophant wrapped in ugly tracksuits and enlarged eyebrows that hung on to power too long and lost the opportunity to hand his parties legacy over to carry on.  His previous attempts at leadership showed he was completely inept without the right team to support him, which he only got with the Cabinet he enjoyed for most of his first decade in power.   Instead he let a Celebrity wannabe trying to something to be able to look his wife in the eye first grade moron wipe out all the good Howard's team did in 18 months before being replaced by a corrupt failed lawyer who couldn't string two votes together without the crusted on labor voters blindly following orders at the ballot box.  All because he failed to develop the first requirement of any policitian in being able to read the public sentiment - politics 101 and he failed it after 40 years of hand holding in the safest seat which he also lost

As much as I tend to lean to the right when confronted with the limited choices we voters have to bear, Hawke was the last great PM

Keating used the fear of the unknown better than Hanson will ever be able to replicate and in the post Hawke vacuum the public mistook it for leadership

The rest of them since then - Turnbull has the best chance of the lot to do something if he ever manages to remove the troglobites that control certain sections of his party.  Failing that our next great PM is probably not even toilet trained as I type

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cottoneyes said:

Prince, get real on little Johnny mate.  He was a branch stacking sycophant wrapped in ugly tracksuits and enlarged eyebrows that hung on to power too long and lost the opportunity to hand his parties legacy over to carry on.  His previous attempts at leadership showed he was completely inept without the right team to support him, which he only got with the Cabinet he enjoyed for most of his first decade in power.   Instead he let a Celebrity wannabe trying to something to be able to look his wife in the eye first grade moron wipe out all the good Howard's team did in 18 months before being replaced by a corrupt failed lawyer who couldn't string two votes together without the crusted on labor voters blindly following orders at the ballot box.  All because he failed to develop the first requirement of any policitian in being able to read the public sentiment - politics 101 and he failed it after 40 years of hand holding in the safest seat which he also lost

As much as I tend to lean to the right when confronted with the limited choices we voters have to bear, Hawke was the last great PM

Keating used the fear of the unknown better than Hanson will ever be able to replicate and in the post Hawke vacuum the public mistook it for leadership

The rest of them since then - Turnbull has the best chance of the lot to do something if he ever manages to remove the troglobites that control certain sections of his party.  Failing that our next great PM is probably not even toilet trained as I type

hung on to power too long?   do you forget how Hawke wouldn't abdicate? As for mr banana republic. there is a major difference in a minority party building up hatred, than one in government. Keating did more damage to the economy than any party had done in a decade. 

Howard is still recognised today, no matter what pathetic name calling you rattle off, as one of the most decisive and influential leaders of our time. you just have to get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howard was a master of reading and pandering to populist sentiment - not the hallmark of a great leader, but of a cunning politician who understands the art of misdirection.

His approach to popularity, was propaganda and free-lunches, and we are now paying the price for it. His approach to retaining power was to change his party from a liberal church to a conservative one, and his party is now paying the price for it.

To give Howard his due, he changed the nation's gun ownership laws. Again however, it was a populist action (given public sentiment at the time) but one that happened to serve us well and is a good legacy for him.

In my opinion what makes a *great* PM is the long-term change and influence they have on the social fabric of the nation, and John Howard does not rate well there, nor do many conservative leaders who, almost by definition, are obsessed with maintaining the status quo, and resisting change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, think ya's gonna have to agree to disagree, y'all can argue till both blue in the face!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, XCOM! said:

In my opinion what makes a *great* PM is the long-term change and influence they have on the social fabric of the nation, and John Howard does not rate well there, nor do many conservative leaders who, almost by definition, are obsessed with maintaining the status quo, and resisting change.

...and fixing up the poor economic management left from the departing labor government. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/05/2018 at 6:06 PM, Prince said:

 

 

John Howard is recognised as the last great PM. if only we had leaders like that now. since JH, well, Rudd, Gillard, Abbott and Turnbull. not even in the same class. 

No secret I dont rate the desiccated coconut but you're not wrong on the other four.  Rudd is actually the one that disappoints me most as he had the greatest opportunity on election and just farked it to the point of his own party having a need to spear him.  Second time in history a sitting PM punted and Rudd just farked it deluxe.  very very sad and such a waste for the country.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Prince said:

hung on to power too long?   do you forget how Hawke wouldn't abdicate? As for mr banana republic. there is a major difference in a minority party building up hatred, than one in government. Keating did more damage to the economy than any party had done in a decade. 

