Howard decided not to step down to allow Costello the leadership because of one major reason - EGO.

Costello's mistake as JH has recently stated was underestimating his temperament and personality style. Howard could not have stood down after such a blatant attempt by others in the Party to depose him. He could not be seen to lose face especially to his nemesis Costello.

Whether or not Howard would have stood down in any case can be debated 'til the cows come home.

As for his promise to Costello well...it was only a non-core promise afterall.

Dear gods, we-are-unique, your use of sarcasm is devastating.

I give up, it's a-fair-cop-guv'.

Why on Earth should I retrieve OLO archives before I rsvp to a fellow poster?

And just how many of Hasbeen's post have I read anyway? What on Earth would you know what I have or have not read?

Are you suggesting I dig out your file too, before I dare to respond to your grand statements?

"One should show a little more respect for Hasbeen, particularly in view of the fact, that he has taken a great deal of time to assist other Australians on OLO over the years."

OK, if 'one' should, then by all means do that. I assume that you are talking about yourself when you say 'one'?

I must say that Hasbeen has made absolutely no effort whatsoever to assist me 'over the years'.

No doubt because I am NOT AN AUSTRALIAN, eh? Another damn racist, eh?

Is it just because I am a black homosexual atheist communist Jew from Libya, with one leg, I wonder?

Now, I've been on OLO for a while myself, off and on, and I don't think I've ever been confronted with such stupidity as you've just presented me with.

I have nothing at all against Hasbeen, and I think he(?) is more than capable of dealing with any comment I might post, on his own, without any intrusion from you, or your invisible friends.

AGIR, or others, might dive in and spruik on Hasbeen's side of politics against something I might post, but I doubt he'd stoop to some blathering idiocy such as you have dared attempt.

As for Hasbeen's words 'ringing true', I have no doubt they do, to some, but not to others.

It's called 'life', we-are-unique, and 'life' involves conflict, sometimes tempestuous, sometimes not.

Now, if you are not prepared to have your views challenged, clear off to somewhere quieter, not that this is a bear pit, of course.

Take my advice, unwrap an old Bex, warm the pot, have a nice lie-down before you post anything else.

Hi Pelly,

It does seem apparent that the personal dynamics between Howard, Costello and the rest of 'em was the defining factor in all of this.
The curious anomaly, however, is the apparent inertia within party room ranks to move in required numbers against Mr Howard when it became glaringly obvious (at least in the public arena) that his juggernaut had run out of steam. For some reason the party lacked the vision and bravado required to move beyond the safety that Howard had once represented.
Howard's own explanation that he was somehow "defending his honour" is hollow in the extreme, and doesn't alter the fact one iota that ultimately he put his own egocentric interests above those of his party.

Poirot, I guess the problem was that the Libs just weren't as practiced with the long knives, [in the back] as Labor.

May be it’s the union experience of most of Labor that has them ready to pull out those long knives, I’m sure it’s not that the Libs have any different moral attitude, just a lack of experience.

After all, Labor has kicked out 2 of their last 4 PMs, without even too much blood letting. The Libs, probably, should get coaching

Au contraire, Hasbeen,

I'm surprised you don't recall the revolving door charades of Howard and Peacock which kept us all highly entertained for some time.

And the "long knives" were certainly in evidence comparatively recently - as Malcolm Turnbull would attest.

No, for some reason, Howard was able to maintain his hypnotic hold over his party of lemmings and they all went over the cliff together.

I don't think that any of you have checked on what the parties want you to sign to join their party, I went to join the Labor party about 35 years ago, and was told that to join, I had to sign a promise that I would agree with the decisions of the majority. Because there were many decisions the Labor party made that I disagreed with, I had no intention of agreeing ad hoc to any such promise, and did not join. I have been told that this same promise applies with all parties. I believe that to sign such a promise, you are admitting that you have no integrity, and not too much intelligence, and looking at so many of the decisions that have been made in any and every party, I have to contend that there is no person in parliamentary parties who are intelligent enough, have enough integrity or allegiance to our country, to be trusted in running our country. Have a good look, we are just dribbling along on the verge of a recession, Tony Abbott has mentioned a flat rate tax which would bring us down to the depression. Howard, Menzies, Julia or any person of a political party, should never have got in, we only want people in who are intelligent, have tops in integrity and allegiance to Australia. So where are they, frightened off by the rules to join a usless party, so form another party, and demand a resume to indicate the importance above what is important in other less important positions, The run of lawyers have proved only that they can't be trusted.