"Dr Benjamin Thomas Jones is a Visiting Fellow at the Research School of Humanities and the Arts at the Australian National University."

Say no more. Humanities and Arts grads usually lean so far left that anything remotely conservative is considered evil incarnate.

But for a serious refutation: Howard brought over a lot of the working classes from Labor to the Liberals. A magnificent feat for a Liberal Prime Minister who traditionally are more business friendly. Labor will rarely make any headway if they're going to pander to minority groups and issues. The working classes don't care about gay marriage, they don't care about boat people, they don't want multiculturalism, and they don't care about narcissistic feminist movements. They want stable employment and affordable necessities; simple down to earth issues that they deal with on a day to day basis.

...“Howard, a friend of the workers”: You must be joking Aristocrat! Not only was Howard the “Anti-Thesis” of the toilers, but directly confrontational to them! Work Choices is not such a long step back in history. His confrontational and cowardly attacks on the workers institutions are legendary: But in the end it was work choices which demolished the Liberals and lost Howard his seat; surely you must remember!

...But worry not, The current crop of thieving lying criminals in power as Labor, have done a fine job in superseding the bad memories of the Howard era! The “Abbott Smirks” will no doubt finish the "hatchet" job on the workers sooner than later!

...The working class are basically a drone kingdom of intellectually dumb laggards. A point proved by their support for a political party opposed to the workers ethic! That may go some way towards supporting your attempted recitation from the Liberals “lie sheet” Aristocrat!

It appears the author is interpreting the results (which actually places Howard first) in line with the author's rather obvious anti-Liberal, anti-Howard orientation.

I'm sure the author will insist that people prefer Labor right up to the time Daddy Abbott romps home this year.

...And it gets “worser” Aristocrat; The new age worker is demographically and progressively “dumber” than his “dumb” predecessor as time moves forward. Multiculturalism more than ever, promoting confusion of languages and a marked lack of ability to speak or understand English in the ever broadening foreign base of our communities, and a dumbing-down of public education ensure the progression of the anti-intellectual, and the march of the masses into darkness through slavish obedience to State propaganda, with its simplistic messages of “all is well”, “trust us”: (Bins removed from "State" rail platforms as a constant reminder of the terrorists (sic))! And soon, but one political party “simply for your convenience” and renamed “ Abbott's-Bunnings” (Vote for us while you buy a hammer for your own protection)!

...I'd better stop now....

Diver Dan, I admit Workchoices was the downfall of Howard (plus a 'youthful' looking populist movement by the Rudd campaign). Yet, he was re-elected numerous times. He brought down unemployment and interest rates from the Keating era. This is why he was continually re-elected. Rudd was voted in on basically an 'it's time' feeling that Howard had been there too long (plus the Workchoices fiasco). Abbott will highly probably win in September because he can connect to the worker better than Gillard can ('stopping the boats', repealing the carbon tax, his volunteer work etc. whereas Gillard spent 30 years as a 'socialist').

You might complain about the worker being dumb, but he's never been very smart. Can you point to any time or culture throughout history where the masses were highly educated? Higher education has always been the domain of the select few. That won't change. Any raising of education standards among the masses will only push the intellectual classes into creating new standards of elitism.

Oh dear, Aristocrat!
Did you read and understand the article, or did you simply activate your "I love Howard" word stream from a random point in a narrative?

I won't repeat the author's well argued statements about the inbuilt skew in the poll. The poll was skewed so much that it would have been a miracle for it to not return the largest number for Howard.

However, Howard isn't running this time around and he was flogged in his last event. He lost an opinion poll of millions, not simply 1000. Get it right... Howard was loser, and in a big way, by the time he was pensioned off.

Anyway, back to the topic, which is about skewed polls, not about political love affairs.

DearJohnBennetts,

This isn't about any love affair I might of had with Howard (ad hominem arguments are often self-refuting anyway), this is about the second longest serving PM Australia has had.
It may have been a skewed poll, I admit that, just like many polls are by targeting a certain demographic or by writing the question in a particular way to enhance a particular outcome.
Yet, the question inevitably arises: Why was Howard the second longest serving PM?
Your beef is with the Australian voters, Mr Bennett, not me.

Aristocrat,

you state, Say no more. Humanities and Arts grads usually lean so far left that anything remotely conservative is considered evil incarnate.