Howard is still recognised today, no matter what pathetic name calling you rattle off, as one of the most decisive and influential leaders of our time. you just have to get over it.

I take it you never had the pleasure of having to deal with Howard.  Only the most hard core "Tones is the man" members of the Libs will speak his name without their heads dropping.  He is recognised as destroying the party, there are many who involuntarily clench their fists whenever he mentions Menzies when he destroyed everything the man stood for.  

And don't you remember that Hawke didn't "abdicate" and we got Keating, so that was a good decision.  Howard didn't "abdicate" and we got Rudd / Gillard / Rudd and the loss of a blue ribbon seat.  Explain to us all how that was good?

No one came claim to be a Great PM when they couldn't even hold their own seat, if you believe otherwise than you need a bex and a good lie down.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cottoneyes said:

I take it you never had the pleasure of having to deal with Howard.  Only the most hard core "Tones is the man" members of the Libs will speak his name without their heads dropping.  He is recognised as destroying the party, there are many who involuntarily clench their fists whenever he mentions Menzies when he destroyed everything the man stood for.  

And don't you remember that Hawke didn't "abdicate" and we got Keating, so that was a good decision.  Howard didn't "abdicate" and we got Rudd / Gillard / Rudd and the loss of a blue ribbon seat.  Explain to us all how that was good?

No one came claim to be a Great PM when they couldn't even hold their own seat, if you believe otherwise than you need a bex and a good lie down.  

 

I think you need to widen your reading away from union newsletters.  More than happy to steer you in the right direction, as it sounds like you need help. Howard is still the go to man for the party, and is very well respected.  There was only one other PM that had held a longer term in office. Let me do the sums for you. That means that the majority of Australians voted him in for 3 terms straight. He lost his own seat in the end simply because he stayed too long and Maxine Mckew had a 'celebrity' factor. 

Hawke passing the baton to Keating was no legacy. Actually he didn't pass it did he. Keating knifed him. Keating single handily and put International relations back 30 years and screwed our economy. I still remember interest rates at 17%. He was also responsible for one of the worst defeats for labor and unlike Howard, you will notice these days plays no part in election campaigns and lives in obscurity.  he was an okay treasurer but hardly PM material. It was all about his pitiful narcissism about why Hawke wouldn't give him the baton. It became a laughing stock how those two hated each other, pretty similar of the Rudd/Gillard era. 

I don't know what a bex is but am about to have and  enjoy my good lie down now I have enlightened you.

Edited by Prince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now this isn't a comment on politics as such, but am I wrong in remembering that while interest rates were at 17%, wasn't the average family spending less of their disposable income paying their home loan than they do today, with interest rates significantly lower than that?  Even with there being more double fulltime income families now than there was then?

Edited by goughy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, goughy said:

Now this isn't a comment on politics as such, but am I wrong in remembering that while interest rates were at 17%, wasn't the average family spending less of their disposable income paying their home loan than they do today, with interest rates significantly lower than that?  Even with there being more double fulltime income families now than there was then?

not in my world..apparently it was the recession we had to have....unemployment at an all time high...

Edited by Prince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, goughy said:

Now this isn't a comment on politics as such, but am I wrong in remembering that while interest rates were at 17%, wasn't the average family spending less of their disposable income paying their home loan than they do today, with interest rates significantly lower than that?  Even with there being more double fulltime income families now than there was then?

Yep - my earlier post (with the link) has those figures.

Quote

When John Howard became Prime Minister in 1996, Australia had the second least indebted household sector among the six developed English-speaking nations. By 2007, when he left office, Australia had the second most indebted household sector. And now we are number one.

Them's the facts, but people will spin their own story about why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Cottoneyes said:

He is recognised as destroying the party, there are many who involuntarily clench their fists whenever he mentions Menzies when he destroyed everything the man stood for.  

Yes, that's true.

However, what the LIBs (via Howard & Tones) have done to their own party is only half the problem.

The 'light on the hill' is what I believe Labor has lost sight of.

Quote

 

"I have had the privilege of leading the Labor Party for nearly four years. They have not been easy times and it has not been an easy job. It is a man-killing job and would be impossible if it were not for the help of my colleagues and members of the movement.

