Throughout the last few years of the Howard government, anyone who criticised the government, or suggested that Howard was not the best person to be Prime Minister of Australia, could be sure of being labelled a “Howard hater”. A quick Google finds this trope being used regularly by Miranda Devine, Paul Sheehan and Gerard Henderson, and being taken up by their numerous blogospheric supporters.
This was always silly. Perhaps there were people motivated to oppose the government because of a personal animus against Howard rather than his actions and policies, but if so I never met any. Of course, people who disliked Howard’s policies tended to dislike Howard, and some people who hated Howard’s policies hated Howard as a result, but using a term like “Howard hater” to explain opposition to the government is like explaining the effects of opium by reference to its dormitive qualities.
The real motive underlying the use of “Howard hater” as a term of attack was the recognition that he and his government never commanded enthusiastic support from most Australians, merely a judgement that they were better than the alternatives on offer. Once this changed with Labor’s (long overdue) choice of Kevin Rudd as leader, the government was doomed.
Tonight’s Four Corners suggests that much the same was true of Howard’s colleagues. While only Costello and a couple of his closest supporters came across as Howard haters, most of the rest showed a notable lack of enthusiasm, and willingness in retrospect, to blame Howard for the government’s defeat. Tony Abbott’s undiminished loyalty just enhanced the contrast with the rest of the crew.
In terms of policy, the most startling revelation was Joe Hockey’s claim that members of the Cabinet voted for WorkChoices, including the abolition of the “no disadvantage” test, and were then shocked (or pretended to be) that people were disadvantaged. This news ought surely to sink resistance to Labor’s reforms, and may indeed have been intended to achieve this purpose.
John Quiggin 
steve at the pub Says:
February 19th, 2008 at 11:52 am
There are certainly people who hate John Howard. Quite possibly I lead the pack.
That’s pretty funny , SATP. Who knew you had a sense of humour?
Or are you just trying to run with the pack (again) like Dennis Shanahan and all the nouveau-Ruddites?
Carbonsink – Of course we should have the right to arm ourselves for self defense. And implying that this is akin to legalising murder makes no logical sense. Chainsaws are legal but that does not mean you are allowed to go around cutting people in half. However to enact policy on gun control on the basis of emotive events rather than on the basis of reasoned analysis and seasoned public debate is the real Howard failing. His response in 1996 was the worst kind of knee jerk politics.
In regards to Hockey’s clearly dishonest admission:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” — Upton Sinclair
ppd, at the risk of being presumptuous, you’re clearly capable of more than just dishwashing.
Mark Reid, Howard Hatred was a rite of passage for the vast majority of the Australian left for nearly the entire time he was in power. I got thoroughly fed up with the knee jerk reaction from many of my lefty friends anytime it was suggested that maybe, just maybe, he was doing a reasonable job. Did you read the opinion pages in the Age and the SMH over the last decade?
Simmo, governments will expand forever without pushback from the people. That is why much of the world is going the same way as Oz. As far as the western world is concerned, the only hold-out country is the US. Given that Americans are richer and more optimistic than most (if not all) other western nations, I’d say he Rightist Emperors turned out to be largely right.
As far as the western world is concerned, the only hold-out country is the US. Given that Americans are richer and more optimistic than most (if not all) other western nations
Mugwump,
given the USA’s geography and resources that would not be difficult!
Also note Americans have a high GDP/income per capita, but it’s so clumped up the top end that it’s not a particularly meaningful measure of the wealth of Americans. Further, US median household income has been falling since about 2000. It’s currently around 48,000 USD, vs over 54,000 AUD here, which at current the exchange rate is 49,000 USD. So by the most meaningful measure, I’d suggest most Australians are now wealthier than most Americans.
@56 “Did you read the opinion pages in the Age and the SMH over the last decade?”
