Comments on: John Howard’s Legacy

By: Alice

Alice — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:32:45 +0000

I fear Rudd will go down as the country's worst leader ever. Time to Stop the Dreaming

By: Charles

Charles — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:55:03 +0000

Menzies created the Liberal party, Howard destroyed it. I think I will go for Menzies.

By: bapes

bapes — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 03:41:53 +0000

i think that Johan Howard was one of the most influential Prime Ministers in Australia’s history. The things he did for the country are outstanding. Let’s hop Elmer Fudd can do a descent job!

By: Cablemail

Cablemail — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:40:53 +0000

After 12 years of Howard and lies over WMD’s, AWB scandals and no GST never ever, children overboard, Kelly Letterbox drops, holding Australians without charge, the Dr Haneef saga and lies about interest rates all being accepted by Australia. When infact Costello called it during the libs time in power the tusnami of economic danger it’s no wonder Australia is getting dumb after 12 years of being fed a diet of lies.
It’s no wonder. Hey Anyone hear the Bonsai’s claim about Rudd being naive about leaving Iraq whern infact it was naive going in based on WMD’s that didnt exist and without an exit plan or any plan at all.

By: John C

John C — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:12:02 +0000

Care to buy a second hand tank?
What about a Hornet?
Just don’t mention the war,Hanson,Haneef or off-shore concentration camps and global warming
The NT intervention was created on the back of an envelope and so was the’save our rivers’ plan. So much for policy analysis and implementation.
And can anyone explain what ‘aspirational nationalism’ meant?
Howard is a contender for the worst PM since Hughes. Certainly the most divisive and incompetent.

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:25:12 +0000

Presidents must appoint cabinet Secretaries…whereas PMs and Premiers often give themselves pet portfolios.

US States also (generally) directly elect AGs, Auditors, Lt Governors and some other executive positions.

By: Terje (say tay-a)

Terje (say tay-a) — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 07:22:01 +0000

Concensus is good if it means more angles are considered. Of course if you have a president with god like intellect maybe you don’t need it.

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 06:52:26 +0000

Hawke was sacked, after about the same time term limits would have kicked in. Also remember no one really liked Paul Keating, the next two elections saw him lose the primary vote and ultimately office. If he was up for election after Hwake had to step down, he probably wouldn’t have won. (He probably wouldn’t have been hated like he is now either).

The US States have a better system than Federally; recall elections would be messy in a Parliamentary system, they worked in California re Governor Grey Davis.

What is so good about consensus based executive decision making? Leave consensus up to Parliament.

By: Terje (say tay-a)

Terje (say tay-a) — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 06:41:56 +0000

Hawke was sacked in the end. The potential for such a thing ensures that the PM pursues a concensus style and has to bring other people with him. I think better decisions get made when there is such accountability.

If you amended the system to have fixed terms or to appoint commonwealth officers by some other means it would in my view still be the westminster system. The point is that in the US the electoral colledge can’t change it’s mind once the president is appointed, whilst in the westminster system the PM can be rolled any day of the week.

The westminster system also has a better track record than the US style presidential system in the preservation of democracy. The fact the Iraq has adopted the essentials of the westminster system is in my view a good thing.

One good thing about the US system is that ministers can be selected from a bigger pool of talent.

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 06:19:19 +0000

Nicholas, if the powers are not specified, and the GG must act on the advice of a PM, how can a PM be anything but voluntarily retired besides the expiry of Parliamentary terms?

Would rely on Condi and Ashcroft to rein in Bush II?