John Winston Howard - what is his legacy?

[eastfreo75]

Franking credits on dividends was actually a Keating policy. However, Howard and Costello made a crucial change to the policy in 2001 to provide that if you had more credits than tax owed to the Commonwealth, you'd get a cash refund. That's hamstrung the budget ever since, and Shorten's policy in the 2019 election was to cancel the cash refunds. Albanese didn't take a similar policy to the 2022 election.

Yes that's right.

Franking credits was about people not being taxed twice.

The cash refund is rort.

If I was Labor, I would be touching the issue early in their second term. Use the savings to increase pensions. It will only affect a very small percentage and majority of pensioners will be better off.

 

[iameviljez]

Yes that's right.

Franking credits was about people not being taxed twice.

The cash refund is rort.

If I was Labor, I would be touching the issue early in their second term. Use the savings to increase pensions. It will only affect a very small percentage and majority of pensioners will be better off.

I would have a modified version of the policy: super payouts to be taxed like income tax but with a larger tax free threshold.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Franking credits on dividends was actually a Keating policy. However, Howard and Costello made a crucial change to the policy in 2001 to provide that if you had more credits than tax owed to the Commonwealth, you'd get a cash refund. That's hamstrung the budget ever since, and Shorten's policy in the 2019 election was to cancel the cash refunds. Albanese didn't take a similar policy to the 2022 election.

Yep, Howard/Costello turbocharged the previously sensible scheme to insane levels for it to become the rort it has become today. (I've been a beneficiary some years and it makes me feel dishonest for even accepting that money.)

All Shorten was proposing was a return to the previous sensible policy, but Murdoch and the Libs waged the biggest scare campaign ever seen in this country.

 

[Gough]

Q and A doing it's best to keep the stench of his legacy ripe. Downer last week, now Chris Kenny is on to justify him opposing Mabo at every turn.

 

[eastfreo75]

I would have a modified version of the policy: super payouts to be taxed like income tax but with a larger tax free threshold.

100%.

Super is a major rort for the rich to reduce tax.

Another John Howard’s grand idea to stay in power was not taxing super after 60 years old.

Howard have really stuffed up budgets for twenty plus years.

Best politician, worst prime minister.

Just wished Constello had the balls to challenge. He knew that Howard was spending like a drunken sailor.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Q and A doing it's best to keep the stench of his legacy ripe. Downer last week, now Chris Kenny is on to justify him opposing Mabo at every turn.

Chris Kenny is one of life's true deplorables.

 

[DaRick]

100%.

Super is a major rort for the rich to reduce tax.

Another John Howard’s grand idea to stay in power was not taxing super after 60 years old.

Howard have really stuffed up budgets for twenty plus years.

Best politician, worst prime minister.

Just wished Constello had the balls to challenge. He knew that Howard was spending like a drunken sailor.

The ironic thing about John Howard is that there's a distinct parallel between him and Hugo Chavez.

Both used resource booms to pay off their favoured constitutents and thus stay in power forever. Chavez paid off poor people; Howard paid off middle-class people.

Both initatives ultimately had anywhere from negative to catastrophic consequences when the resource booms petered out.

When Chavez did it, it was socialism; when Howard did it, it was middle-class welfare.

Funny.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

The ironic thing about John Howard is that there's a distinct parallel between him and Hugo Chavez.

Both used resource booms to pay off their favoured constitutents and thus stay in power forever. Chavez paid off poor people; Howard paid off middle-class people.

Both initatives ultimately had anywhere from negative to catastrophic consequences when the resource booms petered out.

When Chavez did it, it was socialism; when Howard did it, it was middle-class welfare.

Funny.

It wasn't only the resource boom that Howard used either. He also sold north of 160 tonnes of our gold at rock bottom prices.

Plus this:

Account Suspended

www.marketeconomics.com.au

The truth about Howard's 'inherited debt'

Much has been written about the Howard government “inheriting” $96 billion debt from Labor in 1996. By 2007,...

www.illawarramercury.com.au

Howard and Costello were massive, massive frauds.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Negative gearing, governmental lying as a tradition, and the erosion of the small L liberals to turn the Coalition from the party of the right to conservatism and cronyism. Profiting from the mining boom, sold off infrastructure and pork-barrelled the middle class in order to stay in, whilst dogwhistling to the worst elements of society's racism and tall poppy syndrome. Gave us our first political prisoner to avoid Pauline Hanson splitting the dingbat vote. Changed how we look at immigration and refugees, waaaaaay for the worse.