Perhaps true, but i got published in Quadrant four times (maintaning my centre-left perspective) during Nov. 2006 to Jan. 2008 despite being burdened by a simplisitc university degree dominated much by simplistic bias within many subjects which certainly downplayed complexity.

Of Howard- my view of him is that he was indeed a formidable politician who was passionate about Australia, albeit that some of the policy decions his govt made were flawed (although my claim is subjective). As evident from recent govts, these are tough times with the right policy mix a difficult proposition.

Give me Howard any day over Rudd.

Statistics or polls can be manipulated by the legal structures that the Government of the day creates.

Labor will unearth several more religious connections Abbott would prefer to forget - to hurt Abbott in the polls before the elections. Here's an early piece of dirt http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/tony-abbott-linked-to-priest-in-web-of-intrigue/story-fncynkc6-1226573435456 .

The Royal Commission into paedophile priests was not only formed for justice for the victims. It presents an ideal way to highlight any perceived dirt (by association) on Abbott in order to push him down in the polls.

Get it right... Howard was loser, and in a big way,
JohnBennetts,
Wrong ! Australia is the loser. If you think for only one moment that Rudd, just because he won the election was a winner than you are sillier than it looks on paper.

The only thing I can find wrong with this poll is that it placed Rudd up there with Hawke and Keating - and above both of them at that - how's that for a joke? (However, I do think Bob and Paul both did deserve greater recognition than this poll implied.)

On any reasonable scale, the Labor result should have been Hawke, Keating, and with Rudd/Gillard sharing a tied very last place. I can only imagine many of the Labor faction polled were either too young to have been familiar with the Hawke/Keating years, or were still basking in the illusion of 'Kevin 07'.

Still, on any accounting, Howard would have to have been a solid front runner in this race, with merely overstaying his welcome being the only really significant blight on an otherwise shining record. While many may pour scorn on Work Choices (and it certainly was not without fault) it did serve to restore some much needed balance in IR, whereas the Rudd/Gillard fabrication of Fair Work Australia is a 'Farce' and a figment, with very little to commend it.

To me, this poll does however indicate a severe general disenchantment with Julia Gillard, and that is telling indeed. "Bring it on" may well be 'Famous Last Words' (which will be seen in due course to have been very well earned, IMHO).

@ individual:

Fact: Howard lost. He suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the electors in their final judgement of his merits.

Opinion (yours): Australia lost and Rudd didn't win.

Give me fact over opinion, any time.

Besides which, he couldn't even bowl a cricket ball yet professed to be a cricket tragic. The man was a fraud from start to finish.

Thank Somebody that he did indeed lose when he did - the nation needed a better team at the helm in order to weather the financial storm which followed.

Give me fact over opinion, any time.
JohnBennetts,
I can only assume that you have an academic background if you can't tell by now that Australia's gone downhill since your "Howard loss" & the Rudd election .
I think it's also safe to assume that you're on the public service payroll where you don't need any degree of competence to make a very good & guilt-free living out of making working peoples' existence a misery.

Howard was popular initially because he wasn't Keating - but was deeply unpopular toward the end of his first term.

He stayed "popular" because of Tampa, an ineffectual opposition and the well managed use of a compliant media where employed three media managers in lieu of the usual one.

He also avoided a lot of scrutiny by declining media conferences as a way of making policy announcements in favor of appearances on supportive radio programmes.

In the end, like most things, it came down to marketting and spin but eventually it caught up with him when he seemed to believe in his own infallibility and pushed policy too far to the right with Workchoices.

Howard was popular because he was neither Keating nor Hawke. He is even more popular now because he is now perceived as far better than either KRrudd or Juliar.

I think voters are now realising what a mistake it was to put themselves in the corrupt and incompetent hands of Labor.

The academic question re Howard's popularity really needs to be syphoned off into the more practical question of Abbott's ability to do/be similar. I only hope that Abbott who is blessed with having access to hindsight will indeed see Howard's mistakes & act accordingly. Hopefully, the Abbott advisors come from a more pragmatic background than Gillard's.
It is absolutely imperative that the academic component in Government be severely reduced if we are to have any hope at all to regain sense in policy making. By all means have them in schools up to grade 3 or so but anything after that is too detrimental as we have seen in the past 40 years.
I think Abbott has what it requires to put Labor in the shade so far as governing is concerned.
He only has six years to get it right before the next lot of ignorant first-time voters & their just as silly parents outnumber those with common sense again.
I'm just getting a little tired of fighting those little Lego Hitlers from the left.

