Best and worst pm/premier???

[hoss]

I see. So your opinion is be all, end all? Riiight. Sorry to burst your bubble, but many don't share your view.

8+ years in the job and has led Australia through prosperous times could not be thought of anything less than good by default. You're delusional and not doing your credibility any good.

I'm as entitled to my opinion as you are to yours. Don't even talk about credibility if you honestly think that JWH is mainly responsible for Australia's prosperity. I can't share your views on that at all.(sorry to burst your bubble)

It's funny how you, as a swinging voter, can be such a staunch and stoic supporter of a very average Prime Minister.

 

[Kingpin]

Labor in Tassie is owned by Gunns and they are corrupt as all heck, and the conservatives are no better.

Knowing a particular individual who is in the Premier's office, I can vouch for that statement 100%. Very dodgy.

 

[medusala]

In both social justice and international relations. He has made our nation a laughing stock on the world stage.

.

Social Justice:

A complet load of gibberish formerly quoted ad nauseum by Australia's worst ever premier Joan Kirner.

-Has brought a reality back into Aboriginal affairs
-Has revamped and significantly improved immigration (note story last week that unemployment rate for migrants after 18 mths had halved under the recent changes).
- didnt cut the top rate of tax even though the GST was bought it, a large sop in the name of "social justice"
- the poorest in society have increased their wealth at almost the same rate as the richest, almost unheard of and glibly ignored by lefty media types
- real wages have grown more under Howard than under Hawke and Keating
etc etc

International Relations:

- stopped sucking up to a murdering dictator in Indonesia and helped free the East Timorese
- FTA's with Singapore, Thailand and the USA.
- Australia is a leader of the Cairns group in WTO trade negotiations
- negotiations opened with China and Japan
- a seat at the table with ASEAN (which Keating tried to do for years with complete and utter failure)
- visited China more times than Hawke and Keating ever did
- massive LNG deal with China against fierce opposition from heaps of other countries
- protected Australias national interest in not caving in to lefty demands over Timor Gap.

If Howard is such an embarrassment internationally then why are all these Asian leaders falling over themselves to sign FTA's with Australia.

I agree with you entirely when you talk about all the billions of wasted spending and the high taxes but you have to realise that the vast majority of people agree with him re "reconciliation", refugees etc.

 

[medusala]

His govt taxes us more than any other, and not only did he stuff up the introduction of the GST (weren't all other indirect taxes meant to go with its introduction), :

They were state taxes. They are the ones who agreed to get rid of them and then reneged.

 

[Goldenblue]

Best PM: Menzies / Hawke
Best Prem: Dunstan

Joh is a sly corrupt bastard who should have been jailed. I can't understand why medulsa put Joh on his / hers best prem list.

Economics is not the only issue on how to rate a govt.

 

[medusala]

Best PM: Menzies / Hawke
Best Prem: Dunstan

Joh is a sly corrupt bastard who should have been jailed. I can't understand why medulsa put Joh on his / hers best prem list.

Economics is not the only issue on how to rate a govt.

Controversial I will grant you. I would have put Greiner or Kennett above him but they didnt last very long, which in the case of Kennett left the state with a dud. Corruption was just as bad if not worse in WA and NSW as it was under Joh. Police corruption in Victoria is still ongoing.

Did the police corruption in Qld affect the majority of the population or even a large % of them? No, just as police corruption in Victoria doesnt affect most people. Johs record on everything bar corruption was outstanding notwithstanding many people disagreed with his very conservative social views.

Would you rather have Joh running your state or Kirner? I know which I would prefer.

 

[Bomaz_Magic]

Social Justice:

A complet load of gibberish formerly quoted ad nauseum by Australia's worst ever premier Joan Kirner.