Yes I did but you obviously didn’t otherwise you’d have noticed the Howard Huggers (at the SMH anyway):
M. Devine
G. Henderson
P. Sheehan
M. Duffy (perhaps less so)
With regular help from T. Abbot
“Given that Americans are richer and more optimistic than most (if not all) other western nations, I’d say he Rightist Emperors turned out to be largely right.”
Please don’t let this person back into the country, it’s too dangerous.
@ Gandhi, sorry, someone using the same chatname as you “Gandhi” posted something in response to something I posted on another site altogether. That other Gandhi made a most condescending assumption about the mentality of aboriginal people compared to all others. Though it was you. Very sorry.
So please explain the joke you referred to?
@ mugwump
“Simmo, governments will expand forever without pushback from the people. That is why much of the world is going the same way as Oz. As far as the western world is concerned, the only hold-out country is the US. Given that Americans are richer and more optimistic than most (if not all) other western nations, I’d say he Rightist Emperors turned out to be largely right.”
Americans more optimistic, richer?? I suppose that depends on which american you ask. The US has the highest poverty rate of all developed countries. The gap between rich and poor has been steadily growing wider. Krugman notes that there is a higher rate of child poverty in 2006 than there was 40 years ago. There is now a large body of evidence to suggest that totally free and unfettered markets do not lead to the most efficient outcomes. Even the IMF has admitted this much in relation to capital flows and financial globalisation. The corporate scandals of the 90s have poured scorn on complete deregulation. Information economists like Stiglitz have highlighted why markets fail – based on information assymetries…
Furthermore, no one – not even conservative economists (serious ones like Martin Feldstein and Greg Mankiw) believe in supply-side economics, which was always a completely spurious theory.
There is a middle ground between socialism and US-style capitalism… Fortunately, I think we are getting there…
mugwump,
I’m probably capable of a lot more than dishwashing – I am also secretary of my local cricket club, keep a blog and am active in my community.
Unfortunately none of these offer any money, and my landlord requires me to pay rent, as does my telco and utility providers. On top of that I am required to eat, and if I wish to have a libation at my local pub, I am required to pay for it. On top of this it is necessary to put fuel in my car, and eventually I will have to pay registration on it. All of those activities cost money. In fact they cost slightly more than I earn, which means I shuffle thedse small amounts of debt around.
Given that I live in the Blue Mountains, could you either indicate to me what area of employment I should be pursuing that would offer more reward than dishwashing? Certainly there is no sign of any alternative employment available in this community. Although, given your great understanding of the reality of the economic situation in your native land I have no doubt you, along with many others, will suggest what employment is available in the Blue Mountains for 40-something males. After all, the economy is booming, isn’t it? There’s a labour shortage isn’t there? Aren’t employers screaming out for workers?
What? They’re not? How can this be? What’s that you say? One in five households live on less than $20,000 a year? Is the statistic that says that if you are employed for two hours a fortnight skewing labour market data? Heaven forbid!
Unfortunately the free market is appalling at allocating talent to where it is best needed – it’s too busy deciding that the smartest men in the room need to be paid more. I live on $18,725 a year. I’m 40 years old. Think about that old son. How’s that for an example of a beneficiary of the economic boom?
But anyway, what is more important than dishwashing? Would it be acceptable to you to eat of dirty plates? If not, then dishwashing is obviously a vitally important area of the economy. The problem is that it doesn’t pay very much, and that dishwashing is the only job considered suitable for my talents that is available within travelling distance from the only place I can afford on the Newstart Allowance.
If anyone has some better ideas I’d like to hear them. But I’m sure the good Mr Quiggin doesn’t want his comment threads hijacked by people touting themselves for work. Although, as anyone who has experienced the Job Network knows, it can only do a better job than the appallingly hopeless private sector employment agencies.
I choose to arm myself with a bazooka then. Where do you draw the line mate?
@ Carbonsink, you may choose to arm yourself witha bazooka for self-defence, however I am of the belief that you will soon tire of lugging it around on the off-chance you may be attacked.
