Official : John Howard Australia's Best Prime Minister

[PottSie2]

JOHN Howard has been overwhelmingly backed as the country's best prime minister of the past quarter of a century in a new poll, which ranks Julia Gillard last.

http://www.news.com.au/national/joh...t-prime-minister/story-fncynjr2-1226561231526

I guess this poll just confirms what we were all thinking. A time of steady and real leadership. Good policy and good implementation. I guess the results speak for themselves.

 

[Hill2Pav]

I think the 20% uncommitted were the smartest people in that poll!

 

[Footy Smarts]

http://www.news.com.au/national/joh...t-prime-minister/story-fncynjr2-1226561231526

I guess this poll just confirms what we were all thinking. A time of steady and real leadership. Good policy and good implementation. I guess the results speak for themselves.

I like that this poll uses a classic Howard tactic from the republic referendum of splitting the opposing vote since the ALP total is 45% while Howard gets 35%.

Honestly I'm surprised it's so low. Considering that most elections go close to 50-50 on 2PP and Howard was in office for so long why does he only get 35%? It suggests a good number of regular coalition voters don't think Howard was the best or were at least undecided.

Also lots of rose coloured glasses with Rudd. How anybody could put him above Hawke (with Keating as treasurer) beats me.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

'Popular' and 'best' mean two different things. Unless you think that Justin Beiber is the 'best' musician, or Oprah is the 'best' interviewer etc. And I'm sure the Hearl Scum commissioned the poll in the most honest and unbiased way it could too, judging by that satid and balanced way they reported it

 

[mantis]

I think the 20% uncommitted were the smartest people in that poll!

Agree, plus the people who voted for little Johnny, would be the middle class families that he gave welfare to.

 

[PottSie2]

'Popular' and 'best' mean two different things. Unless you think that Justin Beiber is the 'best' musician, or Oprah is the 'best' interviewer etc. And I'm sure the Hearl Scum commissioned the poll in the most honest and unbiased way it could too, judging by that satid and balanced way they reported it

It's okay Upton. You'll get over it. The polling pretty much reflects community sentiment. Gillard is a shocker, Howard was the best, and Rudd, Hawke, Keating were okay too.

 

[PottSie2]

Agree, plus the people who voted for little Johnny, would be the middle class families that he gave welfare to.

Agreed, another word for them is taxpayers.

 

[Gough]

Since when is Murdoch Press says Howard's the best Australian PM, one, official, or two, news?

 

[Norwegian Blue]

An eminent committee consisting of 3 Liberals and a Liberal have voted and the results are in. Can't argue with facts like that.

 

[PottSie2]

Since when is Murdoch Press says Howard's the best Australian PM, one, official, or two, news?

The people have decided, not Murdoch.

 

[mantis]

Agreed, another word for them is taxpayers.

They aren't taxpayers, when they are given their taxes back in the form of welfare.

 

[subaru]

http://www.news.com.au/national/joh...t-prime-minister/story-fncynjr2-1226561231526

I guess this poll just confirms what we were all thinking. A time of steady and real leadership. Good policy and good implementation. I guess the results speak for themselves.

"Mr Hawke's office said he declined to comment on the poll result which saw him ranked highest by Labor voters with 27 per cent ranking him as best prime minister ahead of Mr Rudd at 23 per cent.Mr Keating was not available for comment yesterday while a spokesman for Ms Gillard declined to comment.

As you would I guess

 

[LouisCK]

Rudd ahead of Hawke is even more perplexing than Howard's popularity.

And Keating having anything less than 100% of the vote is weird to me.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

The people have decided, not Murdoch.

350 people.

 

[harmesy 37]

Rudd ahead of Hawke is even more perplexing than Howard's popularity.

And Keating having anything less than 100% of the vote is weird to me.

The first part of your paragraph i agree on- rudd was 1 /30th the prime minister of Hawke.

Keating??? a good prime minister? delusional.

re: Rudd....I found this comment on one of the comments sections in oneof the papers:-


"I’m sure the family of the 4 young Australians killed in ceilings while installing aluminium would agree as I do. Rudd was warned of the danger by representatives from NZ where they had banned aluminium due to many electrocutions. The government did not act after the first death, not the second death, nor the third death and it was public pressure that forced them to act after the fourth death"

Rudd will be remembered for pink bats, delusional self-confidence and self-importance, spending money (inhereted from a competent govt) willfully on wasteful projects. The only prime ministers worse than Rudd are Keating and Gillard.