-Has brought a reality back into Aboriginal affairs
-Has revamped and significantly improved immigration (note story last week that unemployment rate for migrants after 18 mths had halved under the recent changes).
- didnt cut the top rate of tax even though the GST was bought it, a large sop in the name of "social justice"
- the poorest in society have increased their wealth at almost the same rate as the richest, almost unheard of and glibly ignored by lefty media types
- real wages have grown more under Howard than under Hawke and Keating
etc etc

International Relations:

- stopped sucking up to a murdering dictator in Indonesia and helped free the East Timorese
- FTA's with Singapore, Thailand and the USA.
- Australia is a leader of the Cairns group in WTO trade negotiations
- negotiations opened with China and Japan
- a seat at the table with ASEAN (which Keating tried to do for years with complete and utter failure)
- visited China more times than Hawke and Keating ever did
- massive LNG deal with China against fierce opposition from heaps of other countries
- protected Australias national interest in not caving in to lefty demands over Timor Gap.

If Howard is such an embarrassment internationally then why are all these Asian leaders falling over themselves to sign FTA's with Australia.

I agree with you entirely when you talk about all the billions of wasted spending and the high taxes but you have to realise that the vast majority of people agree with him re "reconciliation", refugees etc.

The Cairns group was established by Hawke and Keating, you are aware of that aren't you? (It was set up by Australia in 1986 in order for other small/medium economies reliant on agriculture to have some influence/affect against/over the EU and USA. Had a useful but modest role in keeping agriculture on the WTO’s agenda)
And aboriginal rights
Why does everything have to be about the left and right with you? It's irrelevant both parties have moved right and often stand for the same things, its about the nations prosperity and thats what people often forget and has been illustrated on this board very very clearly.
I shouldnt do this because it will result in you responding but although this has been done, which is in some respects better than the ALP, how do you explain Australia as excelling in social justice when:
- We refuse to ratify Kyoto
- Will not liberate West Papua (to quote you, "still sucking up to Indonesia")
- Won't confront China over Human Rights, rather holding dialogues as it may jeopardise a trade deal
- Howard refusing to meet the Dalai Lama because it would upset Chinese govt.
-Voted against UN resolution calling on Israel to tear down barrier and West Bank, which was backed by the world court. We were one of 6 nations out of 150.
- Ignored human rights issues in China and Indonesia
o Govt. prefers dialogues to confrontation (soft option – don’t want to offend).
-Supports One china policy – didn’t vote for UN resolution for Taiwan’s independence (this one is up for conjecture)
-Refused to go to International Court over the so-called theft of East Timor’s oil (one field – sunrise, is worth $30bn.)
-Criticised by UN relating to the elimination of Racial Discrimination. (we didn’t apologize to the indigenous people in 2000 for the stolen generation and mandatory sentencing in which Aboriginals are 15x more likely to be placed in jail than an Anglo-Saxon person (white)).
-Criticised by UN for condition of detention centres and treatment of refugees (length of time spent there).

 

[Bomaz_Magic]

Actually, under Menzies, the Australian economy enjoyed high growth, low unemployment, and low inflation. Care to provide some stats to prove otherwise?

Do you care to have a look at the infamous 1951 and 1954 elections. Doc Evatts whole campaign was based around high levels of inflation, however, how can you compete when the government finds a spy ring, in the form of Petrov (the fact they paid him $5000 to defect obviously meant nothing).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headline Rate (All Groups)
--------------------------
percentage change
-------------------
index quarterly annual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1948-49 6.9
1949-50 7.5 n.a. 8.7
1950-51 8.5 n.a. 13.3
1951-52 10.4 n.a. 22.4
1952-53 11.4 n.a. 9.6

The annual figure being the level of inflation - 22.4% not very high at all

 

[medusala]

- We refuse to ratify Kyoto
- Will not liberate West Papua (to quote you, "still sucking up to Indonesia")
- Won't confront China over Human Rights, rather holding dialogues as it may jeopardise a trade deal
- Howard refusing to meet the Dalai Lama because it would upset Chinese govt.
-Voted against UN resolution calling on Israel to tear down barrier and West Bank, which was backed by the world court. We were one of 6 nations out of 150.
- Ignored human rights issues in China and Indonesia
o Govt. prefers dialogues to confrontation (soft option – don’t want to offend).
-Supports One china policy – didn’t vote for UN resolution for Taiwan’s independence (this one is up for conjecture)
-Refused to go to International Court over the so-called theft of East Timor’s oil (one field – sunrise, is worth $30bn.)
-Criticised by UN relating to the elimination of Racial Discrimination. (we didn’t apologize to the indigenous people in 2000 for the stolen generation and mandatory sentencing in which Aboriginals are 15x more likely to be placed in jail than an Anglo-Saxon person (white)).
-Criticised by UN for condition of detention centres and treatment of refugees (length of time spent there).

