Who was our worst Prime Minister and why? Any notable state leaders we need to add?
With the US result some friends and I have been discussing who the worst PM was/is.
You're viewing a single thread.
For me it was Howard. He was really effective at furthering many neo liberal economic policies to fuck over anyone not born in to wealth. Sure some of the more recent PMS have been more embarrassing and stupid (scummo, abbot) but Howard was an absolute arsehole.
He brought in the capital gains tax discount for real estate which when combined with the existing negative gearing policy was/is a major contributor driving investors to real estate thus making property become unaffordable. Not to mention it's just so unfair inequitable. Why the fuck should a person who buys existing houses pay less tax on money gained from that than someone who actually produces something of value does on their income?
He was the political equivalent of the FIFO miner spending all his cash on a Malloo, jet ski and glass BBQ party. Howard pissed the early - mid 2000s mining boom proceeds up the wall on middle class welfare. Instead we could have had a future fund like Norway. To be fair every politician we have had since has either been too corrupt or scared to attempt anything like that.
Howard also realised he could fuck over unions by bringing in masses of extra workers via record immigration in order to lower wages. (Added Bonus this increased demand on real estate too) He won't be remembered for that on immigration, instead he will be remembered for his "boat people" rhetoric. It was like a magicians distraction, look at these bad immigrants, meanwhile opening the floodgate for "good" immigrants.
He sold telecom setting our internet tech back at least a decade.
He dragged us in to the middle east wars like a good little lapdog for George dubbya.
He started the erosion of Medicare to please his private health fund donors.
As a millennial, not born in to 1% wealth, Howard and the liberal parties message to me has always been "go fuck yourself". I will never put liberal anywhere but the bottom of the ballot. Potato head might be fantasising about winning the votes of the working class by paying lip service to some issues we face and then campaigning against social issues we don't care about. I don't think that many of us are so foolish to think that the liberals will ever be anything but the party for the elite. Even then they are only the party for the honest elite, that wear their arseholery as a badge of honour. The other elites have the teals.
The problem with a "Future Fund" is that our politics isn't geared up to handle it. Imagine a kitty of $50 Billion sitting just there and a new party gets in. They'll spend it, of course. So even if you get a fiscally responsible PM who establishes such a fund, the other party would get in three years later, spend that money immediately on [PROJECT] and then claim all the credit for it.
I think Norway's has legislation around the percent that can be used now vs what has to be reserved for future generations. Although I agree with the sentiment that the calibre of politicians we elect couldn't be trusted to think beyond one election cycle.
The thing about legislation is: The new government can make/change/remove it. Unless you enshrine it in the Constitution - and we have a pretty poor track record of changing that.
I would think that if something were established with legislation capping how much can be spent, it would (a) be very difficult to get past the Senate crossbench and (b) be very expensive in terms of political capital, if you didn't take it to an election as a core issue.
Howard was to Australia what Thatcher was to the UK and Reagan to the US. He ushered in neoliberalism and set the Liberal Party on an accelerated course towards right wing christian fundamentalism.
Reagan undeniably paved the way for Christian nationalism to take over the republican party.
I disagree on Thatcher and Howard accelerating fundamentalism, though neoliberalism is a fair call. You were damned if you did or didn't and Hawke/Keating set a lot of reforms in motion prior to Howard. We weren't equipped to cope with global changes without major economic reforms. The decision to have reforms advantage some while leaving others further behind was pure shitfuckery and Thatcher did everything as contentiously as possible.
Blair and Rudd strike me more as god botherers than Howard or Thatcher and the ALP have perpetuated and extended Howard's drive towards private religious education and service delivery. The ALP right has an equivalent group in the Libs. Its all the same here. Organised religion has an each-way bet on Australian politics and in 2 horse race they can never lose. The conservatives have had some obvious problems with religious branch stackings and people leaving in frustration and its arguable the party has shifted to its detriment. Labor and some unions have a complex history with organised religion. In some ways it might be symbiotic and reflective of membership but it can appear like cronyism.
I agree his economic policies were garbage, but Howard deserves some pretty serious street cred for gun law reform in Australia after the Port Arthur massacre. It was a pivotal moment for the nation, and looking at the USA, I'm very grateful for his influence.
I agree he absolutely did do the right thing on gun control.
I can't be sure if Howard's government changed Australian society for the worse or if we were already changing and he was a reflection of that. Either way there is pre-Howard Australia and post-Howard Australia and they are basically different countries. A lot of people did very well under Howard, even a lot of battlers were better off for a time. He is always going to be a highly notable PM. There have been a few since who were just hopeless, ineffective, incompetent and its a struggle to pin that label on Howard regardless of politics.
The trouble with labeling Howard as best or worst is that there were very definitely winners and losers under Howard. I would say he was the worst in terms of impact on society but unfortunately I think he was more a symbol of the times. I think we probably got nasty, greedy and divided all by ourselves.
I guess that's why I really dislike him. I don't want Australia to be so unequal. A good leader would have attempted to bring people together. Instead he drove as many wedges through society as he could, both economically and socially.
No question people who already owned real estate did very well under Howard.
IMO Howard changed our society from being one of mate-ship and egalitarian values to the current "fuck you, got mine" society we have. Ironically whilst giving speeches to the media about "Australian values" including mate ship. Agree it's hard to say if he caused it, or just reflected society at large.
There are lots of contradictory things about Howard. I get why people feel very strongly about him one way or another.
In the end a lot of people voted for him because he put money in their pockets whether it was tax refunds for families, economic reforms, wealth transfer or a booming resource economy. Honestly I wouldn't mind a bit of that right now. And that is the shitty bit isn't it. Like you know we wasted opportunities, increased social divides etc. Fundamentally we are just a meaner, nastier bunch. But I kind of get why Trump won so decisively despite being such a disgusting person. You have to grab those swing voters by the pussy and one of the best ways to do that is put money in their pockets and Howard understood that.