Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Costello's Latham Diaries
Costello's remarks are his attempt to get what he believes to be the truth of the Howard years on the public record. He knew when he said them that he'd never be PM.. His most telling remark was "It's a Sydney thing".
He was never in Howard's inner circle. Abbott is, as you saw from Lateline last night. Costello as Peacock, without the public competition. Who is a possible leader from Victoria now? Andrew Robb?
This is the turning point. Howard's reign is nearing an end. Will they do a panic leadership shift? Too late, I reckon. But anything can happen in politics.
I was out all day yesterday and on the road soon for a few days. This will be a long, long campaign. Webdiary needs all hands on deck.
 |
 |
[ category: ]
 |
| © 2006 - 2008, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of Webdiary Pty Ltd. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
An Independent opinion of Howard and Costello.
John Howard was at it again last week, boasting about his experience.
He explained it this way to viewers of Channel Nine's Sunday program:
‘When I came to the prime ministership in 1996, I'd been treasurer, I'd been opposition leader for a long time, I'd been kicked out as opposition leader, I'd suffered the swings and roundabouts... of politics as well as some of the successes. I'd been battle-hardened’. [But not even a Boy Scout?]
Which rules out Peter Costello for another decade or two. The Treasurer has never been opposition leader, he's never suffered the way Howard has, and he keeps running away from battles instead of fighting them.
The Howard dictum is also bad news for the pack of easy riders lining up behind Costello, including Malcolm Turnbull, Brendan Nelson and Julie Bishop.
What does Howard's 'experience' amount to; and, given that his real target is Kevin Rudd, how do the two men's lives compare?
When you look at Howard's background, the only meaningful experiences in his life have been in and around the federal parliamentary Liberal Party and its NSW division.
In the only published biography of the Prime Minister - a weighty, 800-page tome by David Barnett - Howard's life before he entered Parliament (at age 34) is summed up in a scant 19 pages, and most of these deal with his ancestry and how he won Liberal preselection. Read those pages and you will learn Howard was a political savant from about the age of 14 with precious little life experience to speak of.
The "ingredients" that went into making this person over his first 34 years, are described by David Barnett:
"Pride in the service his father and grandfather had given their country on the Western Front, which gave him a sense of distinction, together with a consciousness of his country's history; that sense of being a special person, which comes from being driven by a devoted mother; and the early debating skills which set him apart from his peers. Being named after Winston Churchill was another contribution.”
Koutsoukis continues:
What about is life in politics? After a successful few years as a junior minister in Malcolm Fraser's government, Howard was promoted to treasury, where his five years in the job can only be judged as an unmitigated failure. Take a look at the statistics.
When Howard left the treasury in March 1983, the budget deficit was forecast at $9.6 billion, inflation was 11 per cent, unemployment was 10.2 per cent, the economy was in recession with negative 0.4 per cent growth, and housing interest rates were 13 per cent." [In 1982 Howard's interest rates were an all time record of 21%.]
"And, despite the 1982-83 recession being the worst since the Great Depression, [and still has that record] Howard still managed to increase the federal tax take from 25.1 per cent of GDP in 1977 to 27.5 per cent of GDP by 1982-83.
Howard then spent 13 years in opposition, during which - when he wasn't leader himself - he spent a lot of time conspiring against the three leaders he served under: Andrew Peacock, John Hewson and Alexander Downer. What's so admirable about that?
Yet, showing remarkable strength of character, stamina and political cunning, Howard finally became prime minister in 1996. And was it a smooth transition? No.
In Howard's first term, he sacked six ministers plus a handful of parliamentary secretaries; his first two chiefs-of-staff (Nicole Feely and Grahame Morris) also hit the fence; and he showed manifest inexperience in his travels overseas.
From the same article, an independent opinion of Kevin Rudd's life.
He left home at 18 to study international relations at the Australian National University (Howard lived at home until he got married), where he spent four years mastering Chinese language and culture; not a bad investment, given China's increasingly vital importance to Australia's future.
From 1981 to 1988, Rudd served as a career diplomat, with postings to Stockholm and Beijing. At age 31, Rudd joined a political party for the first time and became Wayne Goss' chief-of-staff when Goss was Queensland opposition leader and later premier. Rudd then served as head of the Queensland state public service for a number of years.