Of course John Howard is popular - that was all he ever aimed to be, and his long tenure points to his success in that. A more interesting poll would be which Prime Minister has left Australia better off (in a variety of ways, not just riding a boom) at the end of their term in office, whatever its length. Malcolm Fraser is regarded as having 'wasted' his Prime Ministership by failing to introduce the reforms that were implemented by Hawke and Keating. My main recollections of Howard are scare-mongering about asylum seekers and a raft of vote-buying middle-class welfare initiatives. I think Kevin Rudd would have achieved a lot if he hadn't been sabotaged by his own party. Julia Gillard - who knows, but she seems to be concerned about the welfare of the low-payed and disadvantaged so perhaps history will overlook the way she came to power and the ghastliness of the ALP during her term.

scare-mongering about asylum seekers and a raft of vote-buying middle-class welfare initiatives
she seems to be concerned about the welfare of the low-payed and disadvantaged..
Candide,
Those words constitute some of the most pi$$-poor, pathetic attempts to invoke a pro labor voting suggestion. Well, I suppose the combination of lack of integrity plus desperation is now reaching into the pits of new lows.
As to which Prime Minister has left Australia better off ? well, it is Howard or have you forgotten what he inherited from the others. An even better question would be as to how much Howard left in the coffers for Rudd & how much of it is still there ?

JohnBennetts, Candide, you people are disgusting.

Tell me one lefty who had the guts of Howard. He put up his hard policies, then went to the people on them.

GST anyone. That is one Keating even squibed while in power. God how much in debt would we be after this fool Swan, if that GST money weren't propping him up.

Of course they were never game to put up their privatisation plans, or their carbon tax plans, or anything that was not so palatable.

After giving us such a bunch of gutless incompetents, you have the hide to belittle the one who got us out of the sh1t of their making.

Yep, disgusting is a bit soft to describe you lot.

Yep, disgusting is a bit soft to describe you lot.
Hasbeen,
the true believers must be wondering what hit them ?

Howard couldn't even win his own seat of Bennelong in the end....Workchoices was his undoing.

He wasn't a great Prime Minister at all.
He was far too conservative, and was in love with that other conservative good ol' boy Bush!

His treasurer Peter Costello would have been a better choice for the party to win an election.

.Workchoices was his undoing.
Suseonline,
Desperately wrong again. It was the hangers-on sector of the Labor party which deliberately portrayed work choices as not as good as it actually was to the vulnerable that did the undoing. If we any any king of integrity police 90% of the Labor Party would be locked away.

Suse,

Howard, 11 years, GST and taxation reform, broke the Waterside Workers strike (and don't tell me rorting wasn't rife on the waterfront), budget surpluses and Sovereign Fund (partly to bolster future higher education funding), and IR reform which did take some power back from the trade unions, boost employment and improve employment flexibility (to no-one's real disadvantage). And don't forget East Timor.

Iraq and Afghanistan - accident of timing, 9/11, (a bit like the GFC). A tough one - mixture of human rights (and possibly, terrorism) concerns, plus of loyalty to one's staunch allies (US, UK, etc) and the UN. (Don't forget WWII and the Battle of the Coral Sea.)
G W Bush - accident of timing, and of weird US political system - but friend, head of most powerful nation on Earth, and deserving of respect accordingly. Howard may have overdone the diplomacy, but kept our forces commitment conservative.

Comparison. Hawke broke the pilots' strike - but ended up seeing Ansett go down - a good trade unionist, but did introduce necessary Prices and Wages Freeze, and he and Keating floated the A$. Keating - 'the recession we had to have', and 'banana republic'. Not too complimentary (or useful). Keating lost pursuing the abolition of negative gearing - step, or straw, too far? All the same, fizzle.

Boats, Tampa, immigration detention - product of overseas upheavals (admittedly including Iraq, Afghanistan, but not solely). No joy for anyone in addressing this problem.