Likewise I have severe doubts about how much use it will be when confronted by a mugger, or even when awoken in your bedroom by an intruder.
Your bazooka is likewise going to present severe problems if minimisation of collateral damage is an issue for you.
But go ahead, if a bazooka works for you, fine. I don’t draw a line.
SATP,
you made a comment about some friends being superstitious of having their photo taken, and I (wrongly) assumed that you were talking about Aboriginals. Not that it mattered in the context of that thread. Now please explain how that is “a most condescending assumption about the mentality of aboriginal people compared to all others.”
Is everything you say just a joke? Facetiousness does not conceal a lack on intellect.
Carbonsink,
A bazooka is fine with me so long as you have a clean criminal record and no know mental issues. The more patriots with bazookas the less we need to spend on a professional standing army the less likely that national “defense” will be used for national “offense”. We have kids in the military playing with such hardware so a sensible fellow like you is hardly a concern. However even if you do draw a line and say that only bolt action rifles are acceptable it is still S-T-U-P-I-D to insist that self defense be a prohibited reason for owning one.
The ABC ran a lovely documentary the other weekend on tank collectors. Mostly based on the UK and USA but still it looked like a lot of fun. The UK collector had in his collection a little tank on tracks registered for travel on UK roads which means he can drive it anywhere in the EU. When he drove into a service station rather than flee in terror people instead gathered around. It seems that ordinary people are not as reflexivily scared of fire power as aussie legislators.
Actually I’m thinking of installing several automated turrets around the house which randomly spray bullets around when something trips the motion sensor.
Any civilised country would deny me the opportunity to install such devices, but not in the parallel universe that is libertarianism. Oh no, that would be limiting my personal freedoms, eh Terje?
Carbonsink, a civilised country (if such a thing can ever be) would never ban anything, as it would be a functioning anarchism. However, you would find other institutions worked their way out to eliminate the problem, say through ostracism, if there actually were any problem; there might actually be none, if you owned everything within the field of fire and did not constitute an attractive nuisance.
Gandhi,
Steve has admitted and explained his error and apologised – if not paticularly graciously.
I understand your anger but I suggest simply moving on.
Actually, you are a great example of the way the free market efficiently allocates resources. There are plenty of jobs in Australia for someone with your skills paying vastly more than $18,725 a year, but you’d probably need to move to a remote mine for a while (with application, you’d no doubt quickly find yourself in a management position but even entry level jobs pay 5 times what you are currently making).
You choose to stay in the Blue Mountains, which is fine, free country and all that. But please don’t whinge about your income: it is not up to the rest of us to support your lifestyle choices.
gandhi: Forget about SATP.
He’s some minor functionary working for a brewery, who styles himself as a jet-setting, pub-owning, self-determining hero.
Don’t waste your time.
Simmo, my guess is 80% of Americans are better off than their corresponding Australian counterparts. And the bottom 20% are not much worse off. As for optimism, white Americans of all classes breed like rabbits compared to other western countries. That’s my favourite litmus test of optimism.
Since you bring up child poverty, you do know that children of poor families in the US get free (top-notch private, not socialized) healthcare, free school lunches, and all manner of other welfare and private charity support?
And ppd, it’s perfectly acceptable to ignore a**holes like mugwump.
“Simmo, my guess is 80% of Americans are better off than their corresponding Australian counterparts.”
On this side ladies and gentlemen we have Mugwump’s guess on THIS side we have statistics on national income; consumption, life expectancy etc.
Place your bets.
Birth rates (births per 1,000 persons per year)
US 14
NZ 13.7
Australia 12.4
France 12.2
United Kingdom 12
Of course, by this measure, the most “optimistic” people in the world can be found in such Utopian examplars of free market capitalism as Congo, Liberia and Afghanistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate
Faithful viewers of Babylon 5 will, of course, distinguish between my excursion into mere truefact as opposed to Mugwump’s faithful recitation of goodfact.
