John Howard / Gough in a split tie.

/Thread

Labor leaders got the majority of the votes. Crazy that Howard received all the "conservative" votes and Menzies and Fraser got none. Age demographics I guess.

Howard voted the best, bloody hell

what about PITT the younger???

youngest prime minister of england??

A democratic governments job is to serve its people. Gough did the most by far in a very short time.

Still love the Gough!

Since when was Gough Whitlam Liberal?

LOL... a Liberal government ended the White Australia policy, so favoured by Curtin and Chifley, those great Labor leaders.
Menzies oversaw the largest transformation of Australia from an English outpost to much more of a multi-ethnic, multicultural society.

Whitlam just set us on the path to bankruptcy that only Hawke managed to fix and Keating to screw up again, giving us the "recession we had to have".

Howard and Costello fixed the mess, giving us a stable, prosperous economy for a decade before Labor got us into multi-billion dollar debt. Which is where we find ourselves today.

Well that and the fact that Australia has always been a traditionally reformist, rather than revolutionary, nation. Having an old age and disability pension, arbitration laws, female suffrage, pharmaceutical benefits scheme, public housing all in the first fifty years of Federation suggest Whitlam was not instigating fundamental change but rather reviving Australia's reforming ways after two decades on hold.

Universal healthcare was kind of a big deal

also brought in universal tertiary education and legal aid

Whitlam did more to make australia what it is today then the rest of our prime ministers combined he was our fdr

I have lived in America for long periods of time where its impossible to find food that won't kill you, where people pay thousands of dollars out of pocket for rubbish health care (I could give you some stories) and where people work 3 jobs, 60 hours a week and still can't afford to feed their families despite the average income being similar to australia - its all in the hands of a few at the top. People here spend their whole lives paying off unbelievable university debt, can't get legal advice when a rich guy screws them over and retire broke. Whitlam is the reason why Australia is the lucky country it is

Edited by grazorblade: 16/5/2014 02:06:44 PM

Australian media canonised Whitlam when he came to power. It was "Time", apparently. He was the messiah who delivered free education and generally handouts to anyone with...well... a hand out.

Which was fun until the money ran out (think Homer Simpson in the Garbage Man episode). It is controversial that the GG sacked him but it must be remembered that Whitlam got to have an election against Fraser immediately after that, and got absolutely pummelled by the electorate and tossed out on his ear. If people were against the sacking they would have reinstated him. Instead, they tossed him out.

So anyone suggesting Whitlam was anything other than a dud, and an expensive, unaffordable dud at that, are simply buying into the myth. Reality was the exact opposite.

Paul Keating all the way, anyone who drops a Monty Python joke in parliament is alright by me

John Howard, guys?

I weep for humanity.

I think history glorifies former prime ministers in many regards. Modern media also highlights their shortcomings a lot more. Howard was the last of the 'traditional media' PM's and is subsequently looked upon more favourably.

Oh - forgive me being cynical, so the scriptures have spoken therefore its valid and backed by PK :lol:

Beloved reverended Gough (the joker makes me sic !) was the root cause this countries path went down the welfare path...followed by grant this grant that just as bad as krudd's $900 handouts taking us/you down the same path.
Obscurantism never is far, PK was one of the best did you know :) :lol:

stefcep - I don't blame your stance one bit you have good reason =d> unlike many in this country just bitch what/why they don't get handed outs.

Edited by M.L.: 14/5/2014 02:59:12 PM

Edited by M.L.: 14/5/2014 02:59:42 PM

Mate it was A LOT worse when my brother went through it in 1998, but there is still a long way to go.

The opportunity was there in 2006 but Labor and Despoja and the Democrats in the Senate blocked the presumpion of shared parenting, and the applicaion of rule of evidence for claims of abuse.

For that I will never forgive them.

Not all.

Whilst people are debating paying $7 to see a GP, we have laws in this country that can with the swipe of a pen:

1. Decide what if any relationship you have with your children.

2. Alter and remove title from you of any property you have legitimately worked for

3. Garnish your wages in the most productive years of your life that leaves with you barely 25% to live on.

Can there be any bigger issues to vote on?

Labor, the Democrats and that weasel Fielding of the "Family First" did everything to make sure all of the above was maintained. For that I will never vote for them.

From personal experience let me tell you this, the system is still fundamentally flawed. I have hardly seen my little brother in six years because my mum falsely spoke about domestic abuse just to get him, then only to retract the claim as soon as custody was settled in her favour. He wanted to live with his dad, where he was surrounded by extended family and prospects of going to a well renowned school, but instead was forced to live with his adulterous mother living with no extended family around and having a drug growing father in law (I am not making this up), going to a school that has had stabbings in the no to distant past. I only get to see my brother one day every two months.

