<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Howard&#8217;s End silent on why we chose Kevin07</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/08/19/howards-end-silent-on-why-we-chose-kevin07/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/08/19/howards-end-silent-on-why-we-chose-kevin07/</link>
	<description>now with extra source</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:34:24 +1100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dave Liberts</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/08/19/howards-end-silent-on-why-we-chose-kevin07/#comment-13635</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Liberts</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-13635</guid>
		<description>JamesK, you&#039;re 100% spot on today.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Further to that comment, for the time being anyway, the ALP is the natural party of government insofar as a slim majority of Australians default to Labor unless doubts about its leadership are significantly substantial for enough voters to buy the inevitable Liberal scare campaign. The NSW Libs are in real trouble but I&#039;ll be surprised if any other state governments suffer too badly in the next round of elections. I think WA is in the bag.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The answer for the Libs in the longer term is, in my view, well canvassed in this article. Moderate Libs, stop voting Labor, your true Party needs you!  The question is whether the Liberal Party organisation can recover sufficiently from the Howard years to ever be attractive to urban liberals in significant numbers again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>JamesK, you&#8217;re 100% spot on today.</p>
<p>Further to that comment, for the time being anyway, the ALP is the natural party of government insofar as a slim majority of Australians default to Labor unless doubts about its leadership are significantly substantial for enough voters to buy the inevitable Liberal scare campaign. The NSW Libs are in real trouble but I&#8217;ll be surprised if any other state governments suffer too badly in the next round of elections. I think WA is in the bag.</p>
<p>The answer for the Libs in the longer term is, in my view, well canvassed in this article. Moderate Libs, stop voting Labor, your true Party needs you!  The question is whether the Liberal Party organisation can recover sufficiently from the Howard years to ever be attractive to urban liberals in significant numbers again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Liberts</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/08/19/howards-end-silent-on-why-we-chose-kevin07/#comment-13636</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Liberts</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-13636</guid>
		<description>Good one Mike. You&#039;re quite correct. Howard&#039;s conservatism was evident in some of his social commentary (presumably your reference to thuggery) but not his budgets or economic policy, which are best summarised as identify swinging voters, tax, bribe, repeat (your reference to opportunism).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good one Mike. You&#8217;re quite correct. Howard&#8217;s conservatism was evident in some of his social commentary (presumably your reference to thuggery) but not his budgets or economic policy, which are best summarised as identify swinging voters, tax, bribe, repeat (your reference to opportunism).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JamesK</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/08/19/howards-end-silent-on-why-we-chose-kevin07/#comment-13637</link>
		<dc:creator>JamesK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-13637</guid>
		<description>Beyond &quot;the absurd and comical cowardice of grown men and women, supposedly top political operators&quot; of the Liberal Party, they were also guilty of poor political judgment. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Howard should have gone at least 2 years before the election.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Much of the unwillingness to dump Howard was due to the prejudice oft repeated in the media that Howard was an astute political operator who enjoyed the support of  &#039;battlers&#039;. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;They may have voted for him but they were never fond of him. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Distrust of The Labor Party and/or their leader rather than intrinsically positive belief in Howard was the reason The Coalition was re-elected so often. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Ruddmeister nullified that distrust very effectively.&lt;br /&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Beyond &#8220;the absurd and comical cowardice of grown men and women, supposedly top political operators&#8221; of the Liberal Party, they were also guilty of poor political judgment. </p>
<p>Howard should have gone at least 2 years before the election.</p>
<p>Much of the unwillingness to dump Howard was due to the prejudice oft repeated in the media that Howard was an astute political operator who enjoyed the support of  &#8216;battlers&#8217;. </p>
<p>They may have voted for him but they were never fond of him. </p>
