*and Costello still hadn't nurtured the strength of character to force Howard out. It was pathetic. Costello must have known he was on the Liberal's version of the Titanic - we all did*

Ah, there you go, Poirot. Forget strength of character. If everyone
could see it, yet those around him who voted could not see it,
why bother with the job dealing with such people? People like
Costello have lots of options outside of politics and not everyone
would sell their arse and integrity for the job. For me that kind
of thinking displays far more strength of character, then selling
your soul for the vanity of being PM.

Yabby,

I agree that Costello decided he had other options...eventually.

My take on it is that he derived much pleasure from abandoning his colleagues in the life boat. After all, they had allowed Howard to continue well after his use-by date. Costello was merely letting them know that although they now looked to him to steer the craft, that he wasn't going to be used by the same bunch of idiots who had not lifted a finger to avoid the resultant political decimation.

When you say Costello wasn't going to sell his arse and integrity for the job...it seems to me that he was exactly what he was prepared to do as he sat next to Howard for that interview. It was only when they were pulverised at the election and he couldn't see an opportunity in the near future (and after such a long and tedious run of leadership impasse) that he finally told them to stick it.

Let us look at the over all picture again yabby.
It is true over all Rudd is the most popular politician in this federal Parliament.
Using the same polls Liberals use to shame Labor.
And that more conservatives want him than Gillard.
True too more Labor voters want Turnbull.
But too, that both within rank and file followers of their party seem well in front of their current leaders.
Dislike of either, is it strong enough on its own to say forget popularity.
Would Labor lead by Gillard have won in 07.
Tuesday will we learn to love her ever.
Will those wanting Rudd/not wanting her ever for give her?
Without a third candidate three choices exist already, Gillard the unloved till death, a long one, Rudd.
OR a party struggling to be believed after saying it wants reform but is controlled by others.

*it seems to me that he was exactly what he was prepared to do as he sat next to Howard for that interview*

So do you think Poirot, that behind the scenes, he was not lobbying
his workmates etc? He was probably telling them exactly that" we'll
get hammered if we don't act." But it would have been pointless to
move, if they never believed him and he never had the numbers. No
wonder he enjoyed telling them to shove it :)

*Tuesday will we learn to love her ever*

Belly, if you want a politician to love, vote for Kylie Minogue.
This is not about love, but about respect for somebody's abilities,
like leading a team. I want a leader for the country that has
a functioning Govt that gets things done. You want a love affair.

No wonder we land up with crappy politicians, if people want to fall
in love.

Yabby,

Obviously by the eve of the 2007 election it was way too late to change leaders. Howard, if he had been wise instead of merely cunning and had put the interest of his party beyond those of his own ego, would have handed over the reins in 2006.

And yes, of course Costello was lobbying his colleagues all along, yet they remained glued to the leadership spot, they'd had such success with Howard that they couldn't perceive that such a golden goose could become a burden instead of an advantage.

One of the doctrines of good leadership is to nurture your successor(s) and to hand over to them at the appropriate juncture. Howard might have had a successful leadership politically speaking, however, the damage he ultimately inflicted by not following the precepts incumbent upon a leader diminish his stature considerably IMO.

Dear Yabby,

Just for the record I'd like to quote from Ian McAuley's
article on the web. McAuley is a lecturer in public
sector finance at the University of Canberra and a fellow
of the Centre for Policy Development. He tells us that:

1) The Howard government enjoyed the dividends of the
Hawke-Keating economic reforms at a time that the
world economy was enjoying a long speculative-driven
boom.

2) It left the books in surplus (a surplus of 4 per cent of GDP)
when it left office. This is not difficult to achieve in a
time of strong economic growth which delivered very high
tax revenues. But the Howard government left Australia with
significant liabilities in terms of our physical and
intangible assets - our common wealth.

3) The Howard government neglected our surface transport,
our interstate roads, railroads, and urban public transport. It
starved our tertiary education sector of funds. It neglected
investments which could help us to cope with challenges of water
shortages, climate change and fossil fuel depletion, in short,
it let fiscal impression managmeent displace sound economic
management, and directed political attention to only one
side of the public balance sheet, the debit side, while ignoring
the asset side.

If the Howard cabinet had been the board of a publicly listed
company, the shareholders would have thrown them out for
weakening the company's asset base.

McAuley lists four other areas of mismanagement - but I won't go
into them here due to the word limit imposed on our posts. As
McAuley states - suffice
to say that Mr Abbott has done nothing to establish his, or
his party's economic credentials. Mr Abbott seems content to coast
on the public perception that the Coalition is more competent at
economic management than Labor. It's a perception fed by
sections of the media which are clearly partisan. Mr Abbott
has shown little understanding of the economics of labour
markets - or of any other markets for that matter.