-Kyoto based on uncertain science, nuclear power would fix our emissions but then what pm would ever allow it?
- What is the point of liberating West Papau? We already have a failed state in PNG on our doorstep, why have another one and really ******** off the Indonesians. Howard is criticised for not ruling out preemption yet you think he should help break up a country?
- re China, Australia is hardly alone in not criticising them over human rights. Why affect our exports to them over an issue which they wont listen to us on anyway? How is meeting the Dalai Lama in Australias best interest?
- Why on earth would Australia give up an alleged $30billion of wealth when we already have a treaty signed over the area. Any pm who did that would be stupendously negligent.
- The UN is a complete joke, see Darfur, Bosnia, oil for food scandal, Libya human rights chair etc They should rightly be ignored.
- They criticise us over refugees but why is it when refugees such as those on the Tampa are processed outside of Australia in UN camps they have a 90% rejection rate but the reverse applies when processed in Australia? Name all the other countries that take more refugees as a % of their population under the UN resettlement program. You wont need many fingers.

Its not all about left and right. In another topic I clearly stated that Fraser was a disgrace as pm and that even the most conservative thinker would give some credit to Hawke for the current state of the economy.

BTW my post didnt claim Howard set up the Cairns group.

 

[medusala]

Do you care to have a look at the infamous 1951 and 1954 elections. Doc Evatts whole campaign was based around high levels of inflation, however, how can you compete when the government finds a spy ring, in the form of Petrov (the fact they paid him $5000 to defect obviously meant nothing).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headline Rate (All Groups)
--------------------------
percentage change
-------------------
index quarterly annual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1948-49 6.9
1949-50 7.5 n.a. 8.7
1950-51 8.5 n.a. 13.3
1951-52 10.4 n.a. 22.4
1952-53 11.4 n.a. 9.6

The annual figure being the level of inflation - 22.4% not very high at all

That was because of the Korean war and massive increases in the wool price ie wool got to a pound a pound. It wasnt because of massive increases in govt spending like Whitlam and Fraser. In fact according to the RBA

(a) If the short-lived Korean War boom is excluded, the average inflation rates in the 1950s would be 2.5 per cent for Australia and 1.7 per cent for the OECD. ...
www.rba.gov.au/PublicationsAndResearch/ Bulletin/bu_nov99/bu_1199_3.pdf

 

[dan warna]

Medusala is a complete joke quoting spin, bs and opinion as fact

sure we are among many countries kow towing to China on its HR, but 'everyone else does it' is not a defence, esp when he goes in strongly on our courage in Indonesia (which was our soldiers courage not our gutless PMs)

he doesn't mention the continued support for torture our PM gives to the US to torture rape and murder unarmed men women and children.

Even the former rascals that ran the soviet union accept kyoto as a reality pretty much only the US and its lap dogs deny the existance of kyoto but being coal/oil driven they/we have the most lose so are putting profits today against the health of tomorrow. no doubt given the fact that haliburton owns the white house that is an imperitive.

If the UN is such a joke why did we bother with the lies and spin to justify our invasion of iraq? why did the US try to bribe and blackmail security council officers, something the nazi's tried to do with the league of nations?

the UN is a weak body, but it is generally a force for good.

sure the food for oil scandal is bad, but the war for oil, the murder for oil and the handover of the oil to haliburton is worse on a scale of magnitude that is huge.

250,000 dead in iraq for oil, and 30 billion or so in handouts to haliburton and subsidiaries makes the food for oil seem a bit second rate really.

 

[medusala]

Medusala is a complete joke quoting spin, bs and opinion as fact

.

Now,now I usually post a reference for my stats. I am still waiting for you to show me where your figures on Afghanistan and Iraq deaths come from.

Which bits of spin, bs and opinion have been stated as fact? You criticise Australia over china and Guantanamo Bay but obviously the UN is blameless for Darfur and Bosnia. When was the last UN resolution on Irian Jaya?