If all he'd done was sit on his hands, he'd have been fine. But the changes he made to Australian society - outside the gun buyback - changed Australia for the worse, in all cases.

He took the Libs from being a party that couldn't play politics at the level of Hawke/Keating to a party which prioritized appearances and politicizing (re, wedging) issues as a matter of course.

Not to mention his response to the Wik decision (the Wik 10 point plan) and his undermining of the convention of Ministerial responsibility, he was on the nose from his very early days.

The economy boomed during his reign but this was largely on the back of the mining boom, the selling off of public assets, spending cuts to critical services and the reforms undertaken during the Hawke/Keating era.

The Tampa Overboard affair was a disgrace which should have seen him and his key ministers hauled before an inquiry not to mention his marching us off to war lockstep with the US into Iraq, an invasion he knew was based on false premises (WMD, links to Al Qaeda).

Then you have his refusal to acknowledge the Bringing Them Home report into the Stolen Generation, his refusal to say "sorry", his stoking of the culture wars and his refusal to act on climate change.

I'm sure I could go on but it's probably been covered here. All in all I think his legacy is the cultural change from the egalitarian society I remember growing up in the 80s and early 90s to a far more selfish and fragmented society we live in now. Some of that may have been inevitable or due to outside factors but I feel as if it is at least in some part due to his cynical politicking.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Laid the groundwork for the use of division based on race/religion as a political tool, something the LNP has embraced with passion ever since.

Instead of rejecting Hansonism, he basically adopted it as a tactic.

Yep, he saw the threat of Hanson to his right and instead of repudiating her disgusting politics he co-opted it. It worked for him but at what cost to the country?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Howard's legacy for me is very simple - he showed exactly how gullible the Australian voter is. Over a decade of budget vandalism, papered over by an economic boom and multiple privatisations, and people ate it up because he handed out welfare to the middle class and humanised them as "battlers" and "mum and dad investors". So too with immigration, he told a monstrous lie like "children overboard" and people swallowed it whole and asked for more because he fed into their existing xenophobia. And this popularity allowed him to pass whatever the IPA and the business lobby demanded, until he overreached with Workchoices.

Canny bastard though. I admire him never complaining about the media and managing to force a Great Big New Tax™ down the electorate's throats while still staying in power. But perhaps that can only be done by the Liberal Party, due to their undeserved perception of being good economic managers.

Oh yeah how could I forget about his "never ever" GST and his "core and non core promises"?

Not to mention his undermining of the Constitutional Referendum in 1999.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

His lack of ambition/vision wrapped up in three words. With record private debt and so much under/precarious employment I think he failed his own metric here.



Can you elaborate on what you mean by this / give examples? Were ministers much more accountable pre-Howard? What changed it?

The Westminster convention of Ministerial responsibility states that Ministers are responsible for any wrongdoings in their departments - it basically holds them accountable for their departments actions to avoid them being able to hold themselves at arms length and have an argument of plausible deniability.

Because it is a convention and not a law it allowed Howard to disregard this and state that his Ministers would only be held accountable for personal wrongdoing or misconduct.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1467-8497.2008.00496.x

 

[Demonic Ascent]

He was spending money he had, e.g middle class welfare. When we ran out of money, politicians on both sides didnt have the guts to turn off what we could no longer involve. Thats the real answer, not one or t'óther.

Did someone teach you that view Stan?

Good economic managers would have foreseen this and planned for a sustainable economy instead of tax breaks for the rich and middle class welfare/pork barrelling to sure up their re-election prospects. Unfortunately good economic managers have been in short supply for a long time.

 

[Schneebly11]

Food for discussion:

Howard’s most significant good achievement (probably his only good one) was gun reform, supported by the left but with some pushback from the right. However he succeeded and it was passed.

However Howard became more right wing and socially conservative as the years went on, especially with the rise of Hansonism and the fearmongering about migrants.