<p>Distrust of The Labor Party and/or their leader rather than intrinsically positive belief in Howard was the reason The Coalition was re-elected so often. </p>
<p>The Ruddmeister nullified that distrust very effectively.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom McLoughlin</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/08/19/howards-end-silent-on-why-we-chose-kevin07/#comment-13638</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom McLoughlin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-13638</guid>
		<description>For mine I would say Howard lost because of .... ta da ... the internet (read Get Up etc)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;All other things being equal second reason is ..... Simon Crean. Now I know this especially sounds out there but Crean as leader made the wise/lucky/prescient/flukey choice to oppose the invasion of Iraq in Feb 2003 when it really counted. Huge rally in Sydney that month. Then the jury was out all the way past Crean, past Latham, until Milky Bar Kid. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If there is accountability for anything in politics it has to be for a war that proceeded on a false premise. Whether Howard - Downer et al proceeding in good faith, is largely irrelevant. To get it wrong must be sackable. And they got it wrong as the WMD inspection team finally reported. And then they were sacked next outing.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I know there&#039;s so much more to the skirmishing eg APEC not coming off as a LauraNorder PR triumph etc but I think these two things above are at the heart of things.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For mine I would say Howard lost because of &#8230;. ta da &#8230; the internet (read Get Up etc)</p>
<p>All other things being equal second reason is &#8230;.. Simon Crean. Now I know this especially sounds out there but Crean as leader made the wise/lucky/prescient/flukey choice to oppose the invasion of Iraq in Feb 2003 when it really counted. Huge rally in Sydney that month. Then the jury was out all the way past Crean, past Latham, until Milky Bar Kid. </p>
<p>If there is accountability for anything in politics it has to be for a war that proceeded on a false premise. Whether Howard - Downer et al proceeding in good faith, is largely irrelevant. To get it wrong must be sackable. And they got it wrong as the WMD inspection team finally reported. And then they were sacked next outing.</p>
<p>I know there&#8217;s so much more to the skirmishing eg APEC not coming off as a LauraNorder PR triumph etc but I think these two things above are at the heart of things.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: peter</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/08/19/howards-end-silent-on-why-we-chose-kevin07/#comment-13639</link>
		<dc:creator>peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-13639</guid>
		<description>Enjoyed your well written observations... one thing that few things people seem not to spend much time commenting on  is john and hyacenths oft proclaimed &quot;I/he didnt quit because I/hehe did not want to be called a coward... &quot;   ie he was more worried about what people thought of himself  than what was  good  for  the party  he professed to love...the guy was a delusional, heartless,  war monger  who would stop at nothing for political advantage..... he lost whatever moral compass he had . Sure he was excellent public speaker and debater  was not enuogh in the end . He was  surrounded by a bunch of whimps  save for Brough, Turnbull and Hockey.  Had there been a few more people with  some fortitude around him his legacy would  be much rosier.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Enjoyed your well written observations&#8230; one thing that few things people seem not to spend much time commenting on  is john and hyacenths oft proclaimed &#8220;I/he didnt quit because I/hehe did not want to be called a coward&#8230; &#8221;   ie he was more worried about what people thought of himself  than what was  good  for  the party  he professed to love&#8230;the guy was a delusional, heartless,  war monger  who would stop at nothing for political advantage&#8230;.. he lost whatever moral compass he had . Sure he was excellent public speaker and debater  was not enuogh in the end . He was  surrounded by a bunch of whimps  save for Brough, Turnbull and Hockey.  Had there been a few more people with  some fortitude around him his legacy would  be much rosier.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/08/19/howards-end-silent-on-why-we-chose-kevin07/#comment-13640</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-13640</guid>
		<description>The idea that Howard is/was a conservative misses the point.  Howard&#039;s poitical ideas may have been formed by conservatism, but basically he was three things: an opportunist, a political thug, and a right radical. None of these is necessarily the stuff of conservatism.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The idea that Howard is/was a conservative misses the point.  Howard&#8217;s poitical ideas may have been formed by conservatism, but basically he was three things: an opportunist, a political thug, and a right radical. None of these is necessarily the stuff of conservatism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Liberts</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/08/19/howards-end-silent-on-why-we-chose-kevin07/#comment-13641</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Liberts</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-13641</guid>
