The track-suited time traveller
John Howard's early morning walk is the gift that never stops giving for people wishing to ambush, admonish or abuse him. All you have to do is find out where his entourage is staying, set your alarm early, don some suitably comic get-up or pre-prepare some suitably acerbic rebuke, and then wait for the great track-suited one to power-walk on by.
Last week, he was confronted by a group of white-gloved ladies, resplendent in floral frocks and 1950s vintage hats, who described themselves as The John Howard Auxiliary Fan Club. They dispensed iced "yellow cake" and "fake Viagra" to help with his "listless election". Then on consecutive mornings, first in Canberra and then in Adelaide, he was heckled by passers-by. One used language which would have made even the Australian cricket team's slip cordon blush.
The most accomplished and prolific ambushers are, of course, the guys from the , arguably the funniest thing on Australian television (discuss?). Now internationally famous for driving a fake motorcade into the Apec summit in Sydney and conveying a comedy Osama Bin Laden within metres of the US president's hotel, the Chasers have turned baiting the PM into something of a political art form.
Recently, they hired a silver DeLorean sports car, got one of the guys to dress up as a mad professor and then offered to take Mr Howard "Back to the future" so that he could relive and re-write history. In particular, they offered him the chance to resign over a year ago, the time when his treasurer and long-standing rival Peter Costello publicly complained that Mr Howard had reneged on a deal hatched years back in opposition to stand-down midway through his second term in office (he's now seeking his fifth).
Not for one moment do I think that John Howard wishes he had stepped down. Such defeatist thinking is not part of his molecular structure. And, in any case, back then it looked like he would be facing the former Labor leader, Kim Beazley, already a two-time loser. But I offer as talking points two ways in which John Howard might wish to re-write recent electoral history.
First, he would have conducted a very different campaign in 2004, for the manner in which he won that election has made it much trickier to win this one. Promising to keep interest rates low was always going to be a political hostage to fortune. And, on Wednesday, it looks like they will rise again, the sixth hike since the last election.
Arguably, he could have left the then Labor leader Mark Latham to dig his own political grave, rather than excavate so furiously himself. Counter-intuitive as it sounds, Mr Howard may have done too well three years ago. In that victory the seeds of what could be a defeat this time round might one day be found.
Here's the second strand of the "Howard did too well in 2004" thesis: that the Liberal-led coalition achieved such a resounding triumph that they wrestled control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate for the first time since the Fraser government in the 1970s. With no real check on his parliamentary power, Mr Howard launched , the controversial reforms to the industrial relations laws which have contributed to his unpopularity. Worse still, WorkChoices were not trailed by the prime minister at the last election, and were foisted on the public without warning.
So here's what Mr Howard might have done if he had taken the wheel of that silver DeLorean, and enjoyed the luxury of becoming a track-suited time-traveller: gone back to 2004 and conducted a campaign which would have better safeguarded his political future.
I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
I’m sure there are many people in Australia who would have wished over the years to send John Howard back to the 1950s where he belongs and probably is most comfortable. If only they had known they could rent a DeLorean time machine in Sydney!
Hopefully this latest gaffe in saying he believes inflation is unavoidable will spell Howard's end.
I definitely think he would have rethought the interest rates part.
It is probably true that Liberals produce lower interest rates than Labor (after all, they are better money managers), but people seem to have interpreted him as promising they wouldn't even go up - something that's just not possible to promise.
Really enjoyble description of the Australians' determination to demonstrate their honest opinion of Mr.Howard's policies by ambushing him on the run. The Australians enjoy the freedom of expression in the best way imanaginable. Good on ya Oz.
I think John Howard is fighting a battle he cannot win, regardless of what rabbits he can pull from his hat. The swing that will deliver the inevitable is from the 'autopilot' that a large chunk of the voting population is riding on. Boredom. For the first time in over a decade there is a credible alternative - that looks and sounds very much like the incumbent government - and will win because people just want to see 'fresh faces' and shake things up a bit.
The only thing Howard can do is hope that nerves will make a few stop and think when they are alone at their voting booth.
Prediction: Howard's early morning walks will - as the election date draws closer - become more and more controlled. His PR people must be nervous at what else might happen at this crucial time.
Two things have ended Howard.
1) The treatment of David Hicks, which is really just a consequence of Howard's lapdog attitude to Bush. (Sydney has been shut down twice this year - causing havoc for anyone travelling through the city - because Cheney and Bush decided to drop in.)
and
2) Workchoices.
