Some very special people have the instant ability to polarize opinion. Paul Keating was one of those. So was Margaret Thatcher. And Richard Nixon. Interestingly - and probably not coincidentally - they tend to be people who have had the most lasting impact on their surroundings.

For me, Paul Keating was the last genuine statesman to lead this country. In fact, head and shoulders above any other Prime Minister of the past fifty years.

Bob Hawke was "the people's princess", and represented perfectly the lovable larrikin angle of the Australian persona, confirming the majority overseas view that Australia is a great place for a holiday, but not much else.

John Howard also did a great job representing another significant aspect of our national character, that of the fawning colonial sycophant, totally at home in the skin of a suburban Sydney family solicitor.

Kevin Rudd may actually have turned out to be in the Keating mould - intelligent, cultured and world-aware - if he hadn't been cut off at the knees by the people in his Party who resented him viscerally, for exactly those characteristics. He certainly is reported to have demonstrated his personal arrogance on a number of occasions, which also nudge him towards the Keating/Thatcher/Nixon category.

I'll take a bit of personal arrogance in an effective, get-it-done package, ahead of caring, empathetic, winsome, blind incompetence any day of the week.

Keating was an even bigger liar than Gillard.

She just told lies like "no carbon tax".

Keating actually legislated lies, like the "law LAW law" con, before an election.

Guess to a socialist this is just smart politics.

Good afternoon to everyone...

I realize I'm quite off topic, and I'll probably get a kicking (deservedly so I expect) but I would nevertheless like to share something else with you all.

In Sydney during the official visit of US President, George BUSH Snr, I had occasion to perform duty involving the US Secret Service.

As it's done, we all exchanged our business cards, some bit's of jewellery (tie tacks, cuff links and similar), shoulder patches, etc. Thus, we generally formed a loose professional friendship for the duration.

During a 'stand down' period, one of the SAIC's was telling me, amongst other things, about some of the idiosyncrasies of President's with whom he's drawn duty. He stated inter alia, that Ronald REAGEN was considered (by most Agents) to be a pretty good guy as was the First Lady, Nancy.

Though, the same couldn't be said of Jimmy CARTER. It would appear, out of public view, he too displayed characteristics and foibles similar to that of Paul KEATING. It was asserted that CARTER was moody, mistrustful and tended to micromanage most things. Strangely, Rosalynn, the first lady wasn't mentioned at all.

Unfortunately, much of what was said was pursuant to 'Chatham House' rules. So I wouldn't dare go any further.

I guess being the most powerful man of the free world, does carry enormous responsibilities, and maintaining an allround 'good guy' persona, doesn't rate all that highly in the scheme of things.

Thank you csteele for your comments and I also think your daughters would be enriched by a look at the program. It's true the young haven't experienced such depth in politicians in their lifetimes.

Had we not elected Howard in 96 we would have had a National Dental Health Scheme now, and we could have afforded it. Shows how far ahead and visionary this particular Prime Minister Keating was. He was ready to do things then, that we can only dream of now. Telstra would never had been sold and we would already have had access to NBN style high speed broadband today, now.

These are 2 examples of things that Howard did and did not do Hasbeen , (I have oodles more if you want), that directly effect our living standards and outcomes today negatively.

Pericles, you and I are on the same page and I agree with your assessment, but I would not compare Nixon or Thatcher to Keating. The other 2 could even be considered villainous and definitely born of elitist conservative politics.

Keating was driven by, I believe a social conscience lacking in the other 2. In short he was the last genuine Australian Labor PM. The phrase I would use to describe Paul Keating is "brains , balls and couldn't be bought". Exactly what you need in a PM.

Bob Hawke before him was not a Labor PM, in my view Belly. We might discuss that someday.

The arrogance part I cant concede any knowledge too, o sung wu having not known PK personally, but I have always found his response to my correspondence, punctual , courteous , professional and personal. Conversely a friend of mine had dinner with Paul at a football game and said he was a very nice man. Incidentally this friend of mine has never voted Labor. But I have no doubt there is some voracity too the arrogance claim against Paul Keating. Nobody's perfect that is a truism.

American politics is irrelevant to this discussion OSW because I don't think America's political system could ever produce a Keating in the modern era. Maybe once upon a time in it's past in the time of its forefathers.

This type of politician is uniquely Australian, born of struggle and rebellion, not of silver spoon and influence.

Dear Thinker 2,

I remember Keating for so many things.
For his "colourful language" - he was
great in Parliament and few could match him.

He laid out a framework to achieve Australia
becoming a Republic. He stressed the importance of
Australia's links with Asia, he sought reconciliation
between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Australians.
Legislation was passed - Mabo judgement on Aboriginal
land title. There were sweeping programs of economic
reform and de-regulation, floated the Australian dollar
on international money markets to make Australia
competible in the global economy, and the list goes on.

Yes - where are politicians of his ilk today, well might we
ask.

We've gone back to the days of Howard - to a very polarised
society where criticism is common but productive discussion
is rare. Where issues like asylum-seekers are again exploited,
where no respect is shown for one's political opponents.
Where one man's ambition is placed above the good of the
nation or even his own party. Howard's refusal to retire cost his party the 2007 election. What will Mr Abbott's ambition
cost his party I wonder.

Perhaps bringing back Peter Costello might do the trick in
saving the Liberal Party at the next election. Who knows.