Worst PM ever?

[Sky Pilot]

Keating was a recognised failure, Hawke was an unfaithful shallow short man with an insufferable arrogance that even surpassed Howards later years. Whitlam was just out of his league although I voted for him. Rudd the dud no argument. Gillard is a screetching witch and an embarrasment to all of us except those who love Bob Brown and his map of Tasmania.
We are doomed.

[southee]

Keating was a recognised failure, Hawke was an unfaithful shallow short man with an insufferable arrogance that even surpassed Howards later years. Whitlam was just out of his league although I voted for him. Rudd the dud no argument. Gillard is a screetching witch and an embarrasment to all of us except those who love Bob Brown and his map of Tasmania.
We are doomed.

It's a terrible time for politics ATM......bloody awful

[GWW]

Keating was a recognised failure, Hawke was an unfaithful shallow short man with an insufferable arrogance that even surpassed Howards later years. Whitlam was just out of his league although I voted for him. Rudd the dud no argument. Gillard is a screetching witch and an embarrasment to all of us except those who love Bob Brown and his map of Tasmania.
We are doomed.

And Abbott would probably be worse than all of them

[redandblack]

Keating was a recognised failure, Hawke was an unfaithful shallow short man with an insufferable arrogance that even surpassed Howards later years. Whitlam was just out of his league although I voted for him. Rudd the dud no argument. Gillard is a screetching witch and an embarrasment to all of us except those who love Bob Brown and his map of Tasmania.
We are doomed.

This is about who is the worst PM, so I'll try to stick to facts as opposed to just our partisan opinions. Worst PM would indicate a PM who either achieved nothing, or was bad for the country, or was widely regarded as being not up to the job.

I would contend that several PM's fit some of those categories, but not all. Malcolm Fraser was regarded as a failure by many Liberal MP's. I think John Howard was a proven liar and introduced fear of other cultures as a political tactic. Paul Keating was arrogant, Kevin Rudd didn't follow through on important issues and Gough Whitlam led in difficult times and couldn't control his troops.

Each of these, however, regardless of one's bias, achieved different things. I'm not sure what Fraser achieved, but he wasn’t the worst PM ever. Whitlam stopped conscription, recognized China and led an exciting transformation of the country after 23 years of Liberal government. Howard had his GST and Liberal supporters can say what else. Keating and Hawke transformed our economy, which even John Howard recognized as a great achievement and Kevin Rudd, in his short time, gave one of the greatest speeches in the history of Australia and made a giant step forward with his apology to the stolen generations, as well as getting Australia through the GFC better than any country in the world.

Julia Gillard has been PM for less than a year. She has already achieved some health reform, has started, at last, to tackle climate change, whether you agree or not and leads a government that has consistently achieved low interest rates, low unemployment, low inflation and good growth. They are facts, not opinion.

To just wipe every Labor or Liberal PM because you don’t like them is fine, but it doesn’t prove anything except our bias. My bias is that Howard was a poor PM, but that won’t be accepted as correct.

To those who didn’t know Billy McMahon as PM, I can assure you, as many on here have said, that he did nothing, stuffed up what he tried to do, wasn’t up to the job, was bad for the country and even most Liberal MP’s sighed with relief, along with most of the country when he was comfortably rolled at the election.

[Media Park]

Keating
Daylight
Gillard

[Hellboy]

Keating was a recognised failure, Hawke was an unfaithful shallow short man with an insufferable arrogance that even surpassed Howards later years. Whitlam was just out of his league although I voted for him. Rudd the dud no argument. Gillard is a screetching witch and an embarrasment to all of us except those who love Bob Brown and his map of Tasmania.
We are doomed.

This is about who is the worst PM, so I'll try to stick to facts as opposed to just our partisan opinions. Worst PM would indicate a PM who either achieved nothing, or was bad for the country, or was widely regarded as being not up to the job.

I would contend that several PM's fit some of those categories, but not all. Malcolm Fraser was regarded as a failure by many Liberal MP's. I think John Howard was a proven liar and introduced fear of other cultures as a political tactic. Paul Keating was arrogant, Kevin Rudd didn't follow through on important issues and Gough Whitlam led in difficult times and couldn't control his troops.

Each of these, however, regardless of one's bias, achieved different things. I'm not sure what Fraser achieved, but he wasn’t the worst PM ever. Whitlam stopped conscription, recognized China and led an exciting transformation of the country after 23 years of Liberal government. Howard had his GST and Liberal supporters can say what else. Keating and Hawke transformed our economy, which even John Howard recognized as a great achievement and Kevin Rudd, in his short time, gave one of the greatest speeches in the history of Australia and made a giant step forward with his apology to the stolen generations, as well as getting Australia through the GFC better than any country in the world.

Julia Gillard has been PM for less than a year. She has already achieved some health reform, has started, at last, to tackle climate change, whether you agree or not and leads a government that has consistently achieved low interest rates, low unemployment, low inflation and good growth. They are facts, not opinion.

To just wipe every Labor or Liberal PM because you don’t like them is fine, but it doesn’t prove anything except our bias. My bias is that Howard was a poor PM, but that won’t be accepted as correct.

To those who didn’t know Billy McMahon as PM, I can assure you, as many on here have said, that he did nothing, stuffed up what he tried to do, wasn’t up to the job, was bad for the country and even most Liberal MP’s sighed with relief, along with most of the country when he was comfortably rolled at the election.

I am genuinely shocked at that statement - they have achieved nothing, have very shallow policies and absolutely no vision at all. And to say they are facts and not your opinion - I must admit, your faith in your own opinion is admirable

[Psyber]

I'm with you Hellboy.
I've been posting links to articles from inside medical sources about how the health policies are falling over in various ways for some time.
Many of these pointed out the flaws in the design that made the collapse inevitable - a kind of built in self-destruct..

For example:
1. "Superclinics" can't get doctors because they decided that rather than "employ" doctors as promised they would get them to relocate existing practices and pay much higher rents.
2. They offered to fund extra Practice Nurses - if the doctors paid them first, did all the ATO and superannuation paper work, and waited 3 months for reimbursement.
They ignored the necessary clinical supervision by the GP who would have to cut patient contact time leaving patients waiting longer for appointments and the GP out of pocket for that time.

Predictably, GPs are not embracing these plans in droves, and the government can save the money while blaming the GPs for the non-delivery.

[redandblack]

Well, hellboy, I'm happy to back my statements as more factual than yours.

I said she has achieved some health reform. That's a fact. You might not like what she's doing, but she's struck an agreement with the States. Fact.

I said she's started on climate change action. You might not like what she's doing, but it's a fact.

I said she leads a government that has presided over low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment and good growth. Again, you might not like it, but it's a FACT.

Look at what you say.

'They have achieved nothing' Obviously opinion and not factual.

'Have very shallow policies.' Again, opinion, not fact.

'Have no vision at all". Again, opinion, not fact.

I'm criticised for my opinions, fair enough, so I'm trying to support that with facts. Perhaps you can point out where my facts are wrong, with factual rebiuttal, not just 'they're hopeless" type arguments.

Perhaps you could also let me know the policies and vision that Tony Abbott is putting forward, as I must have missed them somewhere.

[southee]

Well, hellboy, I'm happy to back my statements as more factual than yours.

I said she has achieved some health reform. That's a fact. You might not like what she's doing, but she's struck an agreement with the States. Fact.

I said she's started on climate change action. You might not like what she's doing, but it's a fact.

I said she leads a government that has presided over low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment and good growth. Again, you might not like it, but it's a FACT.

Look at what you say.

'They have achieved nothing' Obviously opinion and not factual.

'Have very shallow policies.' Again, opinion, not fact.

'Have no vision at all". Again, opinion, not fact.

I'm criticised for my opinions, fair enough, so I'm trying to support that with facts. Perhaps you can point out where my facts are wrong, with factual rebiuttal, not just 'they're hopeless" type arguments.

Perhaps you could also let me know the policies and vision that Tony Abbott is putting forward, as I must have missed them somewhere.

She has achieved nothing....Rudd achieved the same and look what happened to him....how is Gillard so ahead in the above mentioned???

[redandblack]

southee, nowhere have I said she's 'ahead'.

She's been in for less than 12 months, so no political observer would judge her yet.

If you're going to quote my post and respond to it, at least have the courtesy to read it first. I note you haven't pointed out any factual evidence at all.

Saying she's achieved nothing is just your opinion.

As far as bias is concerned, we're all biased, but at least I periodically praise various Liberal MP's.

That's something you rarely, if ever, do. Like Tony Abbott, it's just 100% negative about everything to do with the Government..

[Psyber]

The Health reform agreement with the states is a watered down version of what Rudd proposed.
There is some extra Federal funding, but it has not changed the fundamentals.
The buck-passing between state and federal governments over who is responsible for the deficiencies can now go on as usual.
The states were always going to accept an agreement for extra federal money and no other major charge.

[Hellboy]

Well, hellboy, I'm happy to back my statements as more factual than yours.

I said she has achieved some health reform. That's a fact. You might not like what she's doing, but she's struck an agreement with the States. Fact.

I said she's started on climate change action. You might not like what she's doing, but it's a fact.

I said she leads a government that has presided over low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment and good growth. Again, you might not like it, but it's a FACT.

Look at what you say.

'They have achieved nothing' Obviously opinion and not factual.

'Have very shallow policies.' Again, opinion, not fact.

'Have no vision at all". Again, opinion, not fact.

I'm criticised for my opinions, fair enough, so I'm trying to support that with facts. Perhaps you can point out where my facts are wrong, with factual rebiuttal, not just 'they're hopeless" type arguments.

Perhaps you could also let me know the policies and vision that Tony Abbott is putting forward, as I must have missed them somewhere.

Well, aren't you just a very grumpy old man
My comments are clearly my opinion because I dont state they are fact like you do
I bet you find nobody will discuss politics with you in real life because you are biased, opinionated and argumentative
Maybe thats why you're on here all the time
I