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?