 

[subaru]

Anthony Green this morning hypothesised on the extent of a Liberal win based on a poll of 540 voters in Tassie.

If the poll represents a cross section you can extrapolate all you like apparently.
Howard #1

 

[Gough]

122.5/350, hardly an overwhelming response, might as well have had a poll for the best footy team or batsman of the last 25 years, it's going to be a pretty broad church.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Polls where people generally vote along party lines but you split the vote of one side are just silly.

If you asked people who their preferred PM was with the choices as Abbott, Gillard, Rudd, Combet and Shorten I guarantee that Abbott would come out on top. Of course Abbott is well behind on the PPM when only Gillard is included.

Say the poll was changed and only Howard and Hawke were put up as options. Would any of those that voted for Keating, Rudd or Gillard choose Howard over Hawke? Maybe a couple but the vast majority wouldn't. It's likely that Hawke would win that contest looking at the total voting for Liberal against Labor PMs.

Taking this type of poll to give a measure of the most popular is incredibly deceptive. Claiming it as a measure of the "best" is laughable.

 

[DeanoT]

Polls where people generally vote along party lines but you split the vote of one side are just silly.

Maybe you should ask the ALP to stop rolling incumbent heads of government then, so we are not spoilt for choices of ALP leaders to choose from.

 

[Dry Rot]

Rudd ahead of Hawke is even more perplexing than Howard's popularity.

And Keating having anything less than 100% of the vote is weird to me.

Agreed. Keating is a god.

Went down to Canberra last weekend. Dropped into old Parliament House (good political cartoon exhibition) and said hello to Keating's portrait.

 

[Dry Rot]

This poll is invaluable for mental health professionals.

The vote for Gillard is a good proxy for the level of severe mental illness in the community.

 

[subaru]

Polls where people generally vote along party lines but you split the vote of one side are just silly.

If you asked people who their preferred PM was with the choices as Abbott, Gillard, Rudd, Combet and Shorten I guarantee that Abbott would come out on top. Of course Abbott is well behind on the PPM when only Gillard is included.

Say the poll was changed and only Howard and Hawke were put up as options. Would any of those that voted for Keating, Rudd or Gillard choose Howard over Hawke? Maybe a couple but the vast majority wouldn't. It's likely that Hawke would win that contest looking at the total voting for Liberal against Labor PMs.

Taking this type of poll to give a measure of the most popular is incredibly deceptive. Claiming it as a measure of the "best" is laughable.

Look at it in reverse... 17 people out of 350 thought Jules was best ...that in itself is disturbing.

But more that 330 thought she was shit. A small comfort.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Look at it in reverse... 17 people out of 350 thought Jules was best ...that in itself is disturbing.

But more that 330 thought she was shit. A small comfort.

What a ridiculous assertion.

I think anybody voting for Gillard as the best of the lot is a bit of an idiot. In saying that though I think similarly of anybody voting for Howard or Rudd. But I don't think Gillard's "shit" either.

I guess if I asked 350 AFL fans who was the best player out of Gary Ablett and Patrick Dangerfield it would show that almost everyone thinks Dangerfield's "shit" right?

 

[Norfolk Nadia]

What a ridiculous assertion.

I think anybody voting for Gillard as the best of the lot is a bit of an idiot. In saying that though I think similarly of anybody voting for Howard or Rudd. But I don't think Gillard's "shit" either.

I guess if I asked 350 AFL fans who was the best player out of Gary Ablett and Patrick Dangerfield it would show that almost everyone thinks Dangerfield's "shit" right?

Even if you asked who is the worst player out of Ablett and Dangerfield it wouldnt necessarily mean the "winner" was a bad player

 

[Footy Smarts]

Even if you asked who is the worst player out of Ablett and Dangerfield it wouldnt necessarily mean the "winner" was a bad player

Exactly. Just because somebody chooses Hawke over Keating doesn't mean they think Keating was a bad PM. Yet Subaru seems to think that 95% of people think Gillard is "shit"...