What on earth brought that on! Who knows whether or not the has-been Keating is now bitter and twisted, and who cares? James McConvill appears to have a very large chip on his shoulder, though.

McConvill might, however, have done voters a favour in bringing up Keating - the man who put many life-long ALP voters off side - by reminding them, as they ponder the new IR legislation, that workers were the worst off they have been under Keating.

On the contrary James, we liberals don't spend all our time re-writing history, we spend our time correcting history, which has been distorted by people like you. I think Paul Keating did some great things as well as some bad things. Its called being human.

His decision to float the dollar turned out (against criticism at the time) to be the correct one. Compulsory superannuation will turn out to be his greatest legacy and one of the cornerstones to our future prosperity. He also started the freeing up of the labour markets, which has helped this economy no end. Liberals including the Prime Minister acknowledge all these.

However, people like you always gloss over the fact that he gave us 17.5% interest rates, which sent many broke. He presided over record unemployment and inflation. He also made Australia into a very selfish country. Many still have the attitude that the state exists for me.

You also complain that John Howard has not won a real election, but gloss over the fact that Keating's one and only election win was built on the biggest scare campaign against John Hewson's GST that this country has ever seen.

Undoubtedly with the 30-year anniversary of the "Dismissal" coming up, you will once again forget that Whitlam got whacked in the subsequent election. A good friend of mine who is a member of the Labor party (yes liberals and labor people can be friends) once said that what ever you say about the dismissal, we failed to keep their hearts and minds.

James, build a bridge and get over it.

As someone who tilts a very long way to the left, and holds Keating extremely high esteem, I'm more likely than most to find this article suitable to my views. However, this is just rubbish. Twice McConvill refers to "the electoral cycle" beating Keating in '96 without any further analysis whatsoever. Two of Howard's election wins are down to Keating's reforms - right, so why didn't those same reforms carry Keating over the line in '96?

Certainly a range of conservative commentators love tearing shreds off Keating for the sort of economic management that they'd support were a Liberal government responsible at the time, this was a good point to probe. But McConvill's biased acceptance of half-truths causes his point to be lost.

“a relationship with the most fundamentally inept US president that modern history has experienced.”

Electing the president of USA is a matter for Citizens of USA and for Australia to accept. Inept or not is Australia served by good relations with what is the most powerful nations on earth or bad relations?

If McConvill thinks for one minute that “bad relations” are the way forward then let him suggest the benefits and what Latham & Co would have achieved with their ineffectual arrogance and adoption of aggravated “bipolar” politics.

“Envy can be a horrible thing. The conservative revisionists need some help in dealing with it.”

Methinks James McConvill might need a bit of help too.

As for “Howard has yet to win, and will quite possibly never win, an election based on his own genuine achievements.”
So we ignore 10 years of stable economic growth, full employment, trade, taxation and employment rationalisation and elimination of public debt.

What did Keating bring us “the recession we had to have” and the faith in this country which saw him claim we were headed down the path to a “banana republic”, at the time his hand was steering the economic tiller.

As for “the greatest treasurer” that award was endowed shortly after a change in government when the real work in place had actually been done by the previous treasurer, no guesses who, John Howard.

Keatings demise from political and public life is testimony to his churlish attitude. His arrogant personality could not deal with the public rejection of him, just like Latham.

The measure of a statesman is his capacity to weather the good and the bad, to serve when on the way up and also when on the way down.

John Howard has demonstrated such statesmanship in his fluctuating liberal leadership fortunes prior to the last 3 elections.

Keating stayed whilst he was on the way up and top. As soon as he lost the top spot he cracked it. Such temperament is attributable to a political carpet-bagger who is in it for their own glory and gratification.

I hope James lectures his law students a bit better than he does us about Keating.

Sure, Paul Keating did some good things as Treasurer but he did some bad things as well.

Conservatives do not need to re-write anything - Paul Keating was Prime Minister for less than five years, John Howard is nine years and counting. History shows who was the most successful PM, all Howard has to do is look in the mirror and see how many opponents he has outlasted (both internal and external opponents).

I doubt he would worry about the revisionist conspiracies and pollie envy James bleats on about.

And besides - if anyone in politics has envy at the moment, ask the MPs sitting on the cross benches up at Parliament House. Being in Government is the most envious thing in politics and they've sure had sweet FA time governing of late.

t.u.s.

Surely this cannot be the same Paul Keating that I had several long meetings with from 1985-90? The PK filled with ego, arrogance and hatred, totally unsuited to be prime minister? Keating wasn't a reforming treasurer in a vacuum, Hawke assembled a very strong Cabinet with talented people genuinely dedicated to the well-being of all Australians (unlike Keating) - they all share the credit for reform. Keating can, however, take the credit for the "recession we had to have", where many fundamentally viable businesses were destroyed by very high interest rates. Why were rates so high? I was astounded when in the pre-recession year budget Keating locked in tax cuts for the following July. The situation required fiscal stability. We learned years later that the cuts were part of a secret deal that Keating had made with Bill Kelty to become Prime Minister. Fiscal laxity left severe monetary policy as the only weapon when economic restraint was required. Seeking to fulfil his own ambitions came at terrible cost to the country, a charge which cannot be made against any other Hawke minister. Keating was so focussed on becoming PM, that he didn't know what to do when he got there, there was a vacuum which he filled with adventures such as the Indonesian treaty. Unlike Hawke, he gave his ministers no room for initiative, policy ground to a halt, the ALP is still paying the price. And PK stole the 93 election with his vitriolic fear campaign and nonsense about "L-A-W law" tax-cuts. By contrast, when I met John Howard at a CEDA meeting in 1989-90, he gave credit to Keating for some of those reforms.