baldpaul

You say that Mr Howard was a "great" (not "fairly good") Prime Minister, and his government was "excellent" not merely "good".

Mr Howard is only the second PM in Australian history to lose his seat and the swing against the Coalition was close to a record.

Would you care to share with us the reasons why you rate him and his government so highly?

dnicholson

Your point is valid. My oversight.

From a historical point of view, Howard, though successful, was yesterday's man, thus though aiming to look forward, was found eventually trying the tricks of the colonial days, but to do so, had to finish up breaking laws that were brought in and made legal to wipe out the tricks of the colonial days.

The Separation of Powers, for example was finally thrown out by Howard when he captured the Senate and abused the Arbitration Court bringing in his own legality to push through Work Choices.

When as as a historian, I complained, a man I had admired said to me - 'Oh, those laws are all in the past, matey, including hobnobbing with the Federal Reserve about Interest Rates.

Well, as regards Interest Rates, looks like George dubya is at the same game, ordering his Federal Reserve to hold down Interest Rates to protect battling families he should be helping with cash payments himself.

What's happening must be something to do with the new/old Corporate Culture with BHP-Billeton and even Wesfarmers with freedom now to match the monstrosities of the East India Companies.

In regards to most of the comments above, they are simply the views of leftists with a very jaundiced view of the Howard years.

They are obviously dissapointed that the article didn't talk more about the reasons they hate Howard. Well tough. Any fair and balanced account is going to talk about strengths and weaknesses. Sorry if that disapoints you folks.

Ironically, one comment above even accused the author of being simple and cliched in using the term 'Howard haters'. His own very simple and one-eyed account confirms this description completely.

Another person has falsely accused Howard of stifling political debate, and then reprimanded the author for not introducing opinions as fact.

Most of the comments above are simply absurd.

Mr.Bertrand, from what planet do you write from?
Howard got elected in 1995 through lying and fraudulently claiming to defend "the battler, the little man". This is after years of treachery and attacks from the Hawke, Keating and Beazley Labor governments; who came to power on the spurious claims that they "defended the poor" and there would be "no children in poverty." They carried out the greatest wholesale onslaight on jobs, wages, and conditions since the 1930s depression. As well, the attack on the social infrastructure hospitals, Medicare, schools, universities, childcare and so on. Lying and deceit are their stock in trade and not unknown factors. Then there is the criminal and homicidal Iraqi War to steal the oil. An invasion costing 1.2million Iraqi peoples lives and turning 4.5million people into homeless refugees - supported to the hilt by Labor and Liberal governments. As well, Howard boasting of wars in the Pacific that may last 30years. And all the attacks on jobs, wages and conditions contained through 'Work-Choices'.
Rudd now enters the fray promising 'big business' that he can go further than Work-Choices and inflict a series of major defeats on workers. Mr. Bertrand comes out of the same right wing school.

another raving lefty who can barely contain his anger at reading an article about Howard that dosen't bitterly and constantly attack him.

were's a website for you old chap: www.sa.org.au

go have fun

Well Afja, just who is raving? Tell us all that none of it is true, that none of it happened. Where is your objectivity and honesty?
I suppose the so-called Liberal and Labor governments have taken society forward? Tell us that these governments are not carrying out a wrecking operation on the social achievements of society and handing them over to the profiteers for a killing? Why don't they ever spell this out before they get elected? Why don't they mention before election day that they have both given assurances to Mr. Bush on his recent trip, that they will support another colonial incursion for oil, this time into Iran? Why don't they mention that they have troops on the Iran border and either one or two warships in the Persian Gulf? Why don't Labor and Liberal ever give an accounting of how they took this country to war based on conscious deceptive lies about non existing weapons of mass destruction? And that somehow bombing people in Iraq was about bringing these people deocracy?