“Since you bring up child poverty, you do know that children of poor families in the US get free (top-notch private, not socialized) healthcare, free school lunches, and all manner of other welfare and private charity support?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
This table shows both infant (under one year) and child (under five years) mortality.
US infant mortality rates may be exaggerated for a number of reasons. for starters, US hospitals save many more premature children than in many other countries and these children tend ot have an elevated mortality rate.
So let’s look at the 1-5 years mortality rate (derived by deducting the infant mortality rate from the under five mortality rate).
Cuba 1.4
New Zealand 1.4
United States 1.5
Poland 1.3
Canada 1.1
United kingdom 1.2
Australia 1.2
France 1
But remember folks, those American kids died free!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Income_in_the_United_States
The bottom 20% of the US population by population earn less than ca. US$12,500 per annum.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/6523.0Appendix22005-06?opendocument&tabname=Notes&prodno=6523.0&issue=2005-06&num=&view=
As of 2005, Australian per capita incomes for people in the lowest quintile AVERAGED A$11306 roughly equivalent to $10,200 at current exchange rates.
The equivalent US figure is somewhere between US$5000 and US$7500.
But again, the occasional night sleeping rough, a few days without eating here or there or having to sew up your own injuries after a work accident because you don’t have health insurance are a small price for someone else to pay for freedom.
Dear John
I have been away. I’m back and surprised that no one mentioned the knighthood. I will:
I think we will all be profoundly offended if John Howard gets a knighthood. The honour is ill deserved. John Howard inflicted unbearable suffering on various people, the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, the indigenous people of Australia for whom he cared little, thousands of refugees who he persecuted, Vivian Alvarez Solon, Cornelia Rau, the people he indefinitely detained without trial, those who lost their sanity and were denied treatment, the ‘children overboard’ families who lost loved ones, the many unnamed asylum seekers who were secretly bundled away on planes in the dead of night to meet certain torture and death in their countries of origin. Let us not forget the injustices and cruelty suffered by David Hicks, Mamdouh Habib, Dr Mohamed Haneef and others when it suited John Howard’s manipulative political agenda.
Please don’t insult us further by knighting John Howard. Tell the British government not to interfere in Australian politics. We worked tirelessly for twelve years to rid ourselves this man from our public life. Don’t air-brush the record of one of our worst Prime Ministers.
I am not just a “Howard hater” – I hate what he did to this country and the harm he intentionally caused to so many people.
SJ, f*ck you.
To return briefly to birth rates, Mugwump’s “favourite litmus test of optimism”.
The US figure I quoted earlier is for all ethnicities, the figure for whites, the group he was referring to as “breeding like rabbits” is lower – probably below the aggregate figure for the other developed countries I cited.
If that is the case, of course, I’m sure Mugwump will attribute it to the massive birth rate of Muslims and other minority groups in the other countries. Tate population boom, of course, means those countries are doomed to a future of tyranny and sharia law.
Because a high US birth rate is evidence of US superiority and a high French or British birth rate is also evidence of US superiority.
Thanks for supporting my argument: amongst western first-world nations only Iceland and Ireland are ahead of the US in birth rate. Ireland I am guessing for the Catholic aversion to contraception, and Iceland because what else are you going to do to keep warm?
And the New Zealand ones did not, even though they’re dying at almost the same rate.
Since New Zealand and Australia are pretty much indistinguishable from a healthcare perspective, yet Australia’s 1-5 mortality rate is 1.2 while NZ is 1.4, it seems you have not eliminated all the confounding factors Ian.
That’s a wide range Ian. US$7,500 pa buys you more basic necessities in the US than A$11,306 does in Australia. Does that sum include the value of food stamps?
And of course, there are those of us that would rather die on our feet than live on our knees.
Mugwump: “Thanks for supporting my argument: amongst western first-world nations only Iceland and Ireland are ahead of the US in birth rate. Ireland I am guessing for the Catholic aversion to contraception, and Iceland because what else are you going to do to keep warm?”
