We do what now?
Thanks.
The Social Credit theory was really an underconsumptionist critique with some parallels to Keynesian economics; it wasn’t as farfetched as many have suggested. It is, however, not clear if Aberhart actually understood the theory or how to put it into practice. But the broad idea–use the government’s ability to spend, borrow, and tax to restore equilibrium–continues to be used today.
As for worst leader, I’m with Bob Dylan: “Don’t follow leaders, watch the parking meters.” So darn them all to heck.
That’s what our tour guide told us when our coach tour traveled through Scotland. She said the Scots considered the current (at the time) Elizabeth to be the first Elizabeth, even in their postal codes. Was that a lie?
Elizabeth I never ruled Scotland, so there has only ever been one Queen Elizabeth there. Nothing to do with Mary, Queen of Scots.
Yeah, what @Dr.Drake said. And it was postboxes, which usually bear a reference to the reigning monarch at time of installation and in Scotland bore a crown instead of EIIR.
But over a lengthy reign, all but the most intransigent stoped caring and got used to hearing/seeing/saying “Elizabeth II”.
Not from any of the following countries, but curious if those more knowledgeable than me know of any worse rulers than:
Orban - Hungary
Pinochet - Chile
Balsonaro - Brasil
King Leopold II - Belgium
Stalin - Russia (heh, Putin?)
Mussolini - Italy
Caeucescu - Romania
Franco - Spain
Modi - India
Morrison - Austrailia
Between independence in 1918 and the first free elections in 1990, Hungary had at least five leaders indisputably worse than Orbán. Among them, Horthy and Szálasi facilitated the Holocaust in Hungary, and Rákosi was a Stalinist dictator.
See post #5. Spain has a very long history.
Nitpick: It’s Bolsonaro. And the Years of Lead under Médici are called that way for a reason. Yes, probably worse than Bolsonaro. From the wikiarticle:
A hardliner, Médici sponsored the regime’s greatest human rights abuses. During his government, persecution and torture of dissidents, harassment of journalists, and press censorship became ubiquitous. The succession of kidnappings of foreign ambassadors in Brazil embarrassed the military government. The anti-government demonstrations and the action of guerrilla movements generated an increase in repressive measures.
The Brits?
Also, her 8.3 Queen Deaths per Annum record is going to be tough to top.
I am not sure burying 8.3 Queens is in itself a bad thing. I am not a monarchist.
I never had a problem with Pierre, and though I really liked Justin at the start, he turned out to be too much of an incompetent idealist.
I really think the most hated Prime Minister in recent memory was Brian Mulroney. People working with him in Parliament thought he was an arrogant jerk, but he’s best remembered for introducing the Goods and Services Tax (GST) under false pretenses.
The GST was touted as replacing the manufacturer’s sales tax, such as applied to new cars, and thus a net benefit to the consumer. What was rarely mentioned was that the MST applied to only a few things, while the GST would apply to absolutely everything (except basic groceries) including services, and even to new houses! And the scoundrels wanted to set the astonishing rate of 9%, later reduced to 7% as a compromise. It has since been lowered to 6% and then 5%, where it sits today.
Looking down that list, patently Morrison belongs nowhere within that pantheon, most of whom could be accurately described as long-standing authoritarian despots.
You could well argue Morrison’s legacy and note numerous instances of “could/should have done better”. As minister he oversaw vigorously the policy of off-shore detention of immigrants. He went AWOL during the 2019-20 Black Summer bushfires. He remains a climate change denier, and abstained from the parliamentary vote to legalise same-sex marriage. His religion as a Pentecostal in a largely secular country unsettled the horses.
Conversely, being PM during COVID was a profound challenge to any country with the Australian result right at the top of global responses with fewer than 100 deaths and around 7,000 cases. The economic restrictions and shutdowns were severe but economic policies to ameliorate meant unemployment did not spike, and the country almost avoided going into recession. The establishment of a National Cabinet also showed innovation in leadership.
