It should say Australia's best government under a given Prime Minister, well you know what I mean. Probably should have left out William McMahon and Tony Abbott only due to their short terms as Prime Ministers but what the heck, somebody will obviously find good in what they did. Maybe a fan club out there somewhere.....I'm just being cheeky, settle, I know they have a few fans even though they might not have many. I think I better shut up before I offend someone. Hey, I'm a Bob Hawke fan but was impressed by the smarts of Keating who was a key figure in his government. Menzies would no doubt hold the mantle for those who experienced first hand his governance or those that have read indepthly about Australia's politics and how things played out under each leadership. Unfortunately the poll only allows for 10 selections, therefore just added the last 10 including Turnbull.
Can you reconfigure the poll to just select the cream of the crop? Only Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating & Howard of that lot even deserve consideration. Junk the others & add Deakin, Hughes, Lyon, Curtin & Menzies. My vote would be Curtin, followed by Hawke, Menzies & Whitlam. Probably being a bit unfair on Deakin given his role in establishing the foundations of parliamentary government in Australia, but I don't know enough about him. I like Keating, but he did his best work as treasurer. Hughes & Howard were brilliant politicians, but (*)(*)(*)(*) PMs for various reasons (coasting on a mining boom does not a great PM make). Curtin's leadership during WW2 and the fact that he basically gave his life in service to the country sit him ahead of the rest. Of the others on your list, McMahon & Abbott will be seen as among our worst PMs. Rudd & Gillard will be seen as deeply flawed and to a considerable extent the authors of their own misfortune (or in Rudd's case his and hers). The only thing saving Rudd from McMahon territory is his handling of the GFC - both were detested by their colleagues for their personal disloyalty, though Rudd's flaws only really became apparent in power.
That is a hard one, I would give the thump up to bigfella. To me, looking back 2 decades incl. the era of John Howard, the brain and forward movement in politics has died since. John Howard has had the easiest way of leading our country in a sustainable future, but due to his and his parties ignorance of changing times and values and keeping up old appearances we missed out. The right wingers lost, the left wingers too, mankind has missed out.... What a pity, regards
I can't now. I was going to pick who I thought was the cream of the crop but that would be biased so decided on the last 10. I suppose in hindsight I could have left out Abbott, McMahon, Turnbull, Rudd and Gillard without too much argument. Turnbull only because he is relatively fresh. Ah well let us consider this to be a poll of best prime minister in the last 45 years lol. Otherwise I agree with your analysis. For mind I think Gillard had the potential to be a great PM and at this stage thinking Turnbull could well be in for a while to come. Turnbull like Howard seems to be clever and knows how to move the people, unfortunately for Howard who was so careful to balance populist policy got snagged on the very policy he wanted to hang his hat on, I believe. I'm sure he knew it needed to be now or never on industrial relations changes. He most likely would have won again if not for work choices despite everyone getting a little sick of the same ole, same ole. As you say, his economic credentials are hard to gauge with so much easy money coming in. My 12 year old niece would have been able to run the economy at that stage. The huge economic nation changing policies came within the Hawke era.
Yeah, looking at it now I think we should scrap this one and start again. It seems that we Aussies haven't been overawed by any of our leaders, which is interesting in itself.
OK, if it is going to be 'last 45 years' then it is Hawke. Combined an ambitious & often necessary reform agenda with the skill to get it done politically without the sort of division that Whitlam & Howard caused. Far from perfect (high interest rates), but no one in power that long gets it all right. Also had the wisdom to surround himself with one of the most talented Cabinets in Australian history and actually let them manage stuff.
Curtin. Worked himself to death in a job that he hated (war time Prime Minister). He hated war but did what he thought was necessary for the protection of Australia. This involved conscription, which he'd been jailed for protesting against during WW2, but he only used it for the protection of Australia. Conscripts were not sent outside of the immediate war zone around Australia. Worked incredibly long hours (no doubt didn't help his health) to make sure he was available.
I don't think you can qualify if you only served one term, and some on this list didn't even do that. That would Narrow the field somewhat. The inclusion of Curtin and Menzies should be a given
Hard toss this is, Whitlam, Curtin, Hawke, Keating, Gillard... All very very good! And any Liberals? Not worth a single mention... Cheers
It's a shame I didn't get it right the first time Slippery but posted the new poll with a better mix......I think! Otherwise, I give lol.