Except your argument was about US whites’ birth rate in particular which is lower than the US average.
“US$7,500 pa buys you more basic necessities in the US than A$11,306 does in Australia.”
Not according to any measure of purchasing power parity I’ve ever seen.
To take the Big Mac index (which is of direct relevance to the poor in both countries), the Australian dollar is still as of mid-2007 undervalued against the US dollar by around 14%.
So $11436 Australia dollars is roughly equivalent to US$11.700 given the current nominal exchange rate of circa 90 cents.
“And of course, there are those of us that would rather die on our feet than live on our knees.”
And if others die on their knees while we live lives of relative luxury so much the better.
It’s 2.15 AM here.
I’m off to bed. Tjen’s its up at the crack of dawn to labor eighteen hours in the salt mines of the Union of Australian Socialist Republics.
A figure you have yet to quote. So much for truefact.
I reckon I have one of the most accurate US/AUS PPP meters on the planet. I regularly shop for all manner of necessities and luxuries in both countries. We’ve had this debate before, but the lack of competition in Australian groceries makes most stuff a lot more expensive there if you shop like most poor people shop: for discounted and sale items.
Sure, that’s why Americans are far greater private donors to charities than Australians. Because they care so little for their poor.
Puhlease.
Certainly my recent experience from staying in the U.S. (I’m off there tomorrow for 5 weeks actually) is that groceries costs about the same, dollar for dollar. Actually in LA (and I understand its worse in Seattle), fresh food in is somewhat more expensive.
Certainly other items such as clothes and electronic goods are cheaper, but overall the official PPP calculation and “Big Mac” index seems to be about right.
I’ll also say you don’t need to read statistics to know that US has a poverty problem that simply doesn’t exist here: you can see it with your own eyes driving through parts of any of the major cities. Then of course there’s the parts that you’re strongly advised not to drive through without bulletproof glass.
If that’s the price of freedom, they can keep it.
Terje – watching the ABC? I ashamed. All those non-ABC watchers being forcibly robbed of their 20 cents a day for nothing in return.
They don’t, not if you buy on sale. The difference is Australia has an uncompetitive grocery retail duopoly, hence the opportunities for buying stuff on sale are vastly diminished relative to the highly competitive US market. I also would not use California as a point of comparison: they have huge state taxes and an outlook not dissimilar to that of Australia.
The violence is largely confined to black ghettos. Similarly impoverished whites are nowhere near as violent.
#72 Ian gould,
SATP’s “explanation” at #61 was just a sly dig. He and I did have a conversation on another thread not long ago, as I mentioned in #66.
If you cannot explain yourself, satp, an apology will do.
@ mugwump
“Simmo, my guess is 80% of Americans are better off than their corresponding Australian counterparts. And the bottom 20% are not much worse off. As for optimism, white Americans of all classes breed like rabbits compared to other western countries. That’s my favourite litmus test of optimism.
Since you bring up child poverty, you do know that children of poor families in the US get free (top-notch private, not socialized) healthcare, free school lunches, and all manner of other welfare and private charity support?”
Unbelievable… I quote Nobel prize winning economists and mugwump throws in anecdotes that no one can check… Rather like Reagan’s “welfare queens”…. that didn’t exist.
To mugwump,
Actually, it is up to you to support my lifestyle choices, as we support yours. This is called a society. My lifestyle choices are surviving. If you do not support my lifestyle choices I will be forced to commit a violence in order to survive. Witness incarceration rates in cultures without adequate income support.
Regarding the remote mine. As non skilled positions at mining facilities are performed by 457 Visa holders from Asia, what particular job should I be looking at performing, given that I have no heavy vehicle operating licence, construction skills or trade certificate? Perhaps I could be a remote area economist mugwump?
Wonderful planet you must live on sir.
In the inimitable words of Dirty Harry: “Go ahead, make my day”.