So given how the Liberals have been on a road to American style right wing conservatism since 1996, the party drifting further and further right, this poses an interesting hypothetical:

If Port Arthur hadn’t of happened in 1996, but 20-25 years later, would the Liberals have instituted such a strong anti gun program? The Nationals are quite courting of the gun lobby now and a lot of conservative Liberals buy into the “guns don’t kill people” philosophy?

I could see the gun lobby getting in the ears of Liberals to push gun sales, Dutton feamongers about brown and black people and reminds Australians the Liberal’s pro gun policies allow Australians to “keep themselves safe without relying on the government”.

I think it’s probable Australian gun laws wouldn’t have been enacted as strictly had a Port Arthur massacre happened in the last 10 years.

It’s also interesting to note Pauline Hanson’s maiden speech to parliament which made her famous, the “were being swamped by asians” one, was made several months after Port Arthur.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

This is what I don't understand about neo-liberal economics.
If you privatise everything, freeze wages, take away workers power and entitlements, gut social safety nets and hand all the money saved to the already wealthy you end up with what we have now. A large and growing larger underclass. Homelessness is becoming a real problem, people can't afford housing, let alone all the other basics.
As a result crime, drug use, violence, health outcomes, all the bad stuff is on the rise and the problems cost way more to fix than if you'd not engineered the problems in the first place.
And yet we still have idiots in the current government wanting more of it.

It's almost as if it's deliberately designed to transfer wealth to the upper class

 

[Kwality]

Good economic managers would have foreseen this and planned for a sustainable economy instead of tax breaks for the rich and middle class welfare/pork barrelling to sure up their re-election prospects. Unfortunately good economic managers have been in short supply for a long time.

Yes, predicting the income from mining & agriculture is difficult in the short term & the long term. see LNG or coal, wheat, over the next 6 months, let alone a parliamentary term. Mining & agriculture are the backbone of Australia's sustainability.

Howard & Costello had the money to pay for the middle class welfare & put money away (paying down debt,the 3rd tranche of Telstra/the Future Fund, a surplus). When the GFC arrived, things changed, & the Governments since have not recut the coat (reacted to changed circumstances). Another example is tax cuts to offset the carbon tax were left in place when the carbon tax was defeated. No Government has simply said 'we cant afford this'.

How the Governments since Howard have got away with the ongoing poor management of our spending will get closer examination as future generations face rising interest payments on our national debt with inflation on the gallop.

 

[GreyWind]

Food for discussion:

Howard’s most significant good achievement (probably his only good one) was gun reform, supported by the left but with some pushback from the right. However he succeeded and it was passed.

However Howard became more right wing and socially conservative as the years went on, especially with the rise of Hansonism and the fearmongering about migrants.

So given how the Liberals have been on a road to American style right wing conservatism since 1996, the party drifting further and further right, this poses an interesting hypothetical:

If Port Arthur hadn’t of happened in 1996, but 20-25 years later, would the Liberals have instituted such a strong anti gun program? The Nationals are quite courting of the gun lobby now and a lot of conservative Liberals buy into the “guns don’t kill people” philosophy?

I could see the gun lobby getting in the ears of Liberals to push gun sales, Dutton feamongers about brown and black people and reminds Australians the Liberal’s pro gun policies allow Australians to “keep themselves safe without relying on the government”.

I think it’s probable Australian gun laws wouldn’t have been enacted as strictly had a Port Arthur massacre happened in the last 10 years.

It’s also interesting to note Pauline Hanson’s maiden speech to parliament which made her famous, the “were being swamped by asians” one, was made several months after Port Arthur.

It's an interesting hypothetical, if we say that Port Arthur happened in 2016 instead of 1996 and we just assume that as Australia becomes closer to American culture we also start with their gun culture although not to the same extent. We have a stronger gun lobby but one of the big ones is we don't have anything like a 2nd Amendment.

Even before Port Arthur majority of our mass shootings were family related murder/suicides but we were ramping up the 'random' attacks on others before then. If we look historically there's probably going to be more mass shootings than what is currently listed simply due to greater availability of firearms. However the big ones to look at are; Monash Uni Shootings (2002), Hectorville Siege (2011), Lindt Cafe Siege (2014) and Parramatta Shootings (2015) which all would have happened before a 2016 Port Arthur. Now the above mass shootings have a combined 10 deaths which is low and mainly due to our strict gun laws not letting people get their hands on high powered/high capacity firearms. However I don't think it's out of the realms of imagination for there to be a much higher total if different guns were involved. Due to the political nature of the last 2 with the last being a straight up terrorist attack and I think to that stage there has been 2 notable terrorist plots foiled in that time frame, I could see the pressure starting to mount to enact gun reforms.

