Was Keating that popular with the general public when he went after Hawke? His main popularity was with the NSW Right, the press gallery, and himself, but not necessarily in that order. Unlike Costello, Keating knew that he had a better chance of seeing of Hewson than Hawke. Now, allegedly Howard told Costello that he could dispense with Beazley easily, but Costello countered saying that he doubted that the ALP would retain Beazley as the leader for the election. In other words, Costello knew what was going to happen, but didn’t act on it. Costello should’ve done what Keating did, resign to the back bench, then challenge Howard again now.

I say this as a person that thinks Howard has stayed on too long, I don’t think voters like Governments who hang around for over 10 years, and certainly not a government with the same leader. I don’t think the ALPs policies are all that different to what they would’ve been under Beazley, I think what the polls are showing is that people simply think the ALP will be competent under Rudd, but the main problem is the Government has been around too long without renewel at the top end.

I wouldn’t assume he’s worried about his ‘legacy’ – in his mind, he’s probably already acheived everything he wanted, particularly with his ideologically-charged legislation, passed with Senate control (VSU, Telstra, anti-terror laws, and IR, among others).

As for his actual legacy, I would argue it’s far from inconsequential. Australia is a different country for having been governed by Howard, and not, I believe, for the better. My perspective is partisan, but still – Other than ‘managing’ the economy (and managing it well, for the already-wealthy), and tightening gun laws, I stuggle to think of any great contribution that Howard has made.

He’s shown himself to be an astute observer of public opinion, and opportunistic at every turn. Given his ideological preoccupations, and the fact that he was able to successfully ride a wave of anti-Keating, anti-PC, Hansonite hysteria, he was a suitable leader of sorts. Nonetheless, the Australia that he leaves behind will be one that is diminished in every respect, other than its imported plasma televisions.

Don’t agree. Costello knew he didn’t have the public and hence party support to give him a hope in Hades of winning, and just accepted that fact. If he hadn’t, and had challenged, what sort of position would he be in now? Much worse. It all boils down to his lack of any substantial public popularity, which means he will never be PM in his own right.

Howard doesn’t have many redeeming qualities but if he thinks a Costello defeat is a bigger disaster then a Howard defeat, Howard will take the ignominy for the sake of the party. He does believe some of the things he says.

Howard should’ve handed over last year — he would’ve ridden off into the sunset a true Liberal hero. His ego got in the way but he is prepared to pay the price.

Libs must regain power as soon as humanly possible so as to minimise the winding back by Labor of WorkChoices. This winding back will take time so Libs can afford to lose govt if they can regain it quickly and set in stone the new WC regime.

The question then becomes, when Libs do get back in, will the govt be dominated by people who care as much about WC as Howard did?

No it won’t and thus is writ the tragedy of JW Howard, the man with the tenacity to simply not go away, to become PM by default, to take advantage of opportunity and advice, to position himself as potentially a modern party hero, but ultimately to leave a legacy of … nothing of any consequence.

July 16th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Strop, Costello will accept the poisoned chalice and Turnbull will win his own tilt at a time of his choosing. Costello will lack the patience to do it all again and will accept some offers from the industry.

I hope Costello accepts the chalice as you put it Amber-it would be read as ’saving face’ but splatter egg all over the Liberal Party. I hope your right.