I rarely miss a good opportunity to point out to our American bretheren that our greatest PM was a socialist, atheist, reformed alcoholic and former journalist who was jailed for opposing conscription. On the rare occasions I heard people of that generation talk about Curtin it was with something like reverence. I think they felt he understood & shared their wartime experience in a very real way. A remarkable man.
I agree that Curtin would be the greatest, but the list in the poll was very much post-Menzies (with the curious omission of Holt and Gorton). I would be leaning towards Paul Keating over Hawke, but I'm not sure about that.....
Gough Whitlam, hands down. Changed the face of the country for the better. It was a stagnant, fuddy-duddy time and Gough modernised and through extraordinary legislatures (124+) revitalised the country and gave hope and created better services to all. Gough had guts and smarts and heart. Prolific book writer. Terrific sense of humour. Humanitarian. Statesman. Leader. Visionary. Unlike the pathetic pandering to 'focus groups' of today, Gough KNEW that universal health care was the right thing to do. He did it. Didn't rely on nincompoop focus groups. HE KNEW. Medibank!! Abolished university fees Aboriginal land rights End conscription No fault divorce Arts funding Racial discrimination act diplomatic recognition of China connected suburban homes to sewerage abolished death penalty withdrew remaining troops from Vietnam abolished White Australia Policy multicultural radio stations & translation services fought for equal pay for women established single mother's benefit appointed women's adviser to government and on... and on... Great man, Gough.
Over time we tend to forget those things, thanks Gwendo. There is a huge difference to the zombie show of today...
All Prime Ministers from Gough Whitlam to Paul Keating had pretty pretty strong social and humanitarian convictions. Malcolm Fraser was the last of the true liberals I believe and obviously this is before the Nationals jumped into bed with the liberals. Howard tended to play the race card and especially so with asylum seekers. He was able to get away with a lot whilst everyone was patting him on the back on these issues. Turnbull could well swing the pendulum back to the centre, which no doubt will be causing some angst amongst hard core conservatives and National Party members and supporters. Abbott sounds like he is still keen for a come back at some stage and must have a few proponents within the right wing of the party including the Nats still, which you would think would be due to the jittery feel some of these members have with the current left wing leader.
OK then. I'll stick my neck out with a few comments: Best Prime Minister: John Curtin. Led Australia through the darkest hours in its history, gave his life in the process and forged a new alliance with the US that endures to today. Greatest Prime Minister: Gough Whitlam. A flawed politician but an inspired (and inspiring) one. Australia would be a very different and more backward place if Gough Whitlam had not been Prime Minister. Most successful Prime Minister: John Howard. He fell apart a bit at the end though.....
I turned 18 in 1973. Just after my 18th birthday my father handed me a voting enrolment form, watched me fill it out and escorted me to the Post Office to lodge it. This was my last year of high school. The following year was a Federal election, Whitlam vs Snedden and a double dissolution. I voted for my Labor representative and have voted Labor ever since. Gough Whitlam was well before his time. Andrew Denton said you can split Australian politics in two - pre Whitlam and post Whitlam. Many say it was Gallipoli that made Australia a nation, I believe it was Whitlam. Whitlam was also the second Western political leader to visit Red China after Canada's Pierre Trudeau. And the first Western leader to recognise the reunification of Vietnam. Bold move for an Australian. You either love the guy or hate him. There are no grey areas. I'm in the former. I'm also a fan of Margaret Whitlam. She on her own would have made a great political leader. No Australian Prime Minister's wife had so much influence on Australian politics. Brilliant lady. This one's interesting. Whitlam started to unravel the White Australia Policy, but Fraser put the final nail in the coffin by allowing Vietnamese refugees. During Whitlam's term, Australia was still very much a white society . If there was a poll for the most interesting Prime Minister, I'd say the award would go to Paul Keating. Another brilliant Australian.
I can't believe you left out Menzies. Considering the length of his tenure, he should be on the list three times. It's all the more remarkable considering that your parties have a leadership spill if two MPs look at each other cross-eyed. However, based on my limited knowledge of Australian politics from one uni course, Whitlam seemed somewhat nifty for his movement away from Britain like Pierre Trudeau did here. Getting screwed over by the Governor General should make Whitlam perpetually world famous, at least in Commonwealth countries.