If you had read the posts above, as Australian Prime Minister William McMahon was a dud. Ineffective, divisive, indecisive and accident-prone. While he was an economic orthodox at a time when protection was the norm and an effective economic manager as Treasurer, his people skills were lacking, his self-focus meant he riled his own side as frequently as his opposition and he had no ability to rebuild any of the many bridges he tore down. He didn’t do that much wrong on the national stage, but even less right and most of his short tenure was taken up with internal government squabbles.
He wasn’t a solid parliamentary performer, being partially deaf and speaking with a tremulous, piping voice, in stark contrast to several orators in the chamber. A serious networker for self-interest with the media especially the press barons, he was pointedly described by Gough Whitlam as ‘Tiberius with a telephone’. Physically he was short, bald and possessed large, prominent ears, being described by Jim Killen as ‘a Volkswagen with both doors open’, later generations would liken his appearance to Yoda.
As a crude estimate of comparison, within popular rankings of US presidents, McMahon would be in the low-mid 30s.
Indeed none of the Australian PMs could be said, even by their most rabid critic to belong amongst your list. They gained and left office via the ballot box or parliamentary means (if you excuse the couple who died in office). Most weren’t there very long. Or drove the ship of state into catastrophe on avoidable rocks. None ran campaigns of terror or persecution against their opponents and their own citizens, none operated murder squads and oversaw ex-judicial killings, none built palaces and monuments to their own glorification, none practiced grift, indulged in widespread corruption or regarded their nation’s coffers as their personal moneybox.
My list was simply going through each of those countries worst leaders, and so obviously not trying to put Morrison on the same level as those others.
Yep, I did, along with the others you mentioned in post 4. I was trying to suggest an Autrailian leader worse than them.
TIL
Given some of the maladministrators, megalomanics and monsters you did not mention (say for point of argument some still clinging to executive power like Isaias Afwerki [Erithrea], Alexander Lukashenko [Belarus], Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo [Equatorial Guinea] etc amongst far too many examples) it would still seem a brutally harsh judgement based on the company being kept.
It would appear that your knowledge of Australia could be extended by use of a spell-checker.
If you have a looser definition of “leader”, Cecil Rhodes deserves a dishonourable mention too.
While I am slightly amused that I actually have a Rhodesian passport (issued at age 2, just two years before independence) my loyalty is to Zimbabwe. Rhodes was a monstorous fuck up across much of Southern Africa.
I have mentioned before, a lady friend of mine actually pissed on his grave. He’s not really a popular figure there, but here in South Africa his name is everywhere.
Has anyone not seen John Stewart’s latest show (June 14)? Keir Starmer is so widely reviled that he might rival that recent rapid succession of British PMs that were also widely reviled and promptly dumped. And after sucking up to Trump in every possible way at his visit last year, and forcing a visit for King Charles, Trump is now now insulting him as “no Winston Churchill”.
If Trump had just said something else that was typical of his insults of all world leaders that are not himself, “Starmer is a loser”", I could at least in that one case have agreed with him.
Huh? He is no Winston Churchill, by which I would guess Trump means ‘British wartime leader and staunch US ally’.
Of all the criticisms aimed at Starmer- which are many, with varying degrees of accuracy IMO- his dealing with Trump isn’t really one that’s gained that much traction here. I think most people are aware that dealing with Trump is not diplomacy as normal, and keeping him happy without agreeing to ridiculous demands is not easy. We didn’t get dragged into invading Iran, but also didn’t piss Trump off too much. That’s OK.
The visit from Charles was planned before Trump even won the election, I believe. Cancelling it because of who the president was would have been a straight diplomatic insult, and for what benefit? I doubt Charles was uninvolved in the decision either.
It’s not his international actions that have been the focus of the complaints within the UK. Starmer basically campaigned as boring but competent, and he’s been pretty underwhelming at either, with plenty of MP scandals, a spine of jelly when it comes to previously stated principles and promises, and too much focus on finding middle ground with people who clearly don’t want a middle ground. He’s been a disappointment though, not a disaster; no Liz Truss. The push to replace him is more a ‘surely we could do better’ rather than ‘stop this right now’.