How popular is PM John Howard in Australia

In My Humble Opinion
1

Being an American, I really don’t know enough to debate this, so I’m just looking for informed (read:Ozzie) opinions.

I see a lot of debate here about Howard and the Governor-General mess. From my perspective halfway 'round the world, it seems that Howard has caused a lot of difficulties for himself with this. I also understand that his immigration/asylum stand has been divisive and Austraila’s participation in the Iraq war was not popular. On the other hand, my impression of all these affairs could be distorted by BBC and NPR.

I see that the next election takes place by November 2004, but I presume he could call one before then, correct? So I guess I’m looking for some sense of:
1: Have these three incidents/issues damaged Howard?
2: If so, how badly? If not, why not?
3: If he calls an election “soon”, will he be likely to be returned?

Thanks.

2

Aussie’s don’t seem to have the same blinding loyalty to their leaders that Americans do. But popularity doesn’t really come into it.
Howard is not perfect, but then again no-one is, but I think he will be voted in again, because the other choices do not even rate(in my opinion).

Immigration has divided the country, the Governor General issue is debatable (the truth is questionable) And the whole war issue is a tough one. If we didn’t kiss US arse we could end up in trouble. Howard was making a strategic move by supporting our troops in war.

I personally think Howard is simply speaking for the majority of Australians, which is what he has to do.

I’ve actually met him and foundhim to be an intelligent, well spoken, confident man who is doing his best.

3

Howard mastered the art of ‘splitter’ politics during years in opposition. He worked out that if you take a strong, early position on a subject, you can force your opponent to the unpopular extreme.

The current opposition party hasn’t really worked out how to oppose the government, and as such has been floundering around in the polls. This has caused backbiting and infighting, which exacerbated the situation.

Howard was expected to heavily lose the last election, but was given a godsend when a group of Afghan and Iraqi boatpeople sunk off Australia’s north coast. He and his government started telling everyone how awful these people were, lied in order to say that these people were so depraved that they would throw their children into the ocean to drown so that kind-hearted navy types would have to pick them put and take them to a better life. His defence minister threatened the career of any of the eyewitnesses who threatened to disprove these claims.

In association with another refugee issue, he took a strong stand on refugee policy, appealed to disaffected conservatives by standing up to the Yellow Peril, forced the opposition (who couldn’t agree whether they wanted a softer refugee policy or to fall in behind the hard line) into irrelevance and took the election. Refreshingly, his only concern about the corruption of himself and those around him is as it corresponds to his popularity.

Howard is unusual in regard to his standing in the community. He’s probably the most hated PM in 30 years, but he hasn’t drawn in a group of core supporters the way most polarising leaders do. Most people think he’s marginally better than the alternative, but only because the alternative is so weak. A competent opposition would have him on the carpet, but the current one doesn’t seem able to.

The Governor General issue has been massively emotive, so it’s been fairly badly reported. It’s been known for some time that in his role as archbishop, he protected paedophiles from scrutiny in order to protect the Church of England. He confirmed his attitude in an interview last year when he accused the kids of seducing the priests. A recent investigation by the church confirmed his actions and that they were, to put it formally, “inappropriate”.

That being said, no-one has questioned his actions as G-G, except in that he was (a) an unfit person to be appointed in the first place, and (b) far more interested in pomp, circumstance and the hiring of PR flacks than actually doing the job - whatever that may be. These aren’t sackable offences. That’s why he couldn’t be sacked.

Nevertheless, Howard should have been crucified for empaneling such a person as the de facto (if not actual) head of state. The fact that he’s barely taken a knock for it is a sign of how weak his opponents are at the moment.

An election can be called early if there’s an issue for it to be fought on - and there always is. Moreover, if a bill has been passed by the house and voted down three times by the senate, the PM can call a “double dissolution”, which is a vote not only for the House of Reps and half the Senate, but for the whole Senate. This trigger has been met, so yes, the PM can ask the G-G for an election or a double dissolution whenever he wants.

If he calls an election while the opposition Labor party is in its current mess he will be returned, but probably without control of the Senate. If he gives the ALP time to sort themselves out, he’ll probably find himself out on his ear.

4

How popular is PM John Howard in Australia?

Not to sound harsh, but who gives a rip?

5

Oh, Thank you so much for that informed, substantive, and well-reasoned opinion, MDF. You’re making quite a contribution here.

Anyway, superstar and BigNik, I appreciate your analyses. I did not know that Howard could call an election any time he wanted to at this point. I think I remember Thatcher doing something similar and catching Labour at a low ebb. It’s probably parochialism, but I like the idea that a national election is scheduled, not at a government’s discretion. But, if that’s the system, then all parties are both benefitted and hurt by it equally, I presume.

6

It doesn’t always pay off. In 1983, Malcolm Fraser called an election because the opposition was being torn apart by leadership strife. The ALP sorted it out between the time that Mal saw the G-G and the press conference called to announce it, then won in a landslide.

