Mr Deane's posting is, to use his words, 'deeply strange'. But why should we be surprised at that? OLO people will recognise this is the same Mr Deane who argued that land mines save lives, that the refugees on the Tampa were phonies and that in the UK 2005 General Election the Labour Government was "desperately unpopular, but the polls stubbornly put them ahead".

Now Mr Deane is touting for the return of the "desperately unpopular" Mr Howard. And what reasons does he offer swinging voters?

1. That, while we know everything there is to know about John Howard and next to nothing about Kevin Rudd, we don’t really know what Mr Howard’s position is on interest rates.

2. That unemployment has fallen as a result of the foresight of Hawke and Keating but people undervalue the more recent work of Howard.

3. That if Howard is re-elected things will carry on much the same as before and that "prospect will please some and displease others". We need more of the past.

4. That there are psychological problems with "the deeply strange Peter Garrett". Labor’s answer to Tony Abbot?

5. That "Julia Gillard’s far-left background means that she commands a position from which she might topple her glorious leader". Labor’s answer to Peter Costello?

6. That “Famously [he might equally have said ‘falsely’], 70 per cent of all of Labor’s front bench are former union bosses.”

7. That he thinks "there’s something a bit, well, not quite right about" Kevin Rudd. But he doesn’t specify what.

8. That while we’ve had ‘wall-to-wall’ Coalition governments in the past and the sky didn’t fall in, we must be very afraid of ‘wall-to-wall’ Labor.

And to round off, Mr Deane tells us that “At a Federal level, the Australian electorate has always got it right." The voters were right to vote out McMahon, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Keating. "And it’s been right to keep the Howard-Costello government for four terms."

On that argument they will be right to replace Howard now.

There are several things ethically not right with the author's views; for a start his view on death or wealth taxes expressed previously. If citizens are entitled to equal opportunity then where is the right of a child to an equal inheritance or, in our society, to even an equal educational opportunity. John Howard and Peter Costello have not made a success of running our economy. If they had we would have have spent money on infrastructure for the future rather than promote speculation, with tax cut for high income earners. Their policies have bid housing out of the reach of many young families.
If I might quote Keynes, "Thus we are so sensible, have schooled ourselves to so close a semblance of prudent financiers, taking careful thought before we add to the 'financial' burdens of posterity by building them houses to live in, that we have no such easy escape from the sufferings of unemployment. We have to accept them as an inevitable result of applying to the conduct of the State the maxims which are best calculated to 'enrich' an individual by enabling him to pile up claims to enjoyment which he does not intend to exercise at any definite time."
We mightn't have much unemployment but that is due to overseas demand for depleting resources not the efforts of this federal government.

Fully agree we should avoid wall-to-wall Labor governments - let's get some genuinely progressive alternatives in.
The current ALP, at both state and federal level, is at least as conservative as the Coalition were 20 years ago (if not more so).

everyone who leaves a comment on OLO is so bloody left wing it's ridiculous

Alexander,

You seem to suggest that there are real and tangible effects from the Howard government on our lives and the lives of our families and friends.

No Alexander, there are real and tangible effects from the Howard government on YOUR life and the lives of YOUR families and friends.

You went to Trinity College and Cambridge? Well many people in Australia could simply not afford that type of education.

That is especially the case now following Howard's divestment in education. Try and argue that under Howard’s management Australia’s tertiary education system has not been exclusionary? Oh and in case you are wondering I went to a private school.

As for the economy's growth - hardly the sole measure of a community's health as you seem to suggest - do you really believe Howard and Costello are the only reason for that growth? Like Howard, you fail to mention any other factors at all, staggering in the current economic climate and hardly a solid economic argument.

It is also alarming how you regurgitate coalition fear-based campaign slogans and pass them off as your own opinion.

"Wall-to-wall Labor" Yes very scary and Orwellian. Well there is that little thing called state elections. Surely if you mention that you should mention the coalition’s complete control of the senate? Now merely a rubber stamp for Howard’s agenda.

"Union influence under Labor is alarmingly high" ho-hum and again very scary. Yes and Julia Gillard is a communist. Let’s return to McCarthyism shall we? Rise above the usual election rhetoric Alexander and tell us something we don't already know.

I would have thought a Barrister, a rotary scholar and a self-professed 'World Universities Debating Champion' would have had a more critical thought process.

A.C.E Ventuuie

Alexander,

I know I am speaking with a young liberal so forgive me from segueing away from economics for a moment, to something that I feel is also very important.

Under Howard, Australia has had the worst human rights record in the country’s history.

A terrible and outrageous tale of children in detention, mandatory detention and inaction on indigenous issues, the reality of which I have had relayed personally to me by Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner, Graeme Innes.
This has unfortunately soured our image around the world – that is with people who care about such things.

With Kevin Andrews’ recent suggestion he will ban African migrants because ‘they cause fights in nightclubs’, further underlines the type of Australia Howard is encouraging, the type that reared its ugly head with the Cronulla riots.

I’d like to see you make a moral argument to vote for Howard. Yes Alexander, Peter Garrett is deeply strange. He didn’t go to Cambridge. He isn’t into yachting or polo. And I’d hazard a guess he puts human rights issues on equal footing as economic performance as a measure of a country’s and indeed an individual’s success.

A.C.E Ventuuie