Australian Prime Minister John Howard

(1) A four times winner: John Howard is one of the most successful conservative leaders in the world.  Written off fifteen years ago as an unsuccessful ex-leader of Australia’s Liberal Party he became his party leader again in 1995 and has now been Australian Prime Minister for ten successive years. Australian elections are held at least every three years and he recently announced that he will be seeking a fifth term, denying his long-serving heir apparent and Finance Minister, Peter Costello, an early chance of succeeding him.  The Costello-Howard relationship may sound like the TB-GBs but John Howard has the popularity within and outside his party to resist the pretender to his crown.

(2) It’s the economy, stupid: Underpinning John Howard’s success has been the strength of Australia’s economy.  He inherited economic difficulties from the Australian Labor Party but he also benefited from Labor’s own economic reforms.  Labor’s Paul Keating and Bob Hawke eliminated much of the country’s protectionism, for example, and privatised key industries.  The Liberals have increased competitiveness through their hawkish approach to inflation, financial deregulation and their commitment to cut taxes.  Unlike Labor they have also been willing to modernise Australia’s outdated industrial relations laws.  These reforms and a buoyant regional economy have produced a record period of growth and one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the developed world.  China’s growth has been particularly important with Beijing hungrily consuming a lion’s share of Australia’s energy exports.

(3) A 90% conservative: Support for the traditional family, his hawkish responses to terror, his record of tax reform and tough immigration policies place John Howard on the conservative wing of his party.  But there is little dogmatic about him.  He has not wasted his long service in Australia’s Parliament (where he now has to take part in an hour long ministerial question time every day).  He knows how to negotiate good deals with his Liberal colleagues in the ‘Party Room’ but he also knows when a cause is lost.  Only last week he acted to stop political bleeding by abandoning an immigration reform and a party whip on embryonic stem cell research.  He has also been willing to upset the right when his political instincts have demanded it.  In his first term a serious shooting tragedy led him to introduce a draconian ban on handguns.  Many Australian gunowners have never forgiven him.

(4) Champion of blue collar Australians: If he has skilfully maintained his party’s internal coalition he has, more importantly, built a strong coalition across the Australian electorate.  Noting the increasing tendency of wealthier voters to ‘vote left’ he has embraced the concerns of aspirational, blue collar Australians.  The already wealthy may be able to afford higher taxes, competition from immigrant workers and the economic sacrifices of Kyoto environmentalism.  ‘Howard’s Battlers’ - as the Liberal Party’s working class base have become known – cannot and the Liberal Party has become their champion.  Outside of the public sector a blue collar worker is now as likely to vote Liberal as they are to vote Labor.  [For more on this phenomenon see here].

5. A leader, not a follower: He is prepared to lead public opinion when he thinks it necessary.  The replacement of a multitude of small taxes with the Goods and Services Tax was a deeply unpopular proposition but he thought it necessary for Australia’s competitiveness.  On the war on terror, opposition to Kyoto and gun control he has been willing to challenge establishment wisdom.  This has earnt him a reputation for political truth-telling.   

(6) Plain-spoken John: One of the Howard traits that most appeals to his ’Battlers’ (or strivers) is his plain-spoken manner – communicated through appearances on Australia’s influential ‘talkback’ radio stations of Alan Jones and John Laws.  Not everyone likes what he does but, like Margaret Thatcher before him, people know where he stands.  His most famous soundbite was made in the 2001 Election campaign.  Apparently spontaneously, he thumped the lecturn as he defended his controversial immigration policy: “We will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances under which they come.”  The statement electrified the audience and the election contest.

(7) Hawkish in this age of terror: Australia – with the loss of 88 young lives in the 2002 Bali bombings – has first hand experience of Islamic terrorism.  John Howard has been at George W Bush’s side throughout the campaigns in Taliban Afghanistan and Saddam’s Iraq and has steadily increased defence spending and army numbers. He is a passionate supporter of Israel – seeing it in the frontline of the war on Islamic fascism.  He has deployed Australian troops in his own region – notably in East Timor and more recently in the Solomon Islands.  John Howard has consistently used plain language to explain his reasons for taking a hawkish approach in this age of terror.  When Howard defends his country’s involvement in Iraq there’s little of the lofty rhetoric that characterises Bush’s oratory.  Howard’s talk is street talk.  Australians stand up to bullies, he declares, and they don’t ‘cut and run’.  John Howard’s friendship with Tony Blair is rooted in the Australian PM’s respect for his British counterpart’s understanding of the post 9/11 world.

(8) A cautious social conservative: John Howard is a social conservative but he is careful not to ever get too far ahead of public opinion.  On coming to office he reversed a Northern Territory law that had legalised euthanasia but it was an exhausting fight that strained his party.  He has tiptoed around start-and-end-of-life issues ever since although he has been as firm as George W Bush in opposing same-sex marriage.  Also like President Bush his government has given faith groups enormous opportunities to deliver assistance to vulnerable members of society, particularly the unemployed.  He has been keen to associate himself with Australia’s growing evangelical churches and recently opened a new headquarters church of the Hillsong Christian movement.