There was also a stint with global finance giant KPMG before he entered Federal Parliament in 1998 as a pretty well-rounded sort of a fellow.
What, in Rudd's past, suggests he's not up to the job of being prime minister? As Opposition leader, he has already enjoyed one successful overseas trip - to Washington - and will embark on another, to China, in June.
As for the other alternative prime minister, Peter Costello, what great mountains has he climbed? Costello spent some of his university years flirting with the ALP before joining up with the Liberals and his lifelong buddy Michael Kroger.
Costello then became a lawyer, married into Liberal Party royalty (his father-in-law is Peter Coleman, a former NSW Liberal leader and federal MP) and spent the rest of the 1980's playing political games as he and Kroger terrorised the Liberals' so-called "wet" faction.
As Shaun Carney recounted in his biography of Costello: "In a single stroke [the 'Dollar Sweets' law case] introduced the legend of Costello and Kroger before a wider audience . . . the fact that a more experienced counsel (Alan Goldberg) actually carried the day in court, that the action was paid for by a fighting fund organised by Andrew Hay and the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce, and the case was built on a precedent established by Jeff Kennett, did not interfere with the quick-setting legend forming around the two friends.
Another thing Costello keeps bragging about is his stewardship of the Australian economy, declaring that Rudd has no place putting his hand up to run what is now a $1 trillion show.
What was Costello's economic experience before he entered Parliament? Zero. Formal economic training? Zilch. Ever run a business? No. Has a department full of economic gurus behind him, all at his beck and call? Yes.
This is hardly been the forging of an Australian lion.
When Howard boasts about his experience, what he really means is that he's played the game of politics longer than anyone else.
He's like an old conjurer with a bigger bag of tricks to wriggle out of more sticky situations than anyone else. That may yet prove to be the winning advantage, but Howard's jibe about Rudd's inexperience should be seen for what it is: just another canard to distract the voters.
End of quote.
COMMENT: Nothing more need be said.
NE OUBLIE.
Margo: Links to articles please Ern.
Taking Everyone Down
My wife has long had a theory (and she's always right) that if Howard thought he would lose an election he would ensure he was the last Coalition PM for a long time to preserve his own legacy. Would he really want Costello taking over and becoming popular by being far more moderate?
I think she's right.
Howard has lost the plot
Newspoll report that the kids between 18-35 have deserted Howard, the next lot have deserted Howard and even the oldies are deserting Howard.
He looks and sounds what he is - a tired old man who stayed too long at the fair, the ferris wheel is stuck on the bottom and the flags are drooping forlornly as he wonders how it all turned to shit.
He even says in his bio. that he knew workers would be worse off under serf choices and simply didn't care.
If anyone wants a true and decent analysis of the Haneef story read David Marr's, and the letters editor reveals that letter writers were overwhelmingly in support of the young doctor.
Howard is now running a million miles an hour from his scam, the Brits are laughing through their tears at our lunacy for charging the poor boy with anything, and when Peter Faris drips scorn he does it very well indeed.
Sort of almost feel sorry for Cameron Stewart, though, as he swallowed the tripe from the feds and in now trying to dig himself out of the muck.
One thing for sure - the national security trust is as dead as the 1 million or so Iraqis we have helped to slaughter.
Margo, I am on deck if you want an immigration follow up to Alvarez - still my best day's work if I do say so myself.
Yes, thanks Marilyn. Keep it tight, say 800 words, with links, and email it to me at mlkingston@gmail.
don't beleive it.
Mary j Shepherd, note your comments confident that voters have "...deserted Howard...even the oldies have deserted Howard...".
You would think so; we are not living within the fictional imaginative confines of "The Sky Is Falling In", Babbit" "The Trial" or "1984" and "Animal Farm". This is so, isn't it?
Of course.
It ain't necessarily so. Adelaide academic Dr Gary Sauer-Thompson, whose "Public Opinion" appears from time to time at the "Online Opinion/ Domain" set of blogs made this cryptic comment to the writer in response to a recent post:
Unless I have got this wrong or he's miswritten the post, the comment is disturbing in its implications. It seems it's not just the government that can't tell the difference between right and wrong.
Terrible when you start detesting your own, isn't it?
Margo: Paul, what's the link to the blog you refer to? Please, everybody, link to the stuff you're using in your posts.
missing link
Have no idea how to link the thing. Haven't people the brains to simply Google up "Public Opinion" for innards of my previous post?