Agreed that Howard should have given Costello a chance. He overstayed his welcome, his final appeals to the electorate on economic responsibility and reform did not 'take', he was held to account for refusing to sign Kyota, and for refusing to apologize to the Stolen Generations, and fell on his sword for not acknowledging that WorkChoices needed some revision. 'Kevin 07' took good advantage of each and every 'chink', and the rest is history.

Still, 11 fairly good years, worthy of due recognition. Since, not much to write home about, and the saga continues.

An exercise in defining black as white, Howard was above all else an adult and cared about Australia, something he shared with Keating and Hawke. These three, though opponents, provided a degree of continuity and care that led to us being virtually untouched by the GFC.

Very different from the current crop of Shonks and Nutcases serially proposed by Labor, Latham / Rudd / Gillard.

Nice try, no cigar.

The Howard populism is mythology to many people - particulalry those who suffered as a result of some of his policies.

That warm-and-fuzzy feeling was certainly not universally felt as the polls later confirmed.

His greatest personal failure was not knowing when to go. In the end he valued his Party over the national interest and his own interests over those of his Party. Despite his "staying on until the Party wants me to go" pronouncements he ended up over-staying because of his ego and paid the electoral price.

Despite what his media acolytes may say, history will not be so kind to the PM who did so much against the long-term national interest and left virtually nothing behind as a legacy and pushed his party even further to the right and into the controlling hands of reactionary extremists.

Rache, sorry, I can't let this go unchallenged:

> history will not be so kind to the PM who did so much against the long-term national interest and left virtually nothing behind as a legacy and pushed his party even further to the right and into the controlling hands of reactionary extremists.<

Overstayed his welcome and his use-by date, and didn't hand over leadership when he should have, yes, but, 'did so much against the long-term national interest'? And, 'left virtually nothing behind as a legacy'? What, a Federal Budget surplus, and a solid Future Fund (both of which have buoyed his Labor successors through the worst of the GFC) is 'leaving no legacy'? Introduction of GST, with associated income tax reform and removal of Sales Tax, plus attempts to get uncooperative Labor State governments to reign-in excessive State taxes including Payroll Tax, Land Tax and Stamp Duties (largely unsuccessful due to the sheer recalcitrance and pure self-interest of these other parties), still, 'so much against long-term national interest'? Incredible.

Introduction of the GST was arguably the greatest and most effective reform of Federal taxation in our history - even Paul Keating wanted to introduce it, but his government, under Bob Hawke, lacked the insight and fortitude.

Work Choices may have got in your craw, but was essential reform to an ailing IR system (bequeathed by Hawke/Keating), and, its successor, Fair Work Australia, is so flawed as to be almost unworkable - with Labor minions in key positions, and ineptitude abounding, as demonstrated in their investigation into alleged misconduct by members of the Health Services Union. On any comparison, FWA is an absolute joke.

As for the leanings of Howard's successors, their task is to counter the extreme 'leftist' Socialist leanings/agenda of the worst Federal government in recorded history. Are welfare recipients and/or low-paid workers better off, or social services really 'improved' under this government? Don't think so.

Reactionary? I hope so.

On any reasonable comparison, John Howard's legacy stands as a 'shining light', particularly in the dark times of our current 'reality'.

There were a number of factors in Howard's favour;
An unprecedented -in duration- mining boom, largely thanks to China,
Most of the Neo Liberal reforms favoured by Howard had already been implemented or conceptualised -by a so called Labor Govt.,
The concept of a GST had first been introduced by the Neo-lib Labor party, and fought for by Hewson, thus paving the way for it's eventual, almost inevitable introduction,
and lastly, and perhaps most importantly, Howard's greatest excesses were tempered by the balance of power in the Senate being held by the Democrats.
As soon as the Dems self destructed and Howard achieved control of the Senate (and we were exposed to his full agenda) he promptly crashed and burned.
Howard was a formidable politician, and a good Prime Ministerial place holder. Perhaps his most laudable characteristic was that he never accepted defeat, and never gave up; unlike so many others who have bowed out (more or less) gracefully when faced with a period in the back bench or opposition wilderness.
He was a true Conservative in the true sense of the word.
No great vision, no grand plans; just keep it steady.
In a period when another country is happily paying your bills for you, who wouldn't enjoy that?