No Labor Minister or leader ever has an easy job. The urgency that rests behind the Labor movement, pushing it on to do things, to create new conditions, to reorganise the economy of the country, always means that the people who work within the Labor movement, people who lead, can never have an easy job. The job of the evangelist is never easy.

Because of the turn of fortune's wheel your Premier and I have gained some prominence in the Labor movement. But the strength of the movement cannot come from us. We may make plans and pass legislation to help and direct the economy of the country. But the job of getting the things the people of the country want comes from the roots of the Labor movement - the people who support it.

When I sat at a Labor meeting in the country with only ten or fifteen men there, I found a man sitting beside me who had been working in the Labor movement for 54 years. I have no doubt that many of you have been doing the same, not hoping for any advantage from the movement, not hoping for any personal gain, but because you believe in a movement that has been built up to bring better conditions to the people. Therefore, the success of the Labor Party at the next elections depends entirely, as it always has done, on the people who work.

I try to think of the Labor movement, not as putting an extra sixpence into somebody's pocket, or making somebody Prime Minister or Premier, but as a movement bringing something better to the people, better standards of living, greater happiness to the mass of the people. We have a great objective - the light on the hill - which we aim to reach by working the betterment of mankind not only here but anywhere we may give a helping hand. If it were not for that, the Labor movement would not be worth fighting for.

If the movement can make someone more comfortable, give to some father or mother a greater feeling of security for their children, a feeling that if a depression comes there will be work, that the government is striving its hardest to do its best, then the Labor movement will be completely justified.

It does not matter about persons like me who have our limitations. I only hope that the generosity, kindliness and friendliness shown to me by thousands of my colleagues in the Labor movement will continue to be given to the movement and add zest to its work."

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, XCOM! said:

Yes, that's true.

However, what the LIBs (via Howard & Tones) have done to their own party is only half the problem.

The 'light on the hill' is what I believe Labor has lost sight of.


 

sounds like a doctrine of a welfare state

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I met John Howard once. At the time my mother worked for him in his electoral office and she hosted a bit of a do at our house and he came along. I was fairly young, maybe late teens, and he did NOT impress me one little bit.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Prince said:

sounds like a doctrine of a welfare state

Yeah... right.

Perhaps one mark of a great PM - inside Parliament House.

BenChifely_lyinginstate_1951.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, XCOM! said:

Yes, that's true.

However, what the LIBs (via Howard & Tones) have done to their own party is only half the problem.

The 'light on the hill' is what I believe Labor has lost sight of.


 

thank god labor has moved on from this twaddle, and moved with the real world.   it is only the unions now who espouse this crock of shite and even half of the labor caucus would love to distance themselves from unions. if by some chance Shorten gets in he will struggle keeping his faceless men in check. he has already sold out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A2K said:

I met John Howard once. At the time my mother worked for him in his electoral office and she hosted a bit of a do at our house and he came along. I was fairly young, maybe late teens, and he did NOT impress me one little bit.

maybe you weren't in his demographic.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe he was just an arse?  (just commenting, I don't know for sure (yes, I know for sure (I don't really, but I think he was, like most pollies)))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Prince said:

I think you need to widen your reading away from union newsletters.  

😋 That one made me laugh.  I can honestly say I've only read one part of one union newsletter in my life.  The AMWU coughed up a cash settlement as a result and had to sack two of their officials.  I don't think the union movement could afford me reading too many more of them.  (Side question for Andrew - when a Union official is sacked, who do they go to for assistance against their former employer?  Is there a Union Officials Union that is kept on the down low and hush hush?)

And for the record, that article was about the time Howard came to office, and no there wasn't even a message of the hairy eyebrowed git

I also got a good chuckle that you seem to support the losers that want to see the 60s style of society and 'morality' brought back, but you have no knowledge of one of the most famous advertising campaigns of the era - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bex_(compound_analgesic)

"It was often used in the pejorative and abbreviated form "go and take a Bex" to indicate to an over enthusiastic person that they should take a more relaxed attitude to the subject being discussed, or to soothe a frazzled housewife. As such, in Australia, it has currency in bar room discussions, particularly where one person became animated in expressing a point of view that was contrary to the general view point of the group"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Prince said:

maybe you weren't in his demographic.  

Probably true but geez he didn't strike me as a future leader of our country. I imagine a Prime Minister or aspiring Prime Minister should have some charisma and presence for want of a better word. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×