Why else would have I cited the blogsite's name?
Scroll to "(Haneef Case: anonymous leaking" (a majestic Pryor cartoon depicting the carting off of Haneef to the dungeons at the medieval Tower embroiders the post).
Dr Sauer Thompson has provided a link to Morgan Polls in response to a comment I made, talking of a change of 4% in Tory approval rating and providing an analysis of the reasons for this. Needless to say this contributor has nothing to say beyond despising and vomiting on the sort of rationale described.
Fiona: When you have the relevant website open, Paul, use your mouse to highlight and copy the website address. Then, when writing your post, paste the website name at the appropriate place. The moderators can do the fancy links later.
How clear some scams can be.
I must confess, like so many other Australians, I do not believe anything that Howard (or his sycophantic robots) has to say.
Everything is either plain lying, deceiving, or the business of selling the Australian public the garbage that only fools would believe. And be sure that Howard believes we are fools.
The latest diversion from the major issues in this election campaign like, WorkChoices; human rights; education; health; nuclear reactors/nuclear waste and general fascist behaviour et al is the convenient rubbish about the "New Order" leadership struggle.
So, what is all the fuss about? Does it cause us to trust either Costello or Howard - when they are both shameless fascists? Does it cure the already sinking feeling that the "New Order" robots are facing? Does it really make things worse for the Liberal/Nationalists? I think not.
Howard's next fascist move could be patriotism, the last resort of a coward.
We have to keep our eyes on the ball: believe nothing you read and only half of what you see.
NE OUBLIE.
Abbott and Costello
Yesterday, Abbott said on Lateline, "Shit Happens."
I expected this headline today:
Abbott on Costello: Shit Happens.
I was surprised that such a good Christian would swear like that.
Good Christian?
Firstly Martin, how do you know that Abbott is a "good Christian"? Secondly, although I do not use the word myself (I have on occasions used words stronger than that) "shit happens" has become rather a clichéed term used by many. Certainly not a good indication of whether one is a good Christian or not.
“Actions speak louder than words.”
And, yes, I am a Christian. Not necessarily a good one though! Ask Jenny.
Now ladies
Now ladies. Let us not set the boys a bad example. And yes, I know a bit about you milady Kath. But I reckon you 'd know where the Bible is in the house.
As for you Angelface. I am not about to argue the s... topic with one with six kids. You'd be the expert there.
Cathy, such words, you make me flush
Hi Kathy. Actually, I think Abbott is a shit Christian, as it happens. And I never use the word myself. I would prefer not to see the action, loud as it no doubt is. Thanks for your offer, anyway.
Cheers
No Shit!
Hi to you too Angela.
Judge not and thou shall not be judged! After all, "shit happens", eh?
Cheers mate.
Howard's economic credentials
Today has a nice example of what must frustrate the socks off Costello when it comes to the "economy"... this time on the record breaking (and family breaking) credit card debt levels I mentioned yesterday, a mere $40+ Billion.
"Firstly, the thing is the growth has slowed and secondly, for every dollar owed there are $5 of assets," says Howard (see here for article).
Where does one start with the silliness of that comment! Utter nonsense, both economically and politically. Fairyland.
Lucky you hung on to your two $200
Nobody should be surprised by this. I've observed this pair for some time now and the mutual dislike is palpable. Observe (when they re-run old footage) the body language of the two when they face the camera together. Bodies askew away from each other, not the slightest sign of endorsement or collaboration, and never the supporting asides or conversation. The sour look on Costello's face says it all. On balance I think Costello was perfectly aware of what would unfold. Revenge is sweet and he should have known about non-core promises. Oh happy days.
Still coming mate
Scott: Still coming mate.
I don't mind Costello so much. It's Ruddock that gets to me. No compassion.
Hope to catch up once Ian gets the his jojoba planted. Drought brings work, (and debt). Rain brings work.
Cheers.
Protecting one's preferred (alleged) legacy
Costello probably has been thinking about distancing himself from Howard for some time.
One take on what he is up to is this (see original here):
"The Treasurer has accomplished two political ends. First, by dismissing Howard's ability as an economic manager, he is, by implication, claiming all credit for the economic success of the past decade.