Interest rates are a distant third or fourth. 'Boredom' doesn't even rate, as if anyone elects someone because the other guy is 'boring'. Workchoices knocked him down and Hicks was the nail in the coffin...let's hope he is buried *deep*
"Workchoices": he wouldn't have won the last election without Rupert Murdoch and big business. He promised them the crown jewel of the erosion of real wages and the real reduction of worker benefits. Now at this election he has the support of big business and their funding but he has lost the votes of the people he sold down the river. Finally, Howard has dealt himself out of the game.
Whatever the outcome of the election,there are plenty of people around the world who admire Prime Minister John Howard for the kind of staunch support he has offered to George W.Bush in the crusade against Islamofascism.
as a canadian,i feel the world's getting weary of the "conservative"
agenda and want the wheels of liberal ideas to start the uphill climb back to the many reforms that seem to have been repealed by these
same conservative governments,i.e. canada,u.s.a. and britian...the voices of reason must and will be heard again..thenk god,enough with knee jerk reactions,it's time for long healing proactive reforms....
I believe that Mr Howard's Coalition will not only lose this election, I believe he will lose his seat in Bennelong. The electorate want a change, illogical though it may be. We have forgotten, after eleven years of Coalition policy, the disastrous days of Whitlam and his successors.
there are plenty of people around the world who admire Prime Minister John Howard for the kind of staunch support he has offered to George W.Bush in the crusade against Islamofascism
And therein lies John Howard's achilles heel, the vast majority of Australians despise his slavish support of President Bush which has only given us draconian legislation - curtailing civil liberties, an unwinnable war in Iraq and a total mess in Afghanistan.
May he also lose his own seat of Bennelong.
We are enjoying incredible prosperity, so I'm not overly concerned about interest rates. I don't think that Workchoices is as devastating as Labour makes it out to be, and I don't want to return to the union thuggery of the 80s and early 90s.
I do, however, think that the Liberal government's stance on several social justice and human rights issues - Tampa (children overboard), David Hicks, demonisation of asylum seekers, and the recent outrageous comments by Kevin Andrews about alleged problems with the integration of Sudanese refugees - will tip the balance for this voter.
Its interesting how people are predicting a Howard defeat, Labor needs 16 seats to win, and it looks like they will only win 15 - resulting in a hung parliament. The senate is where its at anyway, a Labor victory will count for nothing if the Coalition keep control of the senate. Oh well, I guess we'll see on election day.
As someone who's spent my entire adult life under Howard's government, I can't wait for November 24th to cast my vote against him yet again. This time however, I'm fairly confident that most people have seen through his lies and scare tactics, are aware of the blood on our Australian hands because of Howard's misadventure in Iraq and realise that very little of the current good economic situation is due to Howard's management. We simply have valuable dirt, we dig it up and sell it to China and India and will do so for the next 300 years.
So long John. Australia's a less egalitarian, less tolerant, greedier and more selfish place for your time in office.
My family and I moved to OZ two years ago. We do not have the right to vote yet, but, being our new home we have taken an interest in the politics of the country.
In all honesty we are shocked at how amateurish the politicians are and how foot loose they are with their responsibilities.
What also amazes us is how downright disrespectful politicians are to their opposing council.
If the U.K is polarised during an election campaign by politics, it seems Australia is perpetually so, with even more excesses being mouthed at such a time.
It is quite unsavoury.
As for Howard, I'm not that convinced that he will lose. My suspicion is that Rudd is an Australian Tony Blair reaping the winds of change and very focus group driven.
Not sure the Australian's want a man like that, but equally I'm not sure they want more of Howard.
I'm waiting to see what you write next Nick, some how I don't think Johnny see's the funny side of life much! he's too busy dreaming up what he can do next to make us all miserable, well he sells off everything we own & then has the hide to say he's a good economic manager I wonder what money spinner he'll come up with when everything is sold off,all our profits are going to overseas companies & the climate warming generated drought has killed off our farming sector! That will be a rabbit-pulled-out-of-a-hat-trick I'd love to see but preferably in some one elses time line not ours.
See Nick, that is what confounds me, ones grievance with JWH is that interest rates have not been kept low, yet really they have only risen in quarter-of-a-percent incremental rates. now compare that to the interest rates under any labour government in the last 20 years and that is justification for me. Unfortunately the only way any government could change this is outlawing Visa and Mastercard, alleviating our country's private debt.
Secondly 'James', what trash about David Hicks, if you had any idea of the Australian public- they really just don't care. Workchoices on the other hand is another proverbial kettle of fish.
We keep being told John Howard will lose the election, by the Media in Australia. Even if he does he will be remembered for bringing us out of those long negative years of Labour. They too had been there too long and we were heading towards a Banana Republic. At least John Howard hasn't got us there. He gave us back our self-esteem.
Workchoices will have the biggest impact on the Liberal Party in the November election. It is deeply unpopular, and effects everyone, with the greatest impact on lower paid workers and women. This goes against the grain for most Austalians, who highly value fairness. The union bashing ads on tv, which seem to comprise the focus of the Lib's political platform, are quite frankly ridiculous.
Another interest rate rise on 5 November will also effect how people vote - mortgage repossession is growing, and for a lot of people this could force them to sell up.
The majority of Australians will vote on the basis of how govt policy impacts on them personally. Only a minority will vote on the basis of political issues such as David Hicks.
James,
You cannot possibly attribute Howards' downfall to David Hicks. Yes, his time is up for many reasons, but this is not one. Do you honestly believe that the larger Australian community has any sympathy for Hicks? (deserved or otherwise). Aside from the socialist left, interest in his plight waned long ago. Of course he was treated extremely unfairly, etc, etc, but those intending to change voting preference based on this could be counted on one hand.
Agreed - workchoices has become his handmade political coffin.
JB
Part of John Howard's current challenge is that while he may recognise some tactical political errors, he has gone against or manipulated popular opinion on so many occasions that Australians may have just had enough.
These would include:
- The exploitation of the fabricated "child overboard" fiasco where he appealed to ugly prejudices and turned a nation against refugee intake - and helped him win an election.
- The stubborn ongoing refusal to say "sorry" to the native people of Australia for the past injustices inflicted by past Australian governments.
- His opposition to the formation of a Republic. (He scuttled a referendum by cynically linking the vote for a republic with that of having an elected head of state - the latter being unpopular enough to sink the whole thing.)
- Rushing Australia to America's side in almost everything including the war with Iraq against broadly held views at home.
- Refusing to back the Kyoto Protocol or to take global climate change seriously. And to support nuclear and "clean" coal well above renewables.
- Abandoning citizen David Hicks in Guantanamo without any support as a sacrifice to the wrong-footed Bush policy.
- His undermining of free speech through the revival of sedition laws.
I believe that there are many other episodes that have left many wondering if John Howard has lost his ability - or desire - to actually represent rather than to try to manipulate public opinion around his own prejudices and outdated views of the world.
We will soon know if John Howard's miscalculations and yesteryear policies have exhausted Australians and they choose to move on.
John Howard hasn't contributed fighting forces to Iraq or Afghanistan because of "Islamofacism" or "The War on Terror".
He does it because it has been virtually standard foreign policy for Australia to contribute token forces to the various wars the US engages in. Rudd will also continue to contribute, withdrawing only 500 of the 1500 men Australia has in and around Iraq and probably bolstering Australia's commitment to Afgahnistan.
This election will be decided by a number of factors, but Work Choices seems to be the main galvanising issue. The working class have little job security and their entitlments (holiday time, overtime rates etc.) are being stripped from them.
Simply put, Howard went too far.
John Howard would like to wind back the clock so he could stand down at the peak of his popularity, probably just after the 2004 election. Tim Fischer, the former Nationals' leader and Deputy PM, retired at the top. When queried how he knew it was the right time, he replied 'Because everyone wanted me to stay'.
The other reason that Howard would want to wind back the clock is to properly groom a successor. Should the Coalition lose, they could be out of power for a long time because Howard has carefully ensured that no one in his party has the stature in the public's eyes of an alternative PM.
Re:Tracey's comments:
I don't think that Workchoices is as devastating as Labour makes it out to be, and I don't want to return to the union thuggery of the 80s and early 90s.
You obviously haven't recently had to sign an AWA. Work Choices affects everyone who doesn't work under the protection of award conditions. I've lived and worked in Australia for 25 years, and have worked extensively in unionised workplaces. I've never experienced "union thuggery", but I (and most probably you too) have certainly benefited from the working conditions that Australian unions have worked hard for.
The economic prosperity of the past 12 years is primarily what motivates the Australian voter - and the Libs have won in areas that used to be predominately `safe' Labor seats. The Howard govt aborbed Pauline Hanson's social policies because they had popular support. IF the Libs lose, it will be because of the unpopularity of Work Choices.
You guys have to remember that Howard hasn't really won a "Liberal" election... ever. It's all been coalition based between the Liberal party and the National party but tonight we saw Labor defeat the entire coalition.
Looking back over past elections, Labor has beaten Liberal independantly in every previous election, however with a coalition force they were able to get into power over labor. I think even the cia.gov website on Australia takes note of this (for the obvious).