Menzies is a bit out of favour on all sides. The left has never liked him for a bunch of perfectly good reasons - a militarist hypocrite who dodged military service himself; a massive authoritarian streak that involved persecution of political opponents & an attempt to ban the Communist party; fanatically anti-union; a sort of leaden cultural conservatism that was seen as a sort of 'dead hand of the forties' to the generation that put Whitlam in power. On the right he is seen as having been 'asleep at the wheel' on economic reform - failing to use political capital & economic prosperity to liberalize the economy. I suspect both sides would be more charitable if he'd lost in 1961, when he clung to power based on the preferences of the Communist Party in a single seat in Queensland. He was also an arch appeaser pre-WW2 - far more so than even Chamberlain & Halifax and he was widely seen both at the time & now as a failed wartime leader. With good reason too. So bad, in fact that he was removed as PM. He is celebrated as the founder of the Liberal Party and a successful PM, but is a bit on the outer in the 'great PM' stakes. Comes & goes, though we certainly do like to turn them over. Menzies did learn from the experience of being humiliated in 1941. Being the founder of his own party helped him in the 'staying in charge' stakes. So did sidelining potential rivals and having the opposition split two terms into his Prime Ministership (he helped the process). He was kicking at an open door there. One of the reasons menzies was looking increasingly out of place by the mid-60s was his 'British to the bootstraps' view of the world. Britain had pretty much abandoned its defence commitments to the region by the mid-50s & was moving closer to Europe in most other ways (EEC in '75). In many ways we had already moved away from Britain in policy terms, if not rhetorically. Whitlam was extremely good at articulating a sense of Australia as its own entity rather than as a 'British' outpost. That was something the Conservative side of the fence was incapable of - there were still Liberal party branches singing 'God Save the Queen' well into the '90s. Yes indeed.
Was it the communist party or the Democratic Labor Party who helped Menzies over the line with their preferences? There is a strong suggestion that Menzies and the liberal party may never have won elections beyond 1958 but for the divisions in the labor party that brought about the emergence of the democratic labor party and their preference flow to the liberals. You seem to be right about his own party believing that Menzies did not take opportunity to enhance Australia's economic fortune due to what seems to be the an on going attitude of taking little risk. It certainly seems as though the liberals have carried just about every legacy of the Menzies era in the contemporary Australian politics, especially in a fast moving ever changing world.
Both, but the Communist preferences make the better story, especially as it was Jim Killen who got them. He famously blotted his copybook with Menzies by getting too close to the far right wing League of Rights. Very possibly correct. He was fortunate that the ALP & Catholic Church contained a number of uncompromising, egotistical & even unbalanced individuals in Evatt, Santamaria & Mannix. Had a Curtain, Chifley or Hawke-like figure been at the helm the whole thing might have been contained. massive free kick to Menzies. You seem to be right about his own party believing that Menzies did not take opportunity to enhance Australia's economic fortune due to what seems to be the an on going attitude of taking little risk. Agree. Not quite sure what you are getting at there. I should say in relation to post - depression PMs I would put Menzies in the top 5, with Curtain, Whitlam & Hawke comfortably ahead. Howard probably sneaks in on longevity, though I think Keating was a better PM. Pre-1939 PMs need to be rated differently, especially those in the first few decades.
I suppose what I was suggesting was in a world that was relatively slow paced (in comparison to today) responses to demands economically and socially weren't in your face. The advent of social media and the Information Age are the instigators. But within 16 straight years of government you probably would have expected much more to be achieved. He certainly wasn't a big visionary, it was more of an attitude of sit back, be careful and ensure reelection by giving people as little as possible to question. That's fine for personal interests but not the interests of the nation. Howard's most significant change was the GST but this was a policy consideration back in the 80's. Besides this there is not much more that Howard did with a significant national focus in 11 years. Abbott comes along and thinks he can just sit on his hands and slide under the scrutiny radar. He probably may have if he wasn't so stupid. That's my take. The Libs bag out every proposal of a labor government and certainly being a no risk party it provides a smaller target of scrutiny.
