Is John Howard Australias worst PM ever ?

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Ratts, everything that followed the line "It's because they didn't" demonstrates that they did. As I said in the previous post, the Labor Party today is a liberal party. It's not that they don't have a core, it's that they gutted the old core and replaced it with another one which is contested and therefore smaller.

But that is wrong. It sounds logical in theory, but there are plenty of people in Labor who were there prior to deregulation, and plenty of people who care about the same things as those back then who are still attracted to Labor. Health, Education, giving a hand to those who need it, etc. It's not controversial to suggest doing those things well costs money and therefore having an economy generating more revenue is useful to that end.

The loss of a fair few manufacturing jobs does impact base-level manual labour jobs that you might think is the reason behind the name Labor (e.g. process workers), but technology removed those jobs everywhere except in places where workers are exploited. The reason it's called Labor here (or Labour in the UK) is because workers were uniting to stop exploitation - the taxing of gold-diggers; the use of children in factories; the black lung from coal mines' etc. Yes, unions have famously marched on things like the closure of mines in the UK, and I think there is debate still as to whether that was the correct economic decision, but the key idea at the 'core' of Labor is worker conditions, not that they should try and maintain jobs that tech can make obsolete.

 

[The Speaker]

The existence of rusted-on Labor voters does not mean that the centre of the party is the same, particularly not when they are able to brandish their history and compare it to the Liberals. Politics is fundamentally reliant on theory, and the theoretical basis of the Australian Labor Party today is liberalism. It's not just about the loss of manufacturing jobs in and of itself, it's about what that represented and why it happened.

 

[Scotland]

Health, Education, giving a hand to those who need it, etc. It's not controversial to suggest doing those things well costs money and therefore having an economy generating more revenue is useful to that end.

Are the policies on these areas of the ALP and Liberals all that different these days? People don't want union promoting 'us and them' IR any more than they want Tony Abbott deciding what you can do with your uterus.

The major parties operate within a band of political goodwill. Whoever is in opposition can do as the name suggests and oppose whatever they like, but in reality when government changes not all that much happens.

Howard was punted in 2007. Since we've had Rudd, Gillard, Rudd again, Abbott and now Turnbull. When you look back and the social and economic reforms of previous decades not a whole lot has really changed in the last 9 years - which is a combination of Australia being a lot more settled and established than it was in years past and the major parties moving away from making tough decisions and focusing on re-election - which Howard gets the blame for.

I maintain my stance that a leader to the left of the Liberals or right of the ALP will always resonate best with the Australian population. Turnbull survives on charisma and not being from the lunatic religious right wing faction of the Liberals but has achieved 2/5 of FA, but Shorten has about as much presence as Tom Hawkins. (C) None of the above would've won a 3PP majority if it was an option.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Are the policies on these areas of the ALP and Liberals all that different these days? People don't want union promoting 'us and them' IR any more than they want Tony Abbott deciding what you can do with your uterus.

The reasons why the policies aren't that different is because Labor has come up with policies like the NDIS and the political pressure has made the Liberals agree with them. The attempted policies in health from the Liberals were all about cost-cutting and then they backtracked on major elements of it because it was politically unpopular. There is a clear difference in approach. In education, Labor sees the problem and comes up with the solution - Gonski. The Liberals have said there wasn't a problem - despite our education standards falling year-on-year ever since Howard came up with the SES funding approach - and only agreed to Labor's policy (for the first 4 years) because of political pressure. Their own policies for education are to review 'safe schools' and spend $250M on more school chaplains. There is a clear difference.

The major parties operate within a band of political goodwill. Whoever is in opposition can do as the name suggests and oppose whatever they like, but in reality when government changes not all that much happens.

Nup, that was a new approach by Abbott. It mirrored the political approach of the Republicans in America, which are, frankly, immature and toxic. Fortunately his popularity is very low. Unfortunately there are a pack of narrow-minded people in the Liberals who think he was hard done by, and they are a major problem that the Liberals need to deal with if they want to remain electable. Of course losing the next election will force that to happen, but they do have an opportunity now to fix that without losing government.

 

[Scotland]

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I do encourage people to debate the issues on merit, but most of you aren't up to it.