Of course there would have been push back from the usual groups, but over in the States you've got Columbine (1999), Virginia Tech (2007) and Sandy Hook (2012) that have happened along with several notable terrorist attacks in Norway (2011) and France (2015). So you've got all these incidents that have garnered main stream news attention and then Port Arthur happens and Australia experiences it's own significant mass shooting I still think the change occurs, however it is nowhere near as swift as what happened in 1996.

 

[DaRick]

It's an interesting hypothetical, if we say that Port Arthur happened in 2016 instead of 1996 and we just assume that as Australia becomes closer to American culture we also start with their gun culture although not to the same extent. We have a stronger gun lobby but one of the big ones is we don't have anything like a 2nd Amendment.

Even before Port Arthur majority of our mass shootings were family related murder/suicides but we were ramping up the 'random' attacks on others before then. If we look historically there's probably going to be more mass shootings than what is currently listed simply due to greater availability of firearms. However the big ones to look at are; Monash Uni Shootings (2002), Hectorville Siege (2011), Lindt Cafe Siege (2014) and Parramatta Shootings (2015) which all would have happened before a 2016 Port Arthur. Now the above mass shootings have a combined 10 deaths which is low and mainly due to our strict gun laws not letting people get their hands on high powered/high capacity firearms. However I don't think it's out of the realms of imagination for there to be a much higher total if different guns were involved. Due to the political nature of the last 2 with the last being a straight up terrorist attack and I think to that stage there has been 2 notable terrorist plots foiled in that time frame, I could see the pressure starting to mount to enact gun reforms.

Of course there would have been push back from the usual groups, but over in the States you've got Columbine (1999), Virginia Tech (2007) and Sandy Hook (2012) that have happened along with several notable terrorist attacks in Norway (2011) and France (2015). So you've got all these incidents that have garnered main stream news attention and then Port Arthur happens and Australia experiences it's own significant mass shooting I still think the change occurs, however it is nowhere near as swift as what happened in 1996.

RE AUS culture, I'd say that AUS and US culture are 'sister cultures' because they are both part of the Anglosphere, so we take cultural/economic cues from them.

It used to be that such cultural/economic cues would take at least 10 years to arrive here. For example, while Thatcher/Reagan were full-bore neoliberals, Hawke/Keating shrewdly created a social democratic ALP with neoliberal touches to mitigate neoliberalism's effects on the working class. This approach, plus Hawke's charisma and Keating's pugnacity, kept the LNP out of power for a generation, by which time Howard could only implement a watered-down version of neoliberalism because neoliberalism's zeitegist had passed.

Now I think that cultural trends from the US take less than 5 years to arrive, due to the internet quickly making cultural controversies common knowledge worldwide. Without wishing to dismiss the trauma the accusers have gone through, irrespective of whether they were legally subjected to sexual conduct/harrassment, I've noticed that MeToo started in the US in 2017-18. Now, Brittany Higgins and Grace Tame broke their stores in February 2021 or thereabouts.

So TBH, given that cultural trends from the US appear in Australia relatively quickly nowadays, I think that Australian governments would have a narrow window to institute gun buy-backs in the modern day - maybe a year or two.

TBF to Howard, he genuinely despised firearms, and that personal hatred drove him more than any perceived political benefit. He had just won office and so could easily have instituted some watered-down restrictions without suffering much politically. For once, I applaud Howard for acting on what I feel is a genuinely heart-felt principle. Howard might not have many principles, but we should appreciate the few that he does have.

 

[Pie eyed]

His legacy?

Enacting legislation to ostracise the gay population, leading to the last 15 tears of "debate" about "legalising" gay marriage which he personally banned, for purely political reasons.

Leading Australia into an illegal invasion of a sovereign state for purely political reasons, based on lie he knew was lie,
costing billions of dollars across three generations, killing Australians, thousands of innocent inhabitants and destroying our international reputation as a fair and honorable nation.

