This Essential Report question has caused a bit of a stir, mostly over some of the results in the crosstabs like Whitlam being the most favoured PM in the 18-24 demographic. Essential has kindly provided the actual data for this question, and the results look much more as one would expect.
There was a small error in the Essential commentary about Whitlam being first in the 18-24 cohort when he was actually 3rd – so fear not dear readers, normalcy has returned to the yooniverse.
What am I smoking.
Also worth noting is that this was a forced choice question with no option for “No Opinion”.
All in all, a great bit of fun.
14 Comments
Fascinating how the age profile of Menzies’ admirers presents a reverse image of Whitlam’s.
I’m presuming you are inviting opinions on the list.
I’m going to ignore Curtin and Chifley cos I’m not that old, and Rudd cos its only a year in and early days.
Holt and mcMahon were essentially nonentities notable mainly for big ears and poor choice of swimming veues. Apart from that they were standard issue reactionary pollies.
Malcolm got up my nose cos he tried to kill me when he was Minister for the Army whatever and his arrogance with the ‘life was not meant to be easy’ [except for him and his mates of course] comment.
The musical chairs episode with Gough and Kerr was amusing and instructive but no less than to be expected from anyone in his place.
Of course since being PM his anti-racist stance has been impressive, and confusing to me, but irrelevant to his rank as PM.
So so far we have a bunch of basic nonentities.
Now Pig Iron Bob, the Brisbane line fella, the guy who lapsed into slobbering obsequiusness as SHE passed by, arrogance personified, the guy who became Warden of the Cinque ports of his beloved England, the bloke who tried to outlaw freedom of thought, him I despise.
Worst PM of the lot, even worse than little Johnny who really, sans Murdoch and his mates and flunkies, would be a blank entry on the list.
The better of a bad lot?
Well the silver bodgie had me conned to start with. I thought he was better than sliced bread but he soon wore out his welcome, did a bit of good but not much. Similarly with Paul, I was never a fan of his and do not suscribe to the oft stated opinion, often by him, how wonderful his ‘reforms’ were.
Which leaves one candidate for best PM by a mile.
I couldn’t stand the upper class … at the beginning and didn’t shed too many tears at his disposal no matter how dirty it was.
But when I look back at what he accomplished, urban reform, arts development, getting out of Vietnam [I loved the interim govt with Lance, things actually happening instead of talk] he’s a winner. His so-called negatives are mainly confected by the reactionaries and can be ignored.
Gough for me.
Howard would no doubt win “Worst PM” as well. This poses the interesting question as to who is the most divisive PM and who is the least divisive? You could just take the difference of their approval and disapproval ratings (the way Newspoll does, because they own it) or do some fancy maths with the standard deviation. I think you’d find Howard, Keating and Whitlam as the most divisive Prime Ministers and Holt and McMahon the least divisive (because no one really remembers the policies of people other than the really loved/hated PMs).
Well, until Howard I was a Liberal voter. I give first to Keating, best liberal prime minister the country has seen. I think Malcolm has got a bum rap, he should have been higher, it took a bit to stabalise things after Whitlam, but Whitlam changed the country as no other, so second place to Whitlam, third to Fraser.
Fredn, my old man always said that the first Hawke ministry was the best Liberal government we ever had. With some disappointment and not a little bewilderment in his voice.
Thanks for these stats, Possum. I must admit, having just re-read your post, I misread things last night. I was under the impression that Whitlam was the most popular PM in the 18-24 cohort.
Now I realise that what was meant was, Whitlam was more popular in the 18-24 cohort than in the other cohorts.
Still, I find it strange that people who weren’t alive during E.G.’s rule have a higher regard for him than people who actually experienced his munificient reforms. Some possible explanations for this (not all serious) …
(1) The band called The Whitlams, very popular among Triple J listeners, the fact that such a well-liked outfit has such a name might give Gough Whitlam a “cool” aura among young people
(2) Those bleeding-heart left-wing bolsheviks who run our high schools and universities are brainwashing the yoof of this country about our past PMs, and extolling Whitlam’s so-called virtues to young, impressionable minds
(3) (slightly more serious) Adolescents who heard a hundred times from their parents that “if it wasn’t for Whitlam, your mother and I would never have gone to uni and we’d be living on some muddy houso estate instead!” or “if it wasn’t for Whitlam, you’d still be going to the dunny in a thunderbox outside, even on the coldest winter night, with red backs crawling up your backside!” or “if it wasn’t for Whitlam, you’d die if you fell sick because he introduced national health insurance …” ad infinitum.
(4) Whitlam is the historical (pre-1996) PM who is probably discussed in the MSM more than any other PM. He simply has more market exposure than the others. The Whitlam brand has considerable cachet in the marketplace. The Gorton, McMahon, Fraser brands are less recogniseable. And …
(5) As William Bowe pointed out in a parallel thread on Poll Bludger, the Whitlam brand carries connotations of a “noble crusader who was done over by powerful interests” – a standard dramatis personae which is attractive to rebellious, anti-authoritarian, cynical young people. More conservative and settled older folk would probably not be so inclined to “maintain the rage”.
I forgot to add:
(6) People who weren’t alive 1972-1975 wouldn’t know about all the scandals, ministerial incompetence and the economic hard times back then. People older than, say, 45 would probably remember the 17% inflation, the end to the post-war run of full employment, the mounting deficits, etc.
You can rant as much as you like Catatonia but the fact of the matter is, Whitlam changed Australia and a lot of those changes survived.
Whitlam was doing fine with Lance… then he appointed ministers like R F X Connor, and a certain Paul Keating (boo! hiss!)
I rate it thus:
Best PM
1. Ben Chifley
2. Gough Whitlam
3. Bob Hawke
4. Malcolm Fraser
5. Kevin Rudd
6. John Curtin
Worst PM.
1. John Howard
2. Robert Menzies
3. Paul Keating
4. Harold Holt
5. Billy McMahon
6. John Gorton
Fredn @ 8
Nobody is denying that Whitlam changed things, and that many of those changes have survived. But a lot of other Prime Ministers changed things too and their changes have also survived.
So what makes Whitlam more highly regarded among young people than among other age brackets? That’s what my so-called “rant” was trying to get at.
#3
I agree that Howard, Keating and Whitlam would win ‘most divisive’ because they actually DID things, whereas for several others the old rule “you can’t get punished for doing nothing” would certainly apply. As a Victorian I could easily apply this to Kennett or Cain versus Steve Bracks.
Odd that Hawke, who was also a do-er in office, is not often perceived as divisive. Whereas Fraser, who wasn’t as pro-active as the above four, probably is seen as divisive by many….
#6
Point 5 is interesting. I’ve often thought that in some ways being dismissed did Whitlam much more good than harm. His legacy would probably be very different if the government had been allowed to serve out its full term, and limped along through 1976-7 embroiled in scandals.
After viewing a doco on Fraser on SBS – and Rudd’s arrogant dismissal of the possibility of changing Australia Day away from the day NSW was claimed by Britain, I revised my list.
Best PM
1. Ben Chifley
2. Gough Whitlam
3. Bob Hawke
4. John Gorton
5. John Curtin
6. Malcolm Fraser
Worst PM.
1. John Howard
2. Robert Menzies
3. Kevin Rudd
4. Paul Keating
5. Harold Holt
6. Billy McMahon