Having gone back and after reading the pro Howard supporters,as to why they think John Howard is doing a good job,their main reasons seem to be about economics,and personal,benefits they gain from "HOWARDISM",but dicard the fact of the moral issues that John Howard has been responsoble for,Iraq helpng in the slaughter of innocent people,in a war of mass destruction,there is not one,repeat not one good reason for the invasion of Iraq,back home in Australia a few reminders to the Howard supporters,IR, AWB PRIVATE SCHOOLS,MEDICARE,now our state schools,compare them with the private schools,and where did the money go to all private schools,CATHOLIC ANGLICAN and ALL other PRIVATE SCHOOLS.And I will again be so bold to say the following,private Schools are the breeding ground of future COALTITION members of parliament MP and SENATORS, and the ELITE that vote LIBERAL,this is the truth and I STAND or STICK to what I said and have just written.

The test of any politician is at the ballot box.

The level of “Household debt” is a matter which the “household” and not government should decide.

Some things (Abu Ghraib, Cornelia Rau, Vivian Solon) might well have happened anyway.

The degree of ‘control’ which any Australian government can bring to bear over foreign nationals behaviour in foreign countries is “limited” and the cases of Cornelia Rau and Vivian Solon both highlight the problems (faced everyday by clinicians) which are inherent in dealing with those who are clinically deluded/delusional.

The damage done most is when governments think they know best. They believe they know how to spend our money better than we do. They feel the urge to tell us how many children we should have and encourage us to have them with maternity grants and leave provisions.

In a democracy, the electorate gets the government it deserves because it voted for that government.

Where would we be today had Keating remained at the helm (the theme to Titanic kicks in).
What would Beazley be doing had he got in?
We can all shudder at the “political climate” if looney Latham had managed to fools enough.

The Democrats. They do not reside in the house of reps. I guess sitting where they do, they are entitled to express in accordance with the seating arrangement and be “cross”.

Ten years with John Howard and the coalition at the helm saw public debt levels almost eliminated. Public debt, the product of under funded government largesse, is the source of “inflation”. Turning around from the runaway economic lunacy of Hawke and Keating, when even Keating admitted he was steering us into becoming a “banana republic” was a massive achievement. Paying down the massive public debt, inherited from the profligate socialists, progressively and systematically has been an act of discipline of heroic proportions and one which we all benefit from.

Where would “public debt” levels be if we were still suffering socialist meddling?
If “meaner” is judged on less "public debt", then that is a good thing too.

Col states "The test of any politician is at the ballot box", which is axiomatic, but fails to tell the whole story.

It as closely aligned to "we get the government we deserve", which is another way of saying that the party in power is a reflection of the will of the people.

But is that actually the case?

In order to stand for parliament, you need to join a political faction, and wheedle your way through the pre-selection process with deals, trade-offs and back-scratching. Witness the current Labour shenanigans in Victoria, or the shoe-horning of Turnbull into Wentworth.

The battle has nothing to do with the electorate, who are purely a means to an end. If you live in a high-profile, swinging constituency, you will be better served for choice than if you are in a safe seat, where the creed is "jobs for the boys", but that is the full extent of consideration.

The identity of the individual you are asked to vote for depends more upon inter-factional deals than on the electability, integrity or capability of the potential member.

And when all this activity is finished, the deals are made, the factions quietened, the quid-pro-quos finalized, we are then allowed to vote.

Does this in any way, shape or form deliver a system where the wishes of the electorate play any part at all?

I don't think so.

I was fortunate for a while to be able to vote for an independent, who was the very last of the true representatives of his constituency. He lived there, worked there, greeted and was greeted by people on the street, and had a streak of integrity a mile wide. He was a maverick, of course, and showed up the manufactured politicians for what they were – products of their own system.

So they shifted the constituency boundaries. We now have a fat-cat party hack whose loyalty is to the people who got him there – his factional mates – and not to his electorate.

“Tested at the ballot box?” No way.

Lyn

well said - there is much in this article to agree with - whatever one's political opinion.
Howard is the master politician of the past 26 years - and has out-lasted or vanquished several labor leaders
- thanks for the reminder and outline of what he has done, as he has made the role of 'father of the nation' for himself.

I find the other posts on the site - a sad indictement of our political discourse and level of discussion

Lyn this is an important statement for the clear-thinkers - one that somehow - just isnt getting into popular debate - and have a look at Peter Hartcher's article in SMH - 3 March
thanks and well done

Hamlet, Keith, and All-

ALL- You send me to web sites that contain nonsense like “Marx said this but Hitler may as well have said it” - followed by a long quotation from Mister twoplustwoequalsfive(Andrew Bolt) to further a supposed academic argument - not to mention the Adware or whatever that was dumped on my PC and stuffed things up when I tried to first open the page. And you expect to be taken seriously?

Liberals: I will confess a little projected anger when I “spat the dummy” (just finished bleeding a clutch when the f*cking miserable little f*cking air bubble just wouldn’t f*cking flush not to mention repeating “in – out” two zillion times. Then I heard a friend of mine lost a few grand worth of product to shoplifters. Jesus lewesus I am pissed off. I am no a vegetable. It aint 1984 yet. Nevertheless, I stand by what I said re: Liberals and am proud to have said it. Actually, don’t get me started on Liberals again. What aboiut that seven thousand dollar grant to first home owners. Giving money to people already in a positon to purchase a home is robbing from those who are not in a position to do so. The rich get richer and the poor get screwed over. Strong direction - read: bullying to the right. Mainstream values - example: lying (ten percent of the time?), meanness, classism, theft etc.

Keith - who he (the Russian fella)?

Keith, staff and posters. A present for you from me for putting up with me.

I wish I were a cup of tea,
Dear Lord if you were to give a gift to me,
That is what I want to be,
And it wouldn’t be such an absurdity,
Seeing old mates all gather round ,
With friendly banter and not a frown,
Sharing goodwill and happiness around,
As you all sip and drink me down.

Don’t take that last line literally. Yeah I know - but I try.

I think Gerard Henderson made an insightful comment recently when he said: look at what John Howard does, not what he says. Let's face it, most of the political discourse is BS, regardless of which political party is in power. Even Lindsay Tanner recently said that politics is all hyperbole.

So while Allison is right when she criticises Howard's rhetoric, what people like her miss is that Howard is all about maintaining a continuum in terms of what he DOES (as opposed to what he says). In the end, voters will make their decision based on that aspect. While people like Allison are being lofty and idealistic, Howard is being quietly pragmatic and realistic.

When you read between the lines, the real criticism of the left is that they don't know how to get things done. Once it starts working out that most of the elecorate want results - they don't necessarily care how it happens - it will be more successful politically.