Quote:
Originally posted by Solopop
No. Just no.
Howard was successful simply because of luck. He was lucky (in a political sense) to be in DC on 9/11 and appear like a strong leader. He was lucky the crisis in Afghanistan led to him to be able to take a horrific stance on boat arrivals. He was lucky China began booming and wanted more of our minerals and he was lucky Costello was too much of a ***** to ever challenge him.
Under Howard, Australia was horrifically under invested in... like no to him being a good leader. Dear God child, have you forgotten Work Choices!?
|
Whether you agreed with his policies or not, he was a terrific leader. I'm camp Labor but I'm not blind to the facts. He was the last true leader of this country
Keating's economic groundwork was the reason for Howards overall success but that can't be used to undermine his achievements as a PM. In the wrong hands it could've been a disaster (like when Rudd took over in 07) The Iraq war hardly counts as a blunder. The blame lies with the US intelligence that believed there were WMDs there. Australia doesn't have the capability to get intel like they can. Voters would've expected any PM of the time to have done the same. As for border protection, we would benefit immensely from his policy today, look how badly Rudd ****ed that up.
Politics these days is a joke. No one has vision or the balls to implement policy. The minute there's resistance everyone backs down because being popular seems to be their top priority. You don't have to be popular to be a successful PM, you have to have authority. Something no one since Howard has achieved
@ skye crying because Lisa spends more time with the dogs
she didn't think it was tacky 