Squandering the proceeds from the nations greatest natural resources boom on bolstering his popularity with the rich and the Christian right wing, ignoring the disadvantaged and spitting in the faces of our indigenous peoples.

Generally being a dirty little mean Liberal campaigner


Allowing a ******* like Tony Abbott to reside in his party.

Bump.

 

[eastfreo75]

Yes, predicting the income from mining & agriculture is difficult in the short term & the long term. see LNG or coal, wheat, over the next 6 months, let alone a parliamentary term. Mining & agriculture are the backbone of Australia's sustainability.

Howard & Costello had the money to pay for the middle class welfare & put money away (paying down debt,the 3rd tranche of Telstra/the Future Fund, a surplus). When the GFC arrived, things changed, & the Governments since have not recut the coat (reacted to changed circumstances). Another example is tax cuts to offset the carbon tax were left in place when the carbon tax was defeated. No Government has simply said 'we cant afford this'.

How the Governments since Howard have got away with the ongoing poor management of our spending will get closer examination as future generations face rising interest payments on our national debt with inflation on the gallop.

To be fair, reversing what Howard did would result in losing elections ie 2019 Labor campaigning on reversing the cash credits for Franking credits.

It will take a clever political team to reverse the damage without being kicked out of government.

Keating/Hawke is the only government that structurally set up us for the long term.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Oh yeah how could I forget about his "never ever" GST and his "core and non core promises"?

Not to mention his undermining of the Constitutional Referendum in 1999.

Far be it for me to defend Howard on anything except the gun buyback, but in his defence he did then take the GST to an election.

But he's still a shocker who set in train so much of the damage we're lumped with today.

Funny how the biggest vandals are always the ones big-noting their patriotism the most.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Yes, predicting the income from mining & agriculture is difficult in the short term & the long term. see LNG or coal, wheat, over the next 6 months, let alone a parliamentary term. Mining & agriculture are the backbone of Australia's sustainability.

Howard & Costello had the money to pay for the middle class welfare & put money away (paying down debt,the 3rd tranche of Telstra/the Future Fund, a surplus). When the GFC arrived, things changed, & the Governments since have not recut the coat (reacted to changed circumstances). Another example is tax cuts to offset the carbon tax were left in place when the carbon tax was defeated. No Government has simply said 'we cant afford this'.

How the Governments since Howard have got away with the ongoing poor management of our spending will get closer examination as future generations face rising interest payments on our national debt with inflation on the gallop.

Ok but surely it doesn't take too much nous and foresight to see that the sunny days may not last forever. Howard benefited from the feelgood decisions (tax cuts, middle class welfare) without a thought as to how these policies may impact future generations. Now it is seemingly impossible to untangle that Gordian knot as when Shortens ALP for example took some of those policies to the electorate we know what the answer was.

 

[Kwality]

To be fair, reversing what Howard did would result in losing elections ie 2019 Labor campaigning on reversing the cash credits for Franking credits.

It will take a clever political team to reverse the damage without being kicked out of government.

Keating/Hawke is the only government that structurally set up us for the long term.

My point is that blaming Howard for our financial woes today is shallow. A denial of Rudd/Gillard/Rudd/Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison & their sidekicks.

The financial benefits of selling things has been frittered away, bar the Future Fund that was originally to pay for Feds super liabilities.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

This is what I don't understand about neo-liberal economics.
If you privatise everything, freeze wages, take away workers power and entitlements, gut social safety nets and hand all the money saved to the already wealthy you end up with what we have now. A large and growing larger underclass. Homelessness is becoming a real problem, people can't afford housing, let alone all the other basics.
As a result crime, drug use, violence, health outcomes, all the bad stuff is on the rise and the problems cost way more to fix than if you'd not engineered the problems in the first place.
And yet we still have idiots in the current government wanting more of it.

They know exactly what they're doing, they just make sure that they have a master propaganist like Murdoch on board to spin it into something palatable for the people who are going to be most disadvantaged by their policies.

 

[Kwality]

Far be it for me to defend Howard on anything except the gun buyback, but in his defence he did then take the GST to an election.

But he's still a shocker who set in train so much of the damage we're lumped with today.

Funny how the biggest vandals are always the ones big-noting their patriotism the most.

Chosing to ignore the need for the GST says plenty.