 

[Maggie5]

I know as soon as I saw the 'selfie'

 

[Scotland]

The reasons why the policies aren't that different is because Labor has come up with policies and the political pressure has made the Liberals agree with them.

Labor sees the problem and comes up with the solution

Nup, that was a new approach by Abbott

Not cheerleading at all.

 

[The Speaker]

Not cheerleading at all.

It's one of many proofs that worldview colours the evidence that humans encounter, not the other way around.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

It's one of many proofs that worldview colours the evidence that humans encounter, not the other way around.

Speak for yourself, Speaker. Even Scotland realised the irony in claiming he was above other people in the debate, but then could only produce a stereotypical response in the form of an image as his 'debate'.

If I said anything that was wrong, people would be pointing that out, rather than retreating to general comment.

 

[The Speaker]

Speak for yourself, Speaker. Even Scotland realised the irony in claiming he was above other people in the debate, but then could only produce a stereotypical response in the form of an image as his 'debate'.

If I said anything that was wrong, people would be pointing that out, rather than retreating to general comment.

I am speaking for myself. I am also speaking for you, and Scotland, and every other person on earth. We like to think that we're all incredibly rational, neutral creatures who have no worldview until we consider all the evidence. We are not. Once we have become convinced of a worldview, we will paint everything with this colour. Depending on what type of person we are, this can result in anything between careful support to out-and-out tribalism. Consider which of these you lean towards in your devotion to justifying everything the Labor Party has ever done.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I am speaking for myself. I am also speaking for you, and Scotland, and every other person on earth. We like to think that we're all incredibly rational, neutral creatures who have no worldview until we consider all the evidence. We are not. Once we have become convinced of a worldview, we will paint everything with this colour. Depending on what type of person we are, this can result in anything between careful support to out-and-out tribalism. Consider which of these you lean towards in your devotion to justifying everything the Labor Party has ever done.

Once again, if I had said anything wrong, you could point it out. Instead you've retreated to speaking for others. My world-view is based on the evidence the world supplies, which is why you'll struggle to point to things I've said that are wrong. But it is very good that you admit you suffer from your world-view getting in the road of how the world actually is. If more people had that revelation as a society we wouldn't waste so much time discussing BS.

 

[sherb]

Probably not the worst (for me that would have to be Abbott by a country mile), but he willingly steered Australia down the road of fear, division and intolerance for political gain.

On top of that, he bent over for George Bush and took Australia into an absolutely disastrous war as a result.

Those two things alone should severely tarnish, if not ruin, his legacy.

 

[The Speaker]

My world-view is based on the evidence the world supplies, which is why you'll struggle to point to things I've said that are wrong.

As I said, you wish this were true.

Wisdom comes when you recognise this the opposite is the case. I hope you realise this in the fullness of time.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Lateline on ABC 1 now speaking with Alex Salmond (yeah, I know) about a few things, including criticisms of Howard in terms of Iraq.

As I said, you wish this were true.

Wisdom comes when you recognise this the opposite is the case. I hope you realise this in the fullness of time.

No. Wisdom is that if you think this is the case, you go out of your way to listen to people with different world-views (like coming onto Big Footy) or look for the actual evidence.

Funny that I can say such arrogant things about thinking I'm doing an OK job of letting the world form my view, yet you still somehow out-arrogant me by claiming to speak for me, to know what's best for me, and to know that "wisdom" is to accept that you have a blinkered world view. That's plain silly.

And, still: zero evidence given that shows that my post was wrong.

 

[Maggie5]

Lateline on ABC 1 now speaking with Alex Salmond (yeah, I know) about a few things, including criticisms of Howard in terms of Iraq.

No. Wisdom is that if you think this is the case, you go out of your way to listen to people with different world-views (like coming onto Big Footy) or look for the actual evidence.

Funny that I can say such arrogant things about thinking I'm doing an OK job of letting the world form my view, yet you still somehow out-arrogant me by claiming to speak for me, to know what's best for me, and to know that "wisdom" is to accept that you have a blinkered world view. That's plain silly.

And, still: zero evidence given that shows that my post was wrong.

All I can say is I am reminded on BF why I stopped voting Liberal also thanks to Whitlam.

 

[The Speaker]

No. Wisdom is that if you think this is the case, you go out of your way to listen to people with different world-views (like coming onto Big Footy) or look for the actual evidence.