But yes, the system’s designed to help whoever’s in power. It’s a nice idea in theory, because it lets a government call the populace for a mandate on a contentious issue, but it’s become an easy loophole.

For reference, most states have a fixed, four-year term rather than the federal three-year-or-less-as desired term.

7

BigNik, that was a great summary, thanks for that.

Do we have any poll results about JH’s popularity at the moment? Not newspaper/tv organised ones, but a proper Gallup poll?

I think that if we had some solid opposition to him, he’d be out. Too many mistakes in a short period of time…

8

I’ll second BigNik analysis as being pretty good. I disagree on this, however:

I think he could have and should have been sacked, because (a) means he shouldn’t be there, and he had shown that he wouldn’t go himself. Howard should have sacked him a year ago.

In relation to the GGship, there are no sackable offences, because there had been no precedent to show what a “sackable offence” is. The constitution doesn’t mention it, and hence the GG can be dismissed at the PM’s whim. It illustrates a major flaw in our system, I feel, but that’s another discussion.

Basically the ALP are like the Democrats in America, but 10 times more disorganised. Like the Dems, they’re split between arguing against a popular position held by the incumbent conservative government and agreeing with the govt to downplay the issues importance. This makes the party look indecisive, like it doesn’t stand for anything - not the sort of guys you want running the country when you can’t stop thinking about terrorists and boat people.

What’s more, the ALP is having troubles with their leadership. The current leader, Simon Crean is extraordinarily unpopular with the Australian people, and his main challenger Kim Beazley is more popular but has lost the last two elections. Neither looks like the sort of guy to lead the party into a brave new world. There are more minor contenders for the role, but I suspect that they’re sitting back until Labor loses the next election, by which time John Howard will have retired and they will only have to face his less popular deputy Peter Costello.

Actually, after seeing Kerry O’ Brien cut up Johnny Howard on the 7:30 Report, I’m thinking that he’d make an excellent Labor leader. Wonder if he’s interested?

No, I agree. Fixed terms would work much better and allow less political wrangling by incumbent governments. I don’t see it changing any time soon, though.

9

Americans do not have a “blinding loyalty” to their leaders. Witness the last several presidential elections.

2000: Gore (leader) ties bush.
1996: Clinton wins less than 50% of the vote
1992: Clinton wins less than 50% of the vote
1988: Even Michael Dukakis, one of the most inept politicians in recent history, managed 45.65% percent of the vote.

Come on. There is no “blinding loyalty”. If you want to take a jab or two at Bush, I’ll join you, but don’t make sweeping statements like this.

10

I honestly don’t know. Last election I hated him, as did everyone I know, and that seemed to be the attitude of most people I heard about due to several stupid things he did but somehow he got reelected anyway. It defies explanation.

11

Witness the reaction Michael Moore got at the Oscar’s. If an Australian film-maker had said that about an Australian Prime Minister, no-one would have thought anything of it. It seemed to cause a bit of an uproar in your country, however.

Obviously there are Americans with strong political views who may dislike their leader as a result of these views. Obviously the general population does not hold such loyalty to the leader on election day. But on the whole, Americans do have a respect for their President that we Australians do not hold for our political leaders. “Blinding loyalty” may be an inflammatory choice of words, but there is a certain amount of truth to them.

12

This gets more ridiculous. You are comparing Michael Moore’s rant, and the reaction (and who fucking cares what a hall full of millionairres thinks) to an entire country with 280 million people?

“It seemed to cause a bit of an uproar in your country, however.”

It did not cause an “uproar” in America.

“Blinding loyalty” may be an inflammatory choice of words, but there is a certain amount of truth to them."

Uh no. There is no certain amount of truth to your inflammatory choice of words.

13

And for those who aren’t aware of the Australian electoral process, “popularity” among the general populace (in terms of who they would vote for) is a more important than in the US, because voting in elections is compulsory in Australia. In the US, it doesn’t matter if half the population hate you, as long as they’re the half that doesn’t vote.

14

Can I offer an anecdote about differences in the public treatment of government figures?

When I was at school we had an American teacher. She had a picture of Reagan on her desk. She didn’t like him, she didn’t vote for him - but he was the president of her country, and that meant something to her. He was due some respect as holder of that office.

That behaviour was very strange to us.

If the phone rang and a voice said, “the president’s on the line for you” you’d take the call (right?). If the phone rang (at home, not at work) and it was the PM, I’d hang up.

15

well, only a ridiculous histrionic teenagr would actually hang up on their country’s president. but it sounds like your teacher was wise, and taught you lessons that still reverberate 20 years later.

16

christ, i fed the trolls. I apologize and please forgive me. They sucked me in :frowning: I too am interested in Howard’s re-election chances.

17

Technically the G-G’s sacked at the monarch’s whim, but putting the monarch aside for the moment as functionally irrelevant…

While there’s no mention of what a sackable offence is, as I understand it (IANAConstitutional Lawyer) the G-G’s employment is still subject to the laws of the land - including unfair dismissal. So he’d have to have done (or not done) something in his current job in order to be sacked. What he did while in another job isn’t relevant to his current (or, for 11 hours, immediately previous) one.