You have me wrong on Iraq. I am no great defender of the war there, I am very ambivalent on the whole thing as I cant really see it being in Australia's best interest. On the other hand keeping the current maritime boundary in the Timor Gap clearly is.

 

[Bombers 2003]

I see. So your opinion is be all, end all? Riiight. Sorry to burst your bubble, but many don't share your view.

Seeing YOU know NOTHING About social justice and Equity,KEEP YOUR BIG MOUTH SHUT.

 

[bunsen burner]

Howard's success is in his political longevity and the way he has been able to keep his team disciplined, when clearly many don't like him.

Sounds like you think he's a good PM.

 

[bunsen burner]

Seeing YOU know NOTHING About social justice and Equity,KEEP YOUR BIG MOUTH SHUT.

Just because you have the underdog chip on your shoulder, doesn't mean you know anything about social justice and equity.

 

[bunsen burner]

Don't even talk about credibility if you honestly think that JWH is mainly responsible for Australia's prosperity.

He's the PM. Leads all the cabinet. He has a big influence. You're delusional if you think otherwise.

I can't share your views on that at all.(sorry to burst your bubble)

Was quite aware that you don't share my views. It was you who claimed Howard isn't rated as a good PM because you don't like him.

It's funny how you, as a swinging voter, can be such a staunch and stoic supporter of a very average Prime Minister.

1. When you rate him against his opposite numbers with a view to supporting one or the other, Howard is a good choice. Clearly has it over super-chumps Crean and Latham. Would probably have voted Beazley had he been leader this time around.

2. Has provided a good economic platform for our people. The best social policy is a strong economy, i.e. low unemployment and low inflation.

 

[Bombers 2003]

Just because you have the underdog chip on your shoulder, doesn't mean you know anything about social justice and equity.

I dont have a chip on MY shoulder.And if Howarss had any feeling for anything beyond himself, i MAY PERHAPS have respect for him/it.

 

[bunsen burner]

I dont have a chip on MY shoulder.And if Howarss had any feeling for anything beyond himself, i MAY PERHAPS have respect for him/it.

enough said.

 

[Bombers 2003]

enough said.

Are you saying,perhaps,that my comment means i have a chipped shoulder?.

 

[Bombers 2003]

2. Has provided a good economic platform for our people. The best social policy is a strong economy, i.e. low unemployment and low inflation.

RUBBISH.

 

[bunsen burner]

Are you saying,perhaps,that my comment means i have a chipped shoulder?.

It just complements the rest of the crap you perrenially spout.

 

[bunsen burner]

RUBBISH.

So what is the point of having a whole heap of social policies if unemployment and inflation is high? The first step to good social welfare is jobs for most and low inflation. Economy first, social polcies to follow. Doesn't work the other way around.

 

[Bombers 2003]

So what is the point of having a whole heap of social policies if unemployment and inflation is high? The first step to good social welfare is jobs for most and low inflation. Economy first, social polcies to follow. Doesn't work the other way around.

No we need to look after the products of Liberal economic policy before the human casualties rebel.

 

[Pessimistic]

Menzies and Howard VERY GOOD - at preserving thier misarable hides that is. God help us if Howard hangs on as long as menzies did.


Ladies and gentlemen, space flight 109x will be landing in sydney airport in 10minutes. Pleas excuse the hard landing as they still use wheels on runway here. By way of apology please accept a free pass to Bubba Irwins alligator world, the pride of the gold coast.

Oh.. and set your watch back 25 years !

 

[hoss]

He's the PM. He has a big influence.

Tell me you're kidding...wake up and smell the roses.

It was you who claimed Howard isn't rated as a good PM because you don't like him.

Thats bullsh1t and you know it. I didn't say Howard wasn't a good PM because "I don't like him". I gave my reasons as to why he's so overated.

1. When you rate him against his opposite numbers with a view to supporting one or the other, Howard is a good choice. Clearly has it over super-chumps Crean and Latham. Would probably have voted Beazley had he been leader this time around.

Has got nothing to do with it - I'm not saying he is worse than Crean, Beazley or Latham. I'm judging his performance as a PM.