Oceania Who is Australia's Greatest Prime Minister?

Well, see, it all gets down to your definition of 'Great' now don't it?

Does Greatest Prime Minister mean

A: Most Popular Prime Minister
B: Most Effective Prime Minister
C: Most Popular & Effective Prime Minister
D: None of the above


Because you'd have a different PM for each one, IMO...

 

Quite true.

Whitlam was very popular, but his economics came straight from the stone age.

 

A: Most Popular Prime Minister
B: Most Effective Prime Minister
C: Most Popular & Effective Prime Minister
D: None of the above

Hmmm:

A) = Menzies - duh!
B) = Maybe Hawke? (Floating the dollar, economic rationalism etc)
C) = John Howard
D) = Malcolm Fraser!

E_S

 

You have to admit, if he hadn't given up the booze, ditched Hazel and appeared on the cover of Womens Weekly in his bathrobe, Hawke would have been a dead cert for c)

EDIT: but then, he did do all those things, so I guess that horse has bolted...

 

I must admit, Hawkie wasn't bad, but I loathe Keating to distraction.

 

At least he made some inroads into Asia.

 

I seem to remember his two main accomplishments were calleing Dr Mahatir "recalcitrant" (sp?) and sucking up to Soeharto by ignoring his human rights record. But then, I'm biased.

 

A: Most Popular Prime Minister
B: Most Effective Prime Minister
C: Most Popular & Effective Prime Minister
D: None of the above

A: Menzies
B: Hawke
C: Hawke
D: Bush???????

 

@ Marv!

Mods, I fear I need to be protected from the dodos in the Young Liberal party!

(I love that Keating site!)

-e_s-

 

Silence you!!

A: Most Popular Prime Minister
B: Most Effective Prime Minister
C: Most Popular & Effective Prime Minister
D: None of the above

A: Probably Menzies, although we can't account for that considering most of us weren't around during his terms, unlike Whitlam who had one term
B: See Below
C: Howard
D: Yeah, probably Fraser I have to admit.

 

I think you'll find that Menzies was in office for a great while due to the fact that the DLP and ALP were at war, effectively killing any chance of defeat for Menzies. Yet, even with DLP preferences, he only scraped in the 1961 election. His tenure is exactly what Howard wants to go back to, the 'relaxed and comfortable' time without Asians and a strong affiliation with the Queen and Britain.

As for Whitlam, he didn't bring the troops back from Vietnam, McMahon did.

Howard was dead in the water before the 2001 election, where the campaign based around the Tampa saw the Libs run an effective scare campaign to take office. Howard is a great politician, make no mistake about it, because he too was dead in the water in the 80s after he lost out to Peacock, but with the purging of the Wets he came back into contention. I think his tenure will be looked upon in2 distinct phases, the early years where he was popular and effective, and the later years where he has been neither.

Marv explain to us how you are both economically and socially liberal and yet still are a member of the Libs.

 

Heck, why not? I think the ALP sucks!

I think that how Howard handles Iraq will be a major determining factor as to wether he can get back on top again...if the war is relatively quick (a couple of months) and bloddless on our side, I think he will come out shining

 

How could anything that Howard does effect the length of the war on Iraq?

He's a small fish in a big pond.

 

I'm just talking about the length of the war itself. If it is a quick war, it will be politically beneficial for Howard. if it drags on forever and lots of our soldiers die, it won't be so good for him obviously. Wars make or break national leaders.

 

Marv, how bout your explanation of your liberalism?