Howard has kinda hushed up about senate reform, what with the North Korea situation being 'taken care of'. I dont think the public is going to be too worried about Senate reform in the current international climate either, unless Howard can somehow link the two issues, (like Bush linked the Iraq/WMD-proliferation issue with terrorism) which seems pretty unlikely.

More worrying, at least to me, is the attempt to push through tertiary education reform. I'm hopeful the Senate will block the current proposed changes, but you know the mercenaries in the Senate: they're always up for a little 'I'll suck your cock if you cut off mine'.

Some interesting theories you?’ve got there angst?… pity that most of them don?’t hold much water.

Take for example the logic that IF a crowd of people cheering for you would inflate your ?“ego to bursting point,?” THEN the same must be true for the most powerful person in Australian politics. This appears to be very flawed logic. Bear in mind that the PM has had literally millions of people vote for the party that he leads in his own country. Yet you think the cheers from a crowd of people at a sports game in another country would mean more to him than that? Perhaps you miss the more obvious, more simple, and more true reason for him wanting to change how the political system works. Simply because, he thinks that it is in the best interest of Australia.

You make Howard sound like an egotist who cares more about his own agenda than about what is best for his country. Yet even using your own points, this can be disproved. You say that Howard ?“doesn?’t even want?” to be PM. Would someone who only cares about his own agenda be in a job that they don?’t want? Of course not. Therefore, he must care about something greater than himself. That being his party, and his country. This disproves the theory that he is an egotist who does things only because he wants to mark his place in history, or because some people in the US cheer for him, or because he wants to shake someone?’s hand and have a sleep over.

Finally for now, lets look at the current senate system, which you defend so eagerly. It?’s meant to be the house representing the people, but what tends to happen? The balance of power is often held by a minor party that only obtained a few seats, or worse still, by a single independent. Is it fair that one person, or a small number of people, can stop the government from doing something that they were voted in by the majority of a nation to do?

I?’ll leave you to ponder that for now?…

Yeah. I'm not finished with the senate. The next post i will write extends this idea of senate reform.

Howard already knows he has Australia wrapped around his evil little finger. Getting applause from 45,000 Americans, people who never voted for him and have no real reason to even know his name, is not the same thing as getting applause from 45,000 Australians. In fact..... now that i think of it: when has Howard ever recived a standing ovation from 45,000 Australians? The only time the man EVER gets such treatment is at a Liberal Party function...... and those are never full of 45,000 people. So i STILL maintain it would have been a huge ego boost for a man that needs no such boost. The only boost he needs is a booster seat so he can reach his desk in the House of Reps. But anyway.... i mention the Yankee Stadium thing as an anecdote: not as evidence of anything. Just as something to illuminate how the Prime Minature might be thinking these days.

My contention is that Howard, atleast now that he is so late in his career, DOES care about something greater then himself. He cares about his legacy. About whether or not his name will still be remembered in 40 years time.

I wont get embroiled in more senate arguments here in the comments. Suffice to say that my next post is all about how we do indeed need senate reform.... but that such reform should go in exactly the opposite direction as the proposed Howard reforms.

I still don't see your logic... you're saying that Howard thought, "wow, some Americans like me and they don't even know me. I'd better go and change the Australian constitution so that people remember me."

However illogical your logic may be, I'll play along...

You seem to think that changing the constitution will seal his place in history. If that's the case, how many Australians can name the Prime Minister who last changed the constitution? Or who changed the constitution to allow people in territories to vote in referendums? Or in fact, how many can name any Prime Minister who changed the constitution ever? I suspect not many. So what makes you think that Howard believes he would be remembered any more than that for previous changes? It would be far less of a legacy than some of his other achievements.

And if he was so obsessed with being remembered for changing the constitution, why then did he not support the republic referendum? If he had, there's a much greater chance that it would have been carried. And as far as significance, changing a country from a monarchy to a republic would be hugely more memorable than changing how the upper house of parliament works. The answer is, of course, because Howard thinks the country is better as a monarchy. Personally I don't agree, but that's not the issue. The issue is, that far from being "evil," he is in fact doing what he thinks is best for the country.

You say that the senate needs to be reformed. So even though you go to great lengths to put the PM down for wanting to change it, and also try to theorise as to why he's changing it, you actually agree that it needs to be changed. So therefore, the only difference between what you want, and what he wants, is the way in which it is changed. So anything you say about an "evil" Howard wanting to change it, or any anecdotes you bring up are irrelevant. Because far from being 'mad with power' as you seem to think he is, our PM is actually doing something that you agree needs to be done.

Attn Alarmed:

Re your comment: "like Bush linked the Iraq/WMD-proliferation issue with terrorism"

After Sept 11, it's pretty clear that terrorists will use whatever is available to do as much damage as they can to innocent civilians. It is therefore undeniable that should they get their hands on a WMD, they would almost certainly use it. Given this fact, how is WMD-proliferation not linked with terrorism?

If you think im saying that Johnnys push for senate reform is directly because he got some applause at a baseball games then you need to do some more thinking.

*sigh*

I am saying that Howard and the Yankee Stadium anecdote is BROADLY SYMPTOMATIC of a Prime Minister that is realising he is at the height of his powers. He doesnt intend on being PM for much longer so he no longer cares about the political fallout that his successor will have to deal. Furthermore, he is at the height of his influence if not popularity amongst ordinary Australians.

The man is 65 years old. He figures the last 8 years was for being careful.... now is the time for being a super important statesman and cementing his legacy. Your kidding yourself if you dont think thats important to Howard at the moment. In fact.... it's ALL he thinks about at this stage in his career: being remembered.

Jesus Christ try to interpret things on a level thats not always 100% literal. I can't believe that someone once tried to tell me that the stereotype of the unimaginative conservative was unfair.

Regarding constitutional change.... its like writing your name in wet cement. It's not like security legislation or gun legislation or taxation legislation.... which can all be recinded by successive governments. Constitutional changes are for permenant. Unless you are uber fucking powerful John Howard in which case you write whatever you want into the constitution.

And lastly....... my problem with senate reform is not the reforms themselves (although it does take a special brand of arrogance to attempt such a thing) its the nature of the reforms that he wants to make. ie: turn the senate into an emasculated rubber stamp (shut up. i can miss-match my metaphors if i want to) of the lower house. In my next post, and i will make this very clear in the post, i'm not some wacko saying "HEY EVERYBODY ADOPT MY SENATE REFORM!". Im merely suggesting hypothetical reforms for the future as a useful way of seeing more clearly what we are up against in the present.

The reason that I am trying to counter your Yankee Stadium anecdote is because it is the closest thing to "evidence" in your writing to suggest that Howard is making decisions based on the fact that he feels powerful and wants to be remembered. If you have any proper evidence whatsoever, then I'd love to speak about that instead.

I have no doubt that politicians want to be remembered. And Howard is probably no exception. But he has done so much during his time in office, he will already be remembered. And yes, over time the things that he has done will be forgotten, but senate reform would just be one more thing that is forgotten with the rest. As I stated in my last post, how many people can remember the past Prime Ministers that instigated constitutional changes? As you would be aware, the answer is, not many.

You seem to "know" a huge amount about what Howard is thinking. It seems that "imaginative" is your strong point. But please try to include more logic and evidence in your arguments, rather than try to guess what someone might be thinking. There is a place for great imagination, but it tends to be more in writing fictional stories, rather than political discussions.

I'll be very interesting to see your suggestions for senate reforms. If Howard really does have a "special brand of arrogance," and it leads to him wanting to change the political system so that governments can do what they were voted in to do, then perhaps it isn't such a bad thing. (well, not bad for Australia. But it would be bad for the minority parties and independents who would lose the power to block things that the government was voted in to do)

John:
>>>After Sept 11, it's pretty clear that terrorists will use whatever is available to do as much damage as they can to innocent civilians. It is therefore undeniable that should they get their hands on a WMD, they would almost certainly use it. Given this fact, how is WMD-proliferation not linked with terrorism?<<<

My comments were in relation to Iraq. I assume you figured that out. Anyway...

It's an indirect link. They are two different problems that require two different sollutions. Terrorism has to be solved through social change and economic progress, as well as covert operations. WMD-proliferation has to be solved through international treaties, multilateral cooperation and the threat of sanctions.

Iraq was not a sponsor of terrorism. Attacking Iraq has done nothing to stop or lesson the threat of terrorism as was suggested it would by the Bush administration. Using the combined threat of WMDs and terrorism as a justification for attacking a sovereign nation is deceptive.
The only reason this specious argument worked on the public is that Iraq is situated in the middle east. If the Bush administration had tried to use this same arguement in relation to say, North Korea, no one would have bought it.

Just for the record, I support(ed) the war in Iraq.

"If you have any proper evidence whatsoever, then I'd love to speak about that instead"

Nope. No evidence here. Pure speculation..... albeit with a pretty sound basis is psychology.

It's 2 real simple tendancies coming together....

1: Howard is at this peak of his power. He will never again be as influential or as popular as he is now.

2: He realises he has ALOT to get finished before he retires. Call this legacy building or call it a rush to finish things he started. It means the same thing: A powerful Prime Minister who no longer cares who he angers.

"There is a place for great imagination, but it tends to be more in writing fictional stories, rather than political discussions."

No way. A lack of imagination in politics is killer. Because beside politics sits policy and how can you possibly see the way forward but in your minds eye with a little bit of imagination?

The next post is out soon. It's theme will be that the senate should be structured to ENCOURAGE minor parties to grow and increase in number.

If you want you can start commenting on that thesis now so i know what to expect in the comments for the next post :D

where's the new post???