I don't need to go out of my way to encounter worldviews different to mine, because my worldview is one held by a minority. As stated, humans will make evidence to match their worldview, not vice versa. This is why people will consistently use the same pieces of evidence to justify completely different opinions.

Funny that I can say such arrogant things about thinking I'm doing an OK job of letting the world form my view, yet you still somehow out-arrogant me by claiming to speak for me, to know what's best for me, and to know that "wisdom" is to accept that you have a blinkered world view. That's plain silly.

You can think that it is silly all you like. Like I said, I hope that in time you will appreciate that it is not so.

And, still: zero evidence given that shows that my post was wrong.

I don't care for that post specifically. The entirety of your posting, as far as I have seen in your time here, consists of either ignoring or twisting any argument against your tribe to make sure that they always appear to have made the right decision, and then, as the unwise tend to do, proclaiming that the difference in views that others hold is because of their ignorance of the facts. The reason so many people who disagree with you end up walking away is not because you prove that they are wrong. It is because you provide enormous walls of texts that say very little and demonstrate no willingness to budge, even one iota, for fear of either you or your tribe losing face. And yet, when it doesn't involve your tribe in some way, this problem disappears, and is replaced by a poster who has demonstrated a level of intelligence and a willingness to learn more from those who know more about a particular subject. Funny how that works. It's almost like the worldview connected to your tribe changes the way you approach the evidence.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Youse are all being way too hyper-critical of John.

He offered a nice & cosy, traditional, rock-solid, return to the 50's kinda feel/deal.

Ever since his demise, Aussie politics has lost all stability....Last of the old-school, was little Johnny.

 

[The Speaker]

Youse are all being way too hyper-critical of John.

He offered a nice & cosy, traditional, rock-solid, return to the 50's kinda feel/deal.

Ever since his demise, Aussie politics has lost all stability....Last of the old-school, was little Johnny.

That is certainly what he offered, but stability is not always enough.

 

[coerced]

Not so much. Although a bit of civility in the workplace is all the rage in management at the moment. I bet Google have tea ladies and canteen staff. I'm more concerned that the nations telecommunications monopoly provider, as well as the most capable telecommunications infrastructure and maintenance organisation was sold off right at the point of the largest change in human communication that we've ever known. Telstra would have been an excellent vehicle to incrementally invest in high-speed broadband, but it's privatisation held up that process to the point that our digital infrastructure represents a brake on productivity.

Excellent point, but Todman is a moron. Wasted on him.

 

[Present Not Past]

Youse are all being way too hyper-critical of John.

He offered a nice & cosy, traditional, rock-solid, return to the 50's kinda feel/deal.

Ever since his demise, Aussie politics has lost all stability....Last of the old-school, was little Johnny.

He had a Parliament of monkeys with him as the ringleader.
I think back to some of the cretins he had as Ministers and I just cringe.

 

[Procrastinator35]

He had a Parliament of monkeys with him as the ringleader.
I think back to some of the cretins he had as Ministers and I just cringe.

Abbott & Costello were pretty funny back in the day....And whoever thought Downer could make a good leader, was aavin a lend.

 

[Scotland]

Speak for yourself, Speaker. Even Scotland realised the irony in claiming he was above other people in the debate, but then could only produce a stereotypical response in the form of an image as his 'debate'.

If I said anything that was wrong, people would be pointing that out, rather than retreating to general comment.

Mr Speaker has you summed up pretty well.

Your comments aren't "wrong", they're just partisan nonsense. Howard and Costello benefited from some of the reforms of Hawke, who got some of their ideas from Fraser and Howard... who didn't just invent them out of thin air. How far back do you want to go?

I'm sure you're full of praise for Rudd's handling of the GFC, after he inherited a strong economy that was of course only the result of favourable economic conditions and govt initiatives from 1983-1995...

 

[Procrastinator35]

Partisan politics, investment in & comments of, always amuses me.

 

[Maggie5]

Partisan politics, investment in & comments of, always amuses me.

Me too especially one that is shrouded in arrogance and born to rule mentality and the other is transparent.
Wonder whether some Libs supporters can see past their nose? Must be fun looking down at others. LOL!