Comments on: Howard’s legacy

By: Paul Martin

Paul Martin — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:24:54 +0000

As an addendum, and perhaps adding to Brendan’s comments (which of course I agree with), the only ‘reforms’ the Howard government made to the economy were ones that furthered their own ideological goals, and not based on any sound economic reasons. As Paul Keating has pointed out, this has well and truly been a culture war waged by Howard in which the result has been to steal from the poor (for example by starving public education of funds) and giving to the rich (who have received the lion’s share of tax relief and other non-means tested benefits).

By: rog

rog — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:41:49 +0000

Howard is copping a heap of late, I read elesewhere where he is solely blamed for the detention of asylum seekers and illegal migrants.

It was the Keating govt that brought in mandatory detention and then widened those powers to indefinite detention with Howard making further amendments. There has been no indication that the Rudd govt will change this situation other than to close down the Pacific centres, ostensibly to save money.

By: Brendan Halfweeg

Brendan Halfweeg — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:05:35 +0000

Howard was at best a caretaker-style PM with little agenda except maintaining and enhancing his party and the Commonwealth’s power. He introduced few reforms of any note, continued the steady growth of government, reduced federalism and introduced aspirational Australians to middle class welfare, like some cheap crack dealer trying to get leverage over the neighbourhood. He was no friend to those of a libertarian bent, even WorkChoices came with a regulatory nightmare sting in the tale. Howard made light work of riding roughshod over the Liberal’s small government credentials and have handed the ALP a federal government apparatus better placed with more power and more resolve to micromanagement everyday Australian’s lives than any in history.

By: Paul Martin

Paul Martin — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:58:39 +0000

I dispute the claim to achievements economically. First, Howard rode two waves: the economic reforms of Hawke/Keating and the resources boom. Secondly, I don’t know how many billions have been spent on Iraq, but the fact that this was a big mistake has serious economic ramifications. For example, we could have had world’s best health and/or education. Instead, we have entanglement in an unwinnable war that has made us less secure. The Liberals’ claim as superior economic managers is just a big lie.

By: Alan

Alan — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 05:40:38 +0000

Howard’s entire policy in the area of civil liberties, foreign relations and refugees was creating a bogeyman and hoping the spittle-flecked would fleck even more spittle on their way to the polling booth to re-elect him. Howard was committed to determining which wedges would work in Australia and the circumstances under which they would work.

Are you accusing Howard of throwing guns in the water?

By: cs

cs — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 05:35:35 +0000

“Thanks for the laugh”, I should have said. Too much flecked spittle! Oh dear, I’m laughing all over again.

By: cs

cs — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 05:34:25 +0000

‘Spittle-flecked

Thanks fot he laugh, ChrisPer!

Rudd benefits from a number of the Howard governments industrial relation changes – such as secret voting.

I appreciate that Tony is trying to toss Howard a bone, but union’s have had secret ballots on serious matters for centuries. While I don’t suppose that all unions are any purer than all employers, this was always much more about fouling union processes than democracy.

By: Robert Braby

Robert Braby — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 05:09:03 +0000

The two things that stood out in the Howard regime, both unforgivable, were:
. Lack of moral leadership – especially lies, deceit and exploitation rather than correction of public ignorance (e.g. on interest rates). These were part of his professional tool kit – shameful.
. Denial of climate change, which we have known about for 30 years! Short term political survival took precedence over the future of our children and grandchildren – shameful.

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:33:55 +0000

‘Spittle-flecked’? Wouldn’t that be the person subjected to a spray? Frankly, that’s about the way I feel whenever I read comments, like ChrisPer’s, from the Liberal cheer squad. Maybe he meant ‘foamers’?

By: Elijah

Elijah — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:08:42 +0000

gun reduction program after Port Arthur.

Yeah real “good”. Remove the boogeyman that doesn’t exist. *Spit*

By: James Farrell

James Farrell — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 02:54:03 +0000

Good column, Tony, although it's not clear where you stand on the IR reforms or whether they're encompassed by 'the economy'. ChrisPer, I've been working on a collection of expressions that Howard sycophants use to cast doubt on the sanity of people who don't like their hero. 'Spittle-flecked' is great -- good enough indeed to use twice in one comment. Could you oblige with some more?

By: ChrisPer

ChrisPer — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 02:01:30 +0000

Perverting the public service? What, exactly, does every Labor government State or Federal do to the upper levels of the public service?

Hopeless.

When a lefty such as Gillard wishes to be nice to Howard, s/he praises his gun laws.

Sadly the gun laws were his worst action by far; he rode at the head of a populist lynch mob, which defamed a million innocent people for their race, sex and traditional values; then bringing excessive laws in which valdated a false prejudice of the new urban middle class.

All the other things you discuss are arguable responses to serious problems, which any proincipled government might have handled similarly and many would have done worse – framed through the spittle-flecked language of an impotent opposition.

No more though – the spittle-flecked haters have got their party up. I hope they are effective enough to do as well.

By: kwoff.com

kwoff.com — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:17:59 +0000

Club Troppo