Andreas,
If you reckon Howard was a bad PM, what is your opinion of the last one and the present one. By the way, what is our national debt now and the rate of bank foreclosures on houses.

Be interesting to see how Belly replies to your last post.

For those who have forgotten, or perhaps are trying hard not to remember, Howard's nick name was "Honest John". I found it rather amusing to watch a crushed Labor party, spend 10 years obviously trying to white ant that name, without much result.

Yes, he was wrong in his attempt to cut working conditions so drastically, so quickly. It cost him government, but any honest person would have to admire him staying with his electorate, which with boundary & demographic change had become nominally Labor, when he lost.

History will show him as a visionary, in his attempt to reduce the wage structure of Oz. We will have to match the cost structure of Asia at some time in the not too distant future. Who would have believed, 40 years ago, that Singapore wages would be higher than ours? Well in most of our lifetimes, it will be China with higher wages.

The sooner we stop paying ourselves more than we are worth, the gentler the effect on our lives it will be, as the decline really kicks in. But how do you tell a bunch of not too hard working Ozzies, that they don't earn their keep? Not easy, if you want to get elected, so I guess we're headed for a very hard landing.

If you've got any spare cash, start looking for a parachute to ease your fall. Gas shares, or perhaps mining shares, may be the best insurance I would think.

Didn't the public service expand substantially under Howard?

Could governments since have cut budgets by just sacking all appointments under Howard? Could be a good start....

Rusty

Dear Hasbeen,

Indeed, when John Howard was about to become prime minister, some people believed he was "honest John".
After lies about Iraq's weapons of mass distraction, children overboard, Haneef's affair, agreement with Peter Costello, etc., violating human rights of Aboriginal people in Northern Territory, and so on and so forth, some people started to believe that John Howard never was 'honest' but hypocritical. Some people are considering him as a 'war criminal'.
So, dear Banjo, can we judge John Howard within the frames of 'bad' and 'good' prime minister categories, or we should apply something different?

Andreas,
I do not care how you make your judgement, but if you consider Howard to be bad, what is your opinion of the just past and present PM.

Oh, and why would you see it as bad to stop the physical and sexual abuse of aboriginal children and to improve their health and education? The present Government continues that program and many aboriginals applaud it. The actions in this regard should be expanded to all states and to non aboriginal kids as well.

You ignore the national debt and the bank foreclosures matter.

Some allege that living standards increased under Howard.
More like middle-class welfare payments increased - but for the few at the expense of the many.

WorkChoices also inflicted sufficient hardship on voters to sack both him and his government at the very next election.

There were notable statistical increases in some areas however - under-employment, workforce casualisation, homelessness, bankruptcies (both personal and corporate) plus youth suicide rates.

He deserves a medal. Oh that's right - he got one (but not from us).