Howard - it's time!

John Wren · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:25 pm

Do you believe the hype about Howard possibly stepping down after APEC? Is it time the Liberal Party asked Howard to bring them his torch?

I'm not a Howard fan but do admire his stickability, endurance and ability to reinvent himself. he has been the one constant in politics during my lifetime, almost sheedyesque.

stui magpie · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:47 pm

I would say no, only because I don't believe public perception of Costello is that positive. He's perceived as arrogant.

However, there is an argument that the same was thought of Keating and he won one election after giving Hawke the boot.

Dave The Man · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:13 pm

If he does they might as well give the election to labor because Costello is a C**t

Magpie Jack · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:28 pm

In years to come I reckon they look back at Howards years and say he didn't do a bad job.... but his "Clanger" was IR.

What was he thinking?

stui magpie · Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 12:05 am

Just thank god you don't live in New Zealand.

They have no senate to moderate legislation so when the conservatives were in power, they had employee relations legislation in place that made workchoices look Union friendly. Then Labour gets in and swings the pendulum 180 degrees the opposite direction. You'd have to be schizophrenic to run a business over there. Confused

member34258 · Joined: 05 Nov 2006

I favor a similar system to the US as far as our leader goes. No more than 8 years in the top job.

David · I dare you to try Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda

I disagree. If the people still want some guy as the leader of their country after a couple of terms, why deny them the right to vote for him?

I'd be wary of any move towards the US presidential system.

member34258 · Joined: 05 Nov 2006

You disagree? With me?

I'm shocked!

member34258 · Joined: 05 Nov 2006

And here's a good reason the Americans don't let any man go more than 8 years.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hwrRixJ2YPqdY6kB2Ex290VMiWug

David · I dare you to try Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda

There is no way Bush would have won the next election if he had been up again. Democrats could win with John Kerry, that's how unpopular Bush is.

As an aside, Roosevelt would not have been president of the United States through WW2 if the current rules had existed back then.

Member, I wonder if you would have the same opinion if it had been a Labor leader in power for the past 11 years?

The Prototype · Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 1:57 am

John Wren · Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 6:22 am

MMP makes for interesting times. problem with this system is that parties you don't vote for or want end up having the balance of power. the current labor govt is a minority govt and being propped up by a couple of the really really small parties.

opinion polls at the moment suggest the national party [=liberal party] could govern in their own right. a seachange is imminent unless the current govt buys itself another election.

member34258 · Joined: 05 Nov 2006

stui magpie · Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:47 am

member34258 · Joined: 05 Nov 2006

It needs 4 year terms stui. A mandatory start and finish time, not elections called on the whim of a leader who thinks he/she can win.
And of course the leader does not have an electorate as all Australia is hi/her electorate.
Yes, if you have gone for the top job then after your time is up you retire and therefore am not a hindrance to the new guy.
No problem with the party winning power continually. Thats what makes the American system better than ours. The opposing sides must make concessions to get anything done. Balance.