(9) Not a great movement builder: One of the big question marks over John Howard’s legacy will be the kind of Liberal Party and wider conservative movement that he leaves behind.  Part of Ronald Reagan’s genius was that he didn’t just ride the American conservative movement on his journey to power but he provided for its growth during and after his Presidency.  One of the few disappointments of Margaret Thatcher’s leadership was that she did little to build a movement that would continue her work.  John Howard may be closer to the Thatcher model than to the Reagan model.  Labor runs all of the Australian states and there are few new sources of conservative thinking and campaigning.  When the inevitable time comes for a recharging of the Liberal batteries it is not clear where the re-energisation will come from.

(10) A patriotic Australian: Australia is a deeply patriotic country.  Its flag flies as universally as the Stars and Stripes in America.  John Howard often tells audiences that Australia is the greatest country on earth.  Against strong Labor opposition he is currently promoting a major change to the country’s history syllabus so that the children of this immigrant country learn the ‘facts’ of Australia’s past.  He attends every major sporting event and most Britons will remember his sour expression as he presented England’s rugby world cup team with their winners’ medals.  Ask the average Australian why they like John Howard and his love of country is a constant response.

Comments

[malcolm]

Even as a pom I find Howards straight talking style very attractive.It's a style I wish more politicians of all parties would emulate here.I do however look forward to seeing Howards face when he hands Freddie Flintoff the Ashes this winter!

[Gildas]

Actually Australia has the dubious distinction of banning guns which even Britain doesn't. You can still get to shoot certain handguns there though, I believe. The pertinent legislation (the usual overreaction to a lone nut and the failures of the rest of the system) was pushed through parliament in just two weeks.

In the wake of this Australia generally vies with Britain for the title of most violent crime ridden industrial country.

John Howard is a great man and has done great things for his country. But just as Margaret Thatcher closed more grammar schools than any other Education Secretary any assessment of his legacy must look at the downsides too. His prejudiced and ill thought out stance on guns has hurt a lot of innocent law abinding people for absolutely no benefit.

[Old Hack]

It's an overused term but it is true that John Howard is a statesman.

He is also a very canny politician who doens't need to indulge in the sort of wishy washy gesture politics we Tories seem to wade through all too frequently with successive leaderships.

I'm pleased that JH is going to bat on - it's clear that he has the support of the nation in doing so.

[Andrew]

"In the wake of this Australia generally vies with Britain for the title of most violent crime ridden industrial country. "

That was already the case before Howard changed gun laws. Regardless, it hardly makes a difference - so few Aussies owned guns that any relationship to deterrence is just daft.

What you can see is a slight dip in the murder rate (so far statistically insignificant), and a major drop in the percentage of robberies committed via with firearms. However, overall robbery and assault rates had continued increasing until recently.

They key point here isn't gun ownership, which as above was already so low as to make no difference. Violent crime rates basically follow heroin use. 1975-90 robbery rates something like doubled, in the 90s they doubled again - no difference before and after the gun laws (96?). Big heroin shortage since 2001 coupled with more effective methadone treatment > big fall in violent crime.

[Matthew R]

The part of Howard's egacy I am ambivalent about is his centralisation. Often for understandable reasons - a desire to raise education standards or liberalise the labour market or outlaw types of guns - Howard has been a relentless centraliser, taking powers away from the states and consolidating them in the federal government.

The result is much the same as the emsaculation of local government powers in the UK (although thankfully oz has not gone nearly so far). State governments are less relevant, except as a general barometere of party popularity, and it is safe to vote Labor.

[Alexander Drake]

Dream on Malcolm re: Ashes ; )

Re: Points 3 and 4, one point that is not made here is that the other issue that puts him on the Right of the Liberal Party (particularly in NSW) is Howard's consistent (and in my opinion correct) opposition to a republic. There are right-wing republicans, and many moderate monarchists, within the Coalition. But they, by and large, are the exceptions that suggest some sort of rule (at least within the NSW Libs).

I am always intrigued as to why Britons commentating on Australian politics are reluctant to consider the domestic dimensions of the republican debate in Australia, as opposed to Anglo-Australian links, or the impact on the royal family. The voting results of the 1999 republican referendum making fascinating reading and reveal intriguing faultlines in Australian politics. A worthwhile analysis by Australia's answer to David Butler - Malcolm Mackerras - can be found here:

http://www.samuelgriffith.org.au/papers/html/volume%2012/v12chap10.htm

This referendum result was in my opinion, the first sign that the Howard patriotic approach would work in his electoral favour. But it is unfashionable to do so within Australia's political class as it is largely republican (rejecting the monarchy as the one institution that it cannot play with or control).

[Matthew R]

There is a stultifying conformism in the Australian media and commentariat that is hard to appreciate if you haven't lived there. Every newspaper in Australia (bar the Financial Review which had no opinion) editorialised in favour of a republic referendum yes vote in 1999. History was moving in one direction, and the monarchy in Australia was doomed. To be a monarchist was to be an old fogey, and to reject the particular republican model on offer was to be a sucker to a plot by the old fogeys.
And yes the NSW Liberal party is rather depressingly factionalised between right and left.

[Alexander Drake]

And the West Australian, Matthew - it argued for a 'no' vote on the basis of supporting direct election.

But generally you are right. It was a disgrace.

I also still cringe at the memory of Simon Heffer, wearing his Garrick tie, sitting on (what I think was) a Question Time special edition panel in Sydney, which was co-hosted by the ABC's "Red" Kerry O'Brien, doing his blimpish, cringeworthy best to make the case for the monarchy. It didn't help the cause one iota.