To answer stringy, the last poll I saw was running the parties 53/47 on two-party preferred, but with Howard holding almost 70% as preferred PM (about average - the current PM is always the preferred PM, no matter who they are). It’s worth noting, however, that at the last election he had a lot of wins in marginal seats, and based on that he’d only need about 46% of the two-party vote to retain a majority.

An indication of the weakness of the current opposition is that rather than spend the last few days on the front foot over this issue (or any of the budgetary issues that are guaranteed winners), Crean has been madly denying that he ever said Howard himself protects paedophiles (he didn’t say that - he just said that he protects people who protect paedophiles, which is true). The guy’s holding an entire hand of trumps, and he can’t take a trick.

With reference to things others have said, it does appear from here that Americans do have a reverent fascination for their leaders, past and present. Hell, you even seem to have built up a respect for Carter (which, admittedly, he’s been doing things to justify) and Nixon, Reagan and Bush I (who haven’t). In Australia, there’s no such thing. The most popular PM in Australian history divorced his wife, took off with his biographer and got into a slanging match with his former leader and G-G about the size of his penis. The PM before him lost his trousers on a trip to Memphis, USA, and has ever since faced rumours that they were stolen by a prostitute who was visiting him at the time.

A former deputy PM from a particularly eventful government eked out a living for 20 years, selling his self-published autobiography from a card table at flea markets.

Howard’s predecessor as PM was voted out because he spent too much time on “big issues” while the day-to-day stuff was perceived as going to hell, but the reason people remember disliking him was because he wore expensive suits, collected antique clocks and only pretended to like football because he realised he had to.

Being the head of government may be a powerful job, but in this country it’s not a ticket to respect. The impression we get from the US is that over there, it is.

18

Since I started this mess, let’s see what I’ve got:

  1. Howard has screwed a number of issues
  2. The opposition has been to weak and fragmentary to take advantage
  3. His job is in no immediate jeopardy
  4. He can, in fact, call a quick election now if he want to
  5. He has a respectable chance of winning such an election
  6. Australians take their prime ministers less seriously than Americans take their presidents
  7. They have some very good reasons to :slight_smile:

How’s that?
And who were the PM’s that BigNik was referring to?

19

  • Jim Cairns - Deputy PM under Gough Whitlam (1972-75). On resignation from parliament, he couldn’t find a publisher for his memoirs, so he published them himself and sold them at flea markets.

  • Malcolm Fraser (1975-83) - In opposition, held the Senate and forced a constitutional crisis to unseat the government of the day, then beat them handily in a snap election. A very patrician, conservative grasier (best-known quote: "Life wasn’t meant to be easy), had a Damascus-like conversion to the Left after leaving politics. Lost his trousers in a hotel in Tennessee, reportedly to a prostitute. John Howard was his deputy at the end of his government’s life.

  • Bill Hayden (Opposition Leader ?-1983) - led the Labor Party in the wilderness years after Whitlam was turfed out of office. Was dropped as an unwinnable leader the day the 1983 election was called, and held a narky press conference where he stated that “a drover’s dog” could lead the ALP to victory. An avowed republican, was offered the Governor-General’s job as blood money in 1989 and took it.

  • Bob Hawke (1983-1991) - a reformed drunk (once holder of a Guinness record for fastest beer drinking) and former leader of the ACTU (the uberunion body). A populist centrist who specialised in consensus building, but who ran out of ideas. A renowned womaniser known for crying on TV (once when apologising to his wife for sleeping around, once when describing his daughter’s (?) drug habit, once when Australia won a cricket match). Was voted out by his party, not by the electorate. When he left politics he divorced his wife and took up with his biographer, but remained on bad terms with Hayden, who wrote in his autobiography that Hawke had a small penis for such a ladies’ man.

  • Paul Keating (1991-1996) - won the leadership of the governing party, so didn’t have to win an election to become PM, although he won one later. Known as a working-class boy who abandoned his roots and came to love the trappings of wealth. Kept a focus on “big” issues (Republicanism, Australia’s place in Asia, etc.) through the recession of 1991-1995, and was pilloried for it.

20

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned about John Howard is that he is probably one of the best/luckiest political operators in Australian history. His main trick is to keep his opponents fighting amongst themselves so much that they can’t focus on him. At the same time he exercises absolute control over his own party so there is no dissent whatsoever. No Liberal backbenchers spoke out about the GG at all, or refugees, or Iraq or anything else that they might disagree with their government on.

He also runs the “it doesn’t matter if you hate me, just recognise that I can do the job better than anyone else” line perfectly. He focuses his public image more on his competence than his popularity. This works surprisingly well. It’s also how he can do incredibly unpopular things but still remain preferred PM. I hate the guy. I’ve never voted for him and I never will, but I can recognise that he’s very good at what he does.