Seriously ppd, why are you so special that you shouldn’t have to retrain or relocate to make a decent income?
mugwump, the fact black neighbourhoods are more likely to be poor and violent doesn’t say anything good about America in my book.
At any rate, there are plenty of poor and violent neighbourhoods where the racial mix is pretty representative of America as a whole.
Try parts of Detroit, for a start. They’re little better than the conditions seen in most third-world countries. And the condition of New Orleans well over a year since Katrina is utterly shameful for the world’s wealthiest nation.
Regarding groceries, I certainly agree that Australia would benefit from more supermarket competition. But the size of the market comes into it. I certainly don’t see anything about government policy differences that would explain it.
Sure you can. The health program is called “Medicaid”. And go to greatschools.net for the statistics on how many kids are enrolled in the free lunch program at each school.
Of course, every Australian is born knowing just how horrible and mean and nasty America is, so really, there’s no need to check these things Simmo. It will be a lot easier for you if you can just continue with your prejudices.
Nor do I, necessarily. I was simply observing that PPP is affected by competition, so just comparing a basket of goods at non-sale prices does not tell the full story of how well the poorest quintile lives.
As for violence and poverty being concentrated in poor black communities: it reflects as badly on the US as the violence and poverty of Aborigines does on Australia.
@mugwump
“Sure you can. The health program is called “Medicaidâ€?. And go to greatschools.net for the statistics on how many kids are enrolled in the free lunch program at each school.”
A free school lunch equals prosperity??? And what about when they go home??? Besides, i thought you were opposed to any sort govt programs…
Medicaid is constantly under attack and consequently it has been starved of funds. It is an endangered species, especially under Bush. Krugman states the following in the NY Times (May 2, 2005):
“…Congress agreed on a budget that cuts funds for Medicaid (and food stamps), even while extending tax cuts on dividends and capital gains. States are cutting back, denying health insurance to hundreds of thousands of people with low incomes. Missouri is poised to eliminate Medicaid completely by 2008. ”
Additionally, Medicaid is only available to the extremely poor. Middle income Americans must rely on their employers to provide health care. Statistics show, however, that a significant proportion of these people are not covered at all – with private health care simply too expensive.
I don’t hate America btw… Many good things have come out of there… the way America actually developed is very different to free market mantra that dominated discourse in the 90s. before WWII, it was predominantly isolationist and protectionist (and still is in some industries). Government funded and still funds the most important technological innovations (e.g. the internet, space research). This is very different from the free market rhetoric we constantly heard in the 90s. I’m not arguing for socialism, just a more equitable balance between govt and markets.
Wizofaus – probably 80% of the TV that I watch (ie not much) is the ABC. And now that they have documentaries about private collectors of army tanks having a jolly old time being non-PC it is possible that I will increase my dose. Just because the government gives me a product for free and I choose to use it does not mean I want them to do so. If I had shares in BHP and they gave all shareholders a Rollex I’d wear it happily and then vote to sack the board and end the practice.
Carbonsink – do you want machine guns linked to trip wires all over your house? You seem to live in a strange fantacy land. Maybe we should have a law against cars because Carbonsink might decide to drive one down the footpath mowing over pedestrians. Or perhaps we should ban bricks because Carbonsink might start throwing them off his balcony at passing civilians. Or maybe we should keep bricks and cars legal and simply lock up Carbonsink. Actual I think we should keep cars, bricks and guns legal and also retain the presumption of innocence because surprisingly few people are homocidal maniacs. And those that are are homocidal maniacs are not much bothered by laws against bricks, cars or guns and will always find a means to satisfy their warped motives. Heck they could just obtain an unregistered illegal firearm the way most other murderers do.
And even if you think guns are nasty horrible evil demon symbols that carry the mark of the devil that does not change the fact that the 1996 initiative took a lot of them out of safe sane hands and put them in criminal hands. And the safe sane hands then got a government rebate and more often than not went out and bought another gun that wasn’t banned. And all because Carbonsink has fantasies about guns on his roof. 😉