Second, by making clear that the economics of the Government are all his but the politics - and especially the leadership decisions - are all Howard's, he is laying a blame trail in the event that the Government loses the election."
The Ticker Thing
If anybody who has no ticker, it is Peter Costello, not poor old Kim. Costello is a cry baby who thinks he has the right to the PMship, rather than earning it. If he has ticker, he should have done a Keating and challenged Howard long time ago.
As far as being the greatest treasurer, Costello has not done a single thing that can be termed as "major strategic decision". Ross Gittins observed that as soon as the Libs got into power, Costello handed the running of the Australian economy to the Reserve Bank. And it has done a very good job, thank you.
Kevin Rudd's character was questioned as to whether he was fit to be the PM. I think before the next election, Costello's character should also be questioned because, if the Libs win again, he will the PM. John Howard is now completely irrelevant. The focus should be Costello and Rudd, not Howard and Rudd.
Bun fight
Downer, Abbot, Nelson, Minchin, Coonan, Andrews...etc".
How about this line up? Also pretty dismal, Gillard, Swan, Macklin, Crean, Albanese etc.
Bun comparison
Alan, clearly I don't agree with you. No comparison between the two lists for gutlessness, nastiness or incompetence in my view.
Really
I can't see Costello as
dead end
Can you see, Surjit, why a vote for Howard is so futile?
A vote for Howard is a vote for Costello. Costello is strong enough to challenge Howard but not defeat him, or if he does, too limited to do much once there. This sort of government can only be bad for the country, since no work will get done. All the energy and time will be squandered on infighting.
Howard has had it. A nasty old piece of work who has turned even his closest lieutenant against him with his treachery. Yet only one conclusion to be drawn: a vote for this misanthrope (or more to the point his wife) means a vote for Costello. Deteriorating Howard in decline stays and there must be further leadership strife. The wearing down process we have been witness to in the last fifteen months can only yield one winner. An exhausted, out of touch, wounded Costello, who will be prey to at least half a dozen power-hungry ego driven pretenders. Result – only one possibility: chaos!
For, who else is there on that side of politics? Compromised, amoral, deceitful Turncow and Brough?
The fop Nelson, too preoccupied by what he sees passing by a mirror to understand why his boss didn't want a simple truth about a vicious war told?
The boorish loud lout pinned again by Jones on Lateline, who previously unmasked him sneaking off to the Opus Dei Conspirator in Chief to fetch his marching orders for ruining the education system in 2004. The vulgar Mad Monk who makes Latham seem like a prince with his foul language, including in front of women?
That corrupt, satiated, tired old body; Downer?
Bishop, in desiccated similarly frayed condition?
A religious lunatic fanatic in Andrews, who proved not only by his locking up of Dr Haneef against the direction of a magistrate on Monday but by his pigheaded refusal to remedy the defect on Friday, in the light of new evidence, just how pathologically dislocated from reality, right and wrong, good and evil and most of all, intelligence and sheer silliness he is?
Robb is also ideological hard-line zealot territory, a piece of work much more deserving of jail than poor Dr Haneef.
Burnt-out old-woman Ruddock, or that frowsy capricious frump Coonan?
No, this geriatric, spiteful, venal, tired government is a nasty sick thing, in the same state of tatty, tawdry disrepair that the ALP government had fallen into in 1995, after 13 years. Put it down, like the sick mangy old dog it is, in similar style to the previous example.
Time for a change.
Let the bun fight begin
Once you take Costello out of the equation (and he has now done this himself, I suspect) who have you got left as possible leaders? Pretty dismal choices (even if I was a staunch Lib):
Downer, Abbot, Nelson, Minchin, Coonan, Andrews...etc.
What a line-up! I can't wait to see what happens when it becomes apparent that neither Howard nor Costello is a viable option.
Besides, what timing - just on Howard's 68th (yes, count those years - and the lies, and the hypocrisy, and the interest rates, and the debt levels, and the state of the health system, and ... add your own reality check values) birthday - I'll bet a few people including Janette are seething at the timing of the comments hitting the airwaves. And the "Sydney thing" - what a bitter twist to have in public.
Ah, gird up me lovelies, fun times ahead.
BTW, the SMH poll yesterday was interesting...view it here. Hmm, 62 is getting close to 68, but not quite the way Howard would like.