The system favours mothers regardless of the situation. They scream abuse and they get the kids. If a claim of abuse is put forward by all means let the mother have custody temporally, but it needs to be substantiated before any definitive custody decisions are made.

I hate Greg Champion

Edited by imonfourfourtwo: 14/5/2014 12:14:01 PM

So you're saying that people aren't supposed to learn about the history of Australia from before they were born?

Maybe Keating was right, obscurantism is coming back under Abbot! :lol:

8 votes to Whitlam to date :lol: how many of you voted those days :lol: oh I suppose wiki informed you :lol:

This isn't a tough budget. Its a cruel budget that targets those that can least afford to pay to make up for the mistakes of those that can. There's nothing tough about attacking those that can least defend themselves.

And why this ridiculous Costello-era fixation with surplus? Do you KNOW what a surplus is?

Its the govt taking more money off people than they need to run the country.

Ahh "But thats good to have sitting their for the future, just in case".

Except, as Costello did, as Rudd and Gillard did, they will just fritter it away on welfare that suits the core constituents, or hair-brained schemes that get rorted and make not one iota of difference to national prosperity.

Surpluses are just a way to get ill-informed people to be happy to give the government more of their hard earned than they will make good use of. Never feel happy about a surplus.

Edited by stefcep: 14/5/2014 12:09:21 AM

Howard and Costello happened to govern in boom times, which came about as a result of decisions made by Hawke and Keating eg float the dollar, closer ties with Asia rather than Mother Britain, clever country ideology.

Costello then proceeded to piss it all down the toilet with baby bonuses, Family Tax benefits, milk and sandwich tax cuts, the dismantling of Medicare whilst simultaneously beefing up Private Health Insurers profits, the double-speaked "Future Fund", which everyone believes is money set aside for our kids but is in fact a fund to guarantee the defined benefits super payouts of public servants.

But one thing I will never forget is Howards and Ruddock's courageous and dogged determination to amend the most powerful area of law in the country The Family Law Act so that children are give a fair chance of shared parenting, despite the despicable opposition by Labor and Despoja and the Democrats. For this, the Libs get my vote for life, as shit as Abbot's Libs are.

wasn't it PITT THE YOUNGER???

youngest prime minister of england??

It wasn't difficult for Australia to survive the GFC, almost all of the countries who had low debt net did well, whilst those who had high net debt did poorly. Given we had negative net debt (ie cash at bank) We were in a prime position to implement Keynesian fiscal policy (which the Libs supported) to stimulate the economy, and so we avoided recession. But the common denominator between almost all those countries who went into recession and those who didn't wasnt the stimulus spending, as almost all countries had invested in some sort of stimulus program, it was their respective debt positions prior to the GFC. Again those countries who had low debt did well (ie Australia) and those who did poor had high debt ( ie most of Europe and America). The flip side of Keynesian economics government should whenever possible run a balanced budget and deliver surpluses to pay down debt, but it appears labor have totally abandoned this school of thought and invented their own, one which arrogantly frowns on surpluses and believes it has unlimited access to debt to fund all the programs it knows it can't afford, and leaves to future generations to find a way to pay it off. This is why this budget will be so tough, and unpopular, but necessary to get Australia back to surplus and one the path to prosperity. Labor just want to win the popularity content with all their zany spending programs but it's liberals who have the balls to make the necessary cuts.

Howard was certainly very effective, I won't begrudge that. He was easily the most dominant political figure in my adult lifetime, and there's no doubt he was able to implement what he wanted to do pretty successfully.

I just hated what he stood for. Economically the times were strong, but I really feel like a lot of the proceeds were wasted on middle class welfare and tax cuts. After that massive era of growth, we still had crap broadband, ill-equipped public schools, the pacific highway still not finished... etc. Socially I just couldn't stand the guy, he was a neanderthal (on stuff like gay rights and saying sorry to Aboriginal people), and in foreign policy we got way too cozy to the Americans.

Personally, although I have a big soft spot for Whitlam and Keating (now there were some strong bastards who knew how to get stuff done and kick liberal ass while doing it), I think Hawke ran the most effective government.

The accord and tarriff reductions helped fix the economy and set it up for 20-plus years of growth. At the same time we got an absolute truckload of social policy reform (medicare, family payments, anti-discrimination laws, anti-AIDS campaigns, much better education system). Plus it was the first government that really tried to protect the environment in a serious way (Franklin Dam, Daintree, etc).

Really? Whats conspiracy here? I'm simply saying they are losing revenue from taking away those taxes. Isn't it logic that they need to make up for them in other ways? If we are in such a mess financially why wouldn't you keep those taxes?

Lol, there's a tin foil hat you can get on eBay.