Howard's Way
Last week, I ran into John Howard for the first time since election night in 2007, when, outside a ballroom scattered with discarded, half-drunk flutes of champagne, I confronted him with a conversational opening gambit that to this day makes me wince.
My mother-in-law is an enthusiastic fan of the former prime minister, and was a near neighbour in north Sydney long before he became leader of the Liberal Party. So I passed on her commiserations, and then told him that her youngest daughter - who in her early teens had once served drinks at her parent's party fund-raisers - had recently agreed to marry me.
"What?" shouted the departing prime minister through the lip-shrill chatter of crest-fallen party loyalists. I repeated what I said, this time with less conviction, and got in return a look of puzzlement and a grunt of faint recognition. Then he moved past me to yet another Liberal diehard keen to tell him he was the greatest prime minister that Australia had ever had. I, meanwhile, retreated - wondering whatever possessed me to inject a note of personal happiness on a night of such abject political despair.
Last week, at a lunch organised by constitutional monarchists, John Howard seemed happier to be confronted by reporters. Indeed, he seemed to relish the exposure, for it was just like old times. With a thicket of microphones in front of him, he gave a robust defence of Australia's present constitutional arrangements - he is a true Burkean conservative, in the sense that he wants to preserve all that he deems workable and good, and is suspicious of unwarranted change - and his government's approach to asylum seekers. "We stopped the boats," he said with obvious pride.
Last week, he also sat down with the Sydney Sunday Telegraph and gave a more expansive interview in which he unleashed on Kevin Rudd. He branded his successor a "do nothing" prime minister who was all about spin and symbolism. He claimed that he had bungled the response to the surge in the number of boat people trying to reach Australian shores and had achieved little since becoming prime minister almost two years ago.
"The Rudd government comes up very short," said the former prime minister. "I can't think of a major thing it has done, except spent the bank balance that Costello and I left behind. Nothing else."
Howard was effectively accusing Kevin Rudd of political cowardice, which is a criticism you hear increasingly from supporters as well as a partisan detractors. Kevin Rudd continues to enjoy what, by normal standards, are stratospheric approval ratings (an average over the past two years of 68%), yet he has not leveraged much of that personal popularity by championing unpopular issues.
On climate change, as Mr Howard noted, his emissions trading scheme is close to what the Coalition was proposing at the last election, with cautious cuts and targets. He has done nothing to advance the republic, another contentious issue where he risks alienating the swing suburbs. The stimulus package was centred on generous cash hand-outs - a giveaway injection. After the symbolism of his much-vaunted "Sorry", indigenous groups have wondered what he intends to do to close the gap between white and black Australia. On the boat people, he has emphasised the toughness of his policies, rather than setting out the case for compassion.
The conventional wisdom is that Kevin Rudd is a poll-driven prime minister rather than a principle-driven national leader. His focus is on day-to-day managerialism rather than bold, long-term vision. Last week saw an interesting example of this. On the eve of a bad poll coming out, which showed Labour's lead over the Liberals had plunged, Kevin Rudd went on a media blitz with five hastily-arranged afternoon radio interviews and an appearance on ABC's 730 Report, one of the few truly national early evening news programmes. The prospect of a bad poll had apparently produced a flurry of prime ministerial panic.
Even many detractors of John Howard would concede that he was politically bold and daring, from his decision to back gun controls early on to the introduction of the GST, Australia's initially unpopular sales tax. Howard clearly thinks his successor is something of a political wimp. So is he right? Has Kevin Rudd emerged as a do-nothing prime minister?
PS: I found it hard to suppress a wry smile when Jonny Wilkinson slotted over a drop goal - or field goal, as they are called in Australia - in the early stages of the England/Australia game at Twickenham over the weekend. Memories of 2003. But Australia ended up on top, deserved winners with two tries to zip. Viewers in Britain might have wondered why so many Aussie players were sporting such pathetic, post-pubescent moustaches, some of which looked in danger of being blown away in the south-west London winds. It is, of course, Movember, the month when thousands of men groom moustaches to highlight prostate cancer, depression and other male ailments. In the land of memorable, iconic moustaches - Dennis Lillee, Rodney Marsh, David Boon - they are carrying on a long, and great, Australian tradition. So all power to their whiskered upper lips...
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~14~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Great article Nick, I think you article pointed out a lot about Mr Rudd's Premiership, he has gone for the polls and acted on emotional subjects such as Climate Change and indigenous relations but he has lucked substance on the future.
John Howard may not have been popular but he made decisions and acted with conviction such as Gun Control post Port Arhur, the East Timor situation and on Tax Reform. Those were key things that won him votes but also alienated him. Howard wasn't perfect, I personally found him sometimes trying to be a President when he was against it (ie. Wanting to open the 2000 Olympics, present the 2003 Rugby World Cup & staying on for the glory of APEC) but he was a leader when the country needed one, 11 years as Prime Minister tells you most of the population believed in him.
PS - As a London-based Sydney-sider who was at Twickenham, I groaned when that 3rd minute drop-goal went over, I had feelings we were going to see a repeat of the 12-10 RWC2007 Quarter Final but thankfully not :-)
Complain about this comment
It is interesting that Rudd, like Obama, is coping flack for not having much to show in his first terms. Rudd is so fiscally strangled, that any real changes he may make towards his party's policies, will put the country into a tail spin. Most of his actions have been to get the economy going, or in Australia's case, to keep us from going into recession. We have been extremely lucky that we didn't follow the rest of the world down the gurgler.
Another interesting observation is that the financial managers, observers and the business end of town generally are totally behind what Rudd is doing. It is the small fry, the average mums and dads, who haven't a clue of how well we have escaped financial ruin, that are having doubts about his leadership.