		<description>Tom McLoughlin, you&#039;re wrong. Those issues did not swing votes in the marginals. In the marginal seat where I live, virtually everyone has forgotten who Simon Crean ever was. Tom, you&#039;ve got to understand that Iraq and the other issues promoted by GetUp did not get anyone to change their vote from Liberal in 2004 to Labor in 2007. Claret is much closer to being right about Workchoices, which blew apart the so-called &#039;Howard Battlers&#039; vote and gave rise to Labor&#039;s pitch to working families. Tom, I&#039;m guessing from your comments that you haven&#039;t set foot in an outer suburb for some time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tom McLoughlin, you&#8217;re wrong. Those issues did not swing votes in the marginals. In the marginal seat where I live, virtually everyone has forgotten who Simon Crean ever was. Tom, you&#8217;ve got to understand that Iraq and the other issues promoted by GetUp did not get anyone to change their vote from Liberal in 2004 to Labor in 2007. Claret is much closer to being right about Workchoices, which blew apart the so-called &#8216;Howard Battlers&#8217; vote and gave rise to Labor&#8217;s pitch to working families. Tom, I&#8217;m guessing from your comments that you haven&#8217;t set foot in an outer suburb for some time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Sanderson</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/08/19/howards-end-silent-on-why-we-chose-kevin07/#comment-13642</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Sanderson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-13642</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve reached the conclusion that those who continue to somewhat aggressively support Howard (invite him to dinners and give him medals and awards) do so because they benefited, as did we all from the economic success. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But, IMHO, they are also unable to face the other ugly fact that he betrayed Australia and all Australians more than any other leader ever has.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I can forgive the lying and attempts to restore what he believed was some balance in the industrial scene. Even the stupid and uncaring neglect of education and hospitals. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But, by co-operating with Bush and the fossil fuel industry to delay action on Climate Change for those 10 critical years, he put the lives of our children and their children at risk for the sake of corporaste profits.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;That I can never forgive and I don&#039;t understand why this is the elephant in the Australian room. If we continue to pretend that didn&#039;t happen, the fossil fuel industry will succeed in doing it again - as they continue to try very hard to do. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve reached the conclusion that those who continue to somewhat aggressively support Howard (invite him to dinners and give him medals and awards) do so because they benefited, as did we all from the economic success. </p>
<p>But, IMHO, they are also unable to face the other ugly fact that he betrayed Australia and all Australians more than any other leader ever has.</p>
<p>I can forgive the lying and attempts to restore what he believed was some balance in the industrial scene. Even the stupid and uncaring neglect of education and hospitals. </p>
<p>But, by co-operating with Bush and the fossil fuel industry to delay action on Climate Change for those 10 critical years, he put the lives of our children and their children at risk for the sake of corporaste profits.</p>
<p>That I can never forgive and I don&#8217;t understand why this is the elephant in the Australian room. If we continue to pretend that didn&#8217;t happen, the fossil fuel industry will succeed in doing it again - as they continue to try very hard to do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Claret</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/08/19/howards-end-silent-on-why-we-chose-kevin07/#comment-13643</link>
		<dc:creator>Claret</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-13643</guid>
		<description>What many pundits can&#039;t comprehend is why Work Choices was such poison for Howard.  The answer is simple - most voters are working or have worked for an employer at some stage.  Therefore most voters knew what an absolute joke Work Choices was in terms of lowly paid and powerless employees &#039;negotiating&#039; for improved pay and conditions.  Even older and more secure employees such as myself knew that a shop assistant or an office cleaner or an office junior would have no chance.  This is when I knew Howard and his fellow travellers had totally lost the plot - maybe because they had never been in such a position in the workforce.  The anti-union ads showing fat unionists switching lights off were also laughable because the majority of the workforce know that &#039;union power&#039; is restricted to a couple of blue collar unions and elsewhere it is virtually non-existent.  As for Van Onselen - I never read any of his books.  If I want to read pro-Liberal Party apologists I&#039;ll stick to Milne or Shanahan or the rest of The Australian&#039;s Howard (now Costello) cheer squad.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What many pundits can&#8217;t comprehend is why Work Choices was such poison for Howard.  The answer is simple - most voters are working or have worked for an employer at some stage.  Therefore most voters knew what an absolute joke Work Choices was in terms of lowly paid and powerless employees &#8216;negotiating&#8217; for improved pay and conditions.  Even older and more secure employees such as myself knew that a shop assistant or an office cleaner or an office junior would have no chance.  This is when I knew Howard and his fellow travellers had totally lost the plot - maybe because they had never been in such a position in the workforce.  The anti-union ads showing fat unionists switching lights off were also laughable because the majority of the workforce know that &#8216;union power&#8217; is restricted to a couple of blue collar unions and elsewhere it is virtually non-existent.  As for Van Onselen - I never read any of his books.  If I want to read pro-Liberal Party apologists I&#8217;ll stick to Milne or Shanahan or the rest of The Australian&#8217;s Howard (now Costello) cheer squad.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: davo</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/08/19/howards-end-silent-on-why-we-chose-kevin07/#comment-13644</link>
		<dc:creator>davo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-13644</guid>
		<description>Workchoices showed, once and for all to even those who ignored it  wih the GST, and with the War in Iraq, that the government did NOT have the interests in the battlers, in fact, that it was only interested in Big Business. It was a repeat of 1942 - Big Business killed Howard. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Workchoices showed, once and for all to even those who ignored it  wih the GST, and with the War in Iraq, that the government did NOT have the interests in the battlers, in fact, that it was only interested in Big Business. It was a repeat of 1942 - Big Business killed Howard.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/08/19/howards-end-silent-on-why-we-chose-kevin07/#comment-13645</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-13645</guid>
		<description>Bernard, I agree with you 100%.  I read Howard’s End and was struck by the fairly blatant cheerleading by the authors and the inclusion of a number of Liberal talking points post election.  For example, a number of times the author’s referred to a “change for changes sake” feeling in the electorate without any further explanation.  Did they really think the collective public became bored with the federal government and decided to toss them out on a whim?!  Isn’t this counter to all previous elections?  And if they honestly believed this, there was no analysis of why the electorate felt that (for example, the Labor Party made people feel the government could run itself is one explanation that has been proffered - is this true?). &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Having read Kevin07 and this book, I must say I was disappointed that there was no analysis or in depth examination of the election.  The book felt like it was written on the fly based on newspaper reports and personal observations (and an interview with Joe Hockey as credited).  Disappointing.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Finally, I note that with the release of John Winston Howard in paperback I thought Howard’s End should have been included as an update to that biography.  That the authors chose not to update that bio and release a slim volume on Howard’s End says a lot about the author’s motives…&lt;br /&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bernard, I agree with you 100%.  I read Howard’s End and was struck by the fairly blatant cheerleading by the authors and the inclusion of a number of Liberal talking points post election.  For example, a number of times the author’s referred to a “change for changes sake” feeling in the electorate without any further explanation.  Did they really think the collective public became bored with the federal government and decided to toss them out on a whim?!  Isn’t this counter to all previous elections?  And if they honestly believed this, there was no analysis of why the electorate felt that (for example, the Labor Party made people feel the government could run itself is one explanation that has been proffered - is this true?). </p>
<p>Having read Kevin07 and this book, I must say I was disappointed that there was no analysis or in depth examination of the election.  The book felt like it was written on the fly based on newspaper reports and personal observations (and an interview with Joe Hockey as credited).  Disappointing.  </p>
<p>Finally, I note that with the release of John Winston Howard in paperback I thought Howard’s End should have been included as an update to that biography.  That the authors chose not to update that bio and release a slim volume on Howard’s End says a lot about the author’s motives…</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
