Chris Lewis “although I can never hope to satisfy all with our different views and values.”

Lincoln said something similar.

Rainier “If this was ever a callous, selfish, myopic, xenophobic nation then John Howard was by far the best PM we have ever had.

Thank goodness this nation is not.”

Yes but remember, he was elected more than once, something I believe the current prime minister is not likely to achieve and something Howard’s predecessor failed to do too.

As for the rest of your rhetoric, the sad words of the spoiler.

No nation ever grew strong on handouts, only the efforts of individuals working to support their personal goals and aspirations.

You might call it “callous, selfish, myopic and xenophobic”,

I call it self reliant, inspiring, industrious and responsible.

With the present economic down turn things are going to be aggravated by a population experiencing a sense of uncertainty and insecurity from a number of incumbent government policies and agendas.

Give it a year of two of labor and this decade of liberal statecraft will be looked back upon as a golden era (among the rust-pile years of socialism).

TurnRightThenLeft: "this low popularity rating for the Liberals is a very, very bad thing"

Well, its not a good thing. But I can think of many worse things, such as one party having control of both houses, or worse not having a senate at all.

As a fellow Queenslander I suspect living here is what inspired your comment. The worst thing would be having no senate and a six pack for an opposition. Just ask us Queenslanders. And just in case anyone's wondering if this is politically motivated - I think Beattie did a reasonable job.

What drove the point home for me was those nurses quarters on the Islands. The government said it was all the fault of the manager. I was waiting for the howls from the opposition. True or otherwise, how could they let it go unchallenged? If nothing else the government appointed the manager, and they are supposed to be monitoring his performance. Yet barely a voice was raised. Does everyone think this a well oiled democracy?

Its odd. How I curse the continual whining of politicians in opposition every time I hear them speak - which is all too often. Yet now I miss it when they don't.

I decided a long while ago to have a decent opposition, you needed to have a senate where they could retreat and lick their wounds. It frightens me that the senate can be disbanded if we citizens mistakenly elect a mob of twits. Its so easy to do as the bastards lie so fluently. Before you judge this language as harsh, consider that Mike Rann wants to abolish SA's upper house:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4399

Or read how we lost ours:

http://www.democraticaudit.anu.edu.au/papers/20070213_aronprass_upphqld.pdf

"At the end of his reign, we were left with a deskilled country, stripped of public assets with reduced manufacturing capacity and dependent on demand for resources plus an ever increasing middle class welfare tax burden"

I think Wobbles has put it in a nutshell quite nicely here. A skilled economic manager does not automatically make a great statesman and Howard was neither. Howard basked in the glow of a golden era that had little to do with his making. I charge that he and Costello's economic management skills were never pressure tested under adverse global conditions such as those that have begun to rear their heads higher since he left office.

He was probably the luckiest PM in recent history, given that large numbers of disinterested voters make little or no attempt to understand what makes the world tick. They simply apportion all credit or all blame to whoever is in charge at the time.

Howard was simply a man in the right place at the right time and was only turned out when he struck at the Australian sense of fairness in the workplace - if not for workchoices, he'd probably still be in office right now.

Couldn't agree more rstuart. The democratic process has been somewhat gutted in Queensland, but it was the Council amalgamations that rammed that home for me.
Despite a majority vote in the admittedly voluntary plebiscites that returned a whopping rejection of the process, it was rammed through anyway, and the opposition was ultimately too weak to make any use of public sentiment.

That being said, competitive State oppositions are hard to find these days anywhere in Australia. A damn shame.

To me, it's evidence that we don't need the three tiers of government. I'd rather see the responsibilities of the State divided between a stronger local government sector and the Federal government.

The reason why I think so, it's it's evident that for the population base of this country, we're overgoverned. Thus, with so many politicians, there is less talent, which leads to oppositions which aren't the disciplined, competent organisations they should be.
The talent is spread too thin. Removing the middle tier, but strengthening the local government sector would hopefully result in a better calibre of politician at both ends.

I think the measure of Howard's success are the current warnings being espoused by P.M. K.Rudd about the dire expectation of an Australian recession.

P.M. K.Rudd is giving all these warnings while the resources boom is continuing in full swing ... and all predictions are for it to continue.