We are coming up to an election this time next year, and we will have a budget in May, just before that election. I think Rudd is playing it extremely well, not giving out much, instead saving what he can so that in May he can show a decent financial status for his possible next term.
I can't see Turnbull, or any of the Opposition for that matter, toppling Rudd at the next election, and with the exception of the asylum seekers, Rudd hadn't really put a foot wrong.
Complain about this comment
This article made me smile. Howard evidently doesn't think much of you, Nick.
That is to say, it seems he has a low opinion of you.
Well, what would he know? Hey? He is only a former prime minister. You, however, are a journalist from the BBC.
I can see why you would publish this story. (big grin)
Complain about this comment
The biggest worry here is that, Blair did pretty much the same thing in his first term: worry about spin and presentation, continue the previous administration's policies and look after the economy pretty well. We all know what happened next, don't we?
In his defence Rudd doesn't have quite the same cheese factor. I reserve judgement.
Complain about this comment
So former Prime Minister Howard doesn't think much of Prime Minister Rudd. That piece of news must be the scoop of the century. well done BBC.
Complain about this comment
The problem with Howard's Way was that he stayed on way too long. Instead of handing over to Peter Costello who, I for one believe would have made a geat Prime Minister, he hung on in perhaps, a desire to serve in the position longer than Liberal Party founder and patriarch R. G. Menzies.
In his last term he became increasingly withdrawn from the realities of the Australian electorate, and increasingly pompous and nasty, dismissing those who questioned Australalia's Iraq policy, the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, Work Choices etc as verging on the imbecilic and he became particularly vitriolic to televisionj journalsists who probed his policies a little too far.
His Ministers did not help the situation. Alexander Downer would often end television interviews with transparent fury and a "My pleasure" hissed out of the side of his grim, taught lips.
Tony Abbott, at one media event was revealed by an open microphone to be a belligerent and foul mouthy bully, and the list goes on.
The Liberal Party and its leaders were demonstrating the arrogant, "born to rule" mentality that has brought so many leaders of Democracies undone over the years - fogetting they rule at the whim of the people.
As in some Greek tragedy, their hubris is their downfall - in Howard's case his downfall was at the hands of, here's the rub, a television journalist.
Shortly before the last federal Election I telephoned my dear old mum in Australia and asked who she was going to vote for and she answered "For that nice Kevin". And "nice Kevin" became Prime Minister.
Now John Howard has emerged from self imposed exile (one can imagine him over the past two years by the shores of Sydney harbour in the classic Rodin "Thinker" pose asking "Why? Why? Why?...)to sledge Kevin Rudd as a "do nothing" Prime Minister.
But there he is wrong, for Kevin Rudd has been able to give Australia a new and effective spirit which continues to earn him what Nick refers to as "straospheric approval ratings".
The signing of the Kyoto Protocol showed that Australia was not going to turn its back on the thinking of the majority of the rest of the planet.
The apology to Australia's indigenous people showed that all of Australia's citizens could be a proud part of a people who have understood the "spirit" of Australia for 40,000 years.
Aided by an effective Treasurer in Wayne Swan, Rudd's Government has been able to shield Australia from the worst of the global recession.
"We stopped the boats" says Howard. Come off it John, the world has changed much in the past few years with the conflagrations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka adding tenfold to the amount of refugees heading our way.
And as for "the bank balance Costello and I left behind", if you are so willing to give praise to your ex-Treasurer, why didn't you promote him at the time, thus avoiding becoming only the second prime Minister in Australia's history to be dumped by your own electorate and bringing the Liberal Party to its knees.
And media blitzes? Please get real. Does any 21st century politician not engage in them?
Complain about this comment
Nick, you describe Howard as "suspicious of unwarranted change" with regards to Australia's constitutional arrangements. It is an accurate description, and one that belies his description of Rudd as a "do nothing PM".
For what it is worth, I believe that all governments should be suspicious of unwarranted change. The most responsible governments should only ever need to make seemingly minor amendments (which the electorate will rarely notice) to avoid the need to make major decisions later (upon which the electorate will naturally be divided).
Perhaps the UK government could take note.
Complain about this comment
Hi Nick,
I now live in the UK but was in Australia for the referendum about the Republic. My main reason for voting 'no' was that the question was just too confusing! If anybody outside of Australia thinks we voted on 'Do you want to become a Republic, yes or no?' they are very wrong! It was all about how we would vote for a president, do we agree to the infamous preamble, etc etc ad nauseum. In my humble opinion, if the vote was simply whether Australians wanted to become a Republican country, the result would have included a lot more 'yes' votes. Not to mention a lot more people voting in the first place...
Complain about this comment
I didn't vote for KRudd at the 2007 election. I don't mind the man, in fact he's one of the better Laborites in that party but as PM he's been non-existent.
John Howard was a fantastic leader and as much as I was expecting him to be booted from office after so long in power, I was still shocked when it happened. He was one of those defining leaders who brought the nation up by the boot straps if you will. he stood up to Indonesia after so long of turning a blind eye under Labor. He sorted out the guns after Port Arthur. He sorted out the illegal migrant situation that Labor decried as evil and wrong only for them to re-introduce (though far more inefficiently) in the end. He did the right thing on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Rudd on the other hand has done what?! He's spent the 'Future Fund' that the Liberals built up. He's re-introduced or kept Liberal policies that were in place despite committing to removing them... As I say, I have nothing too much against KRudd, he seems a decent bloke but my God what a waste of space as a leader.
I certainly wont be voting for Labor come the next election.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS