Thanks Poirot. I too rather like Pericles post.

And like you, I feel like spewing all over the floor whenever I hear a politician speaking, particularly on Q&A, which I have also given up on.

I stopped reading The Australian 18 months ago, after having it delivered for quite some years.

My only 'news' comes in from the ABC, and snippets one of my sons sends from the SMH.

Tony Windsor actually sounds like a decent person, but isn't he a solitary figure?

Doug Cameron is wondering why he and his ilk are despised by voters, but who has ever heard of him unless they were a keen union watcher a few years ago?

He only has to speak up in the Senate, and say what he really thinks, if he were the least bit serious, and not just another factional hack who was gifted a red seat for moving aside for some other goon in the Metalwurkers Union.

Oh Hasbeen (is that your avatar, John Howard?)

Your unquestioning gullibility peaks through your Jesus sandals.

Howard stayed because he wouldn't, by that time, have found a seat to take him would he?

Maybe he should have stood in Turnbull's seat?

I agree with you that Maxine was a very poor loser, having been gifted her spot through the usual ALP family links in the first place, and having contributed not much more than winning the seat from Howard.

Although, in fairness, that was Rudd's fault for keeping her away from anything useful to do.

If Howard was 'the best' PM, then it really is a sad list of PMs we have suffered isn't it?

But that means that your 'next' PM is Menzies!

Surely not?

It was his indolence that kept Australia in the Dark Ages for so long.

Hasbeen,

Are you seriously suggesting that John Howard consistently displayed good judgment? If obsequiously hanging onto the coattails of a dangerously incompetent president and ultimately (through his own self-interest) leading his party into a humiliating defeat is your idea of "head and shoulders above anyone else" - that doesn't say much for any of them.
If he had possessed true wisdom (as opposed to cunning) he would have bowed out long before the rot set in, taking pains to provide for the continuation of good leadership within his party.
He would then deserve to be hailed as a true leader and not just another self-obsessed politician.

It is also interesting to note that there was a goodly dose of irony in the fact that Peter never made it to the top job.
If we refer back to the smirks inflicted upon the Australian populace when the Howard Government first took office, it would be difficult for most people not to recall Peter and his ability to consistently register 100 percent on the pollies' smug-o-meter....In fact, it's a bit of a mystery that to do a "Costello" hasn't become a byline for framing an inane smirk - (a bit like to be "Buswelled"is to have your bra-strap flicked)

I could have guessed it Bluey, anyone who can sit through much of the tripe that passes for comment on our ABC these days, has to be left of Khrushchev, & totally incapable of looking at a picture & seeing anything but red. There was a time when I was a rusted on ABC listener, but now I just feel embarrassed for those who can listen to the garbage.

Poirot, I don’t think he always made good decisions, but I do believe he did more often then most. I don’t think he was too cunning, or he would not have spent so much time in the wilderness. Nor do I think he was any great shakes as a politician, just a damn sight better than those the other side had to offer at the time, & better than most his lot had as well. I do agree his dominance may have cost us a couple of worthy replacements, which is a pity.

I can’t say I have much personal experience of Menzies, or some of those who followed him closely, but starting with Whitlam, why don’t you suggest one who was not worse than Howard, or in fact, any who were not a total stuff up.

About the only thing that gives me any comfort at present is the fact that we could survive, in almost reasonable condition after fools like Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke & company.

Yes Julia is a total waste of space, but her ability to back flip may just stop her from doing too much damage. While running scared of mistakes, she may just do nothing, hopefully. Otherwise she may keep her word to the greens, which could really do some irreparable damage.

Poor Hasbeen, doomed to watch such vapid shows as Sunrise, ACA, and whatever other commercial dirge goes out to feed the unthinking of the drone world.

You are well named as a 'hasbeen' if you truly believe the ABC is left of Kruschev.

Anyway, he was a rightwinger, so you should be chumming up to him shouldn't you?

Don't worry Hasbeen, the ABC gives me the irrits at times (particularly Fran), but they do try to do politics quite well, and that cannot be said of commercial TV at all.

Or, oh my gods!, I never thought of this, do you watch the Murdoch Skylies on some ripoff pay channel?

I thought only the Yanks fell for that tripe!

There yer go, takes all sorts to make the world.

I'm not sure there is any real value in comparing PMs, since they operate in their particular eras, but I'd have thought you'd appreciate Hawke, who was a keen follower of Thatcher and Reagan, and whose treasurer implemented Howard's dreams that Howard never had the courage to do.

At this stage, I'd have to mark Gillard as being about as much use as the bevy of boys that came after Menzies. Perhaps she will get taken by another yellow submarine, one of Beazley's dud ones even, and we can be saved from the rest of her reign as The Baptist Queen.

It might be more productive to 'think forward' as to who might make a good/better PM though.

I see none within the ALP even in the starting blocks, although Belly would have us voting for the GGs little boy, but I'd rather like to see Turnbull rising again.

What about you Hasbeen, or are you a sneaky Bishop supporter, once the Abbott is back in his meditation cell?