Tomorrow is John Howard's tenth anniversary as Australian Prime Minister. He's done a fantastic job. I must admit that when I met him 15 years ago I was distinctly underwhelmed. Someone once described him as Iain Duncan Smith without the charisma. But no one can deny that he's proved to be a formidable politician. A succession of more charismatic Labor leaders have failed to threaten him and chances are he may even decide to stand again. More HERE.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Happy Anniversary to John Howard
Tomorrow is John Howard's tenth anniversary as Australian Prime Minister. He's done a fantastic job. I must admit that when I met him 15 years ago I was distinctly underwhelmed. Someone once described him as Iain Duncan Smith without the charisma. But no one can deny that he's proved to be a formidable politician. A succession of more charismatic Labor leaders have failed to threaten him and chances are he may even decide to stand again. More HERE.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Alexander, hey, the power of the internet! Have a great day!
Whilst accepting that he is a very successful politician who has been re-elected several times with generally sound economic policies, I find his attitude toward not just gay marriages (where he is hardly in a minority of one of course), but toward gay 'partnerships' (basically it seems to be "not on my watch!") to be wholly and entirely unsatisfactory - specially the unnecessarily vindictive add-on policy that bars any Australian citizen from availing him/herself of the assistance of Australian dipolmatic missions abroad in obtaining a certificate showing him/her to be unmarried when this is to be used to support a same-sex partnership to be conducted abroad in countries where this is possible; however luckily I do not live in Australia so it does not matter to me personally. How do you feel about this aspect of John Howard's politics?
I tend to judge prime ministers on a wider range of issues rather than just that one.
So I see. It's a great pity. Principle matters - the pursuit of power for its own sake may satisfy short-term, but is morally meaningless. I did enjoy reading your blog, but shall not trouble myself to do so in future.
What?! What a ridiculous thing to say. So I don't agree with an assertion you make. Therefore you refuse to carry on the discussion. Dear oh dear. I agree with civil partnerships, but I do not regard it as the only thing to judge a politician on. Single issues are rarely the only yardstick to judge someone by.
Iain, so you are abit like a slave who disagrees with slavery, but that is not the only the issue that interests you. If the economy is going well, that's OK.
I'm straight, but defending a leader who wants to give gay people second class rights doesn't paint you in a good light.
So not supporting gay partnerships is akin to slavery? I am gay and I don't agree with Howard on this issue, but it is not at the top of my agenda. He has done a good job and I support him. Civil unions have been implemented by all the states, and Howard himself has legislated for equality for gay couples regarding pension rights. Full equality will come, but in the meantime we are harldy slaves because of John Howard.
I'm gay too, and also support some politicians who may be perceived as "homophobic" (in as much as they don't slavishly adopt the gay activist agenda). Being gay is not the defining characteristic of who I am or what I believe, it is one aspect of my life. I can't stand the idea that it means I ought to subscribe to entire swathes of policy someone else has decided for me. There's an American book about the rise of gay conservatives ("homocons" as the book labels them) which basically disowns anyone who doesn't adopt their narrow definition of gay politics, a book which only goes to demonstrate the author's monomaniacal approach to life.
For a further take on this try the article "A sad scene" by Miles Douglas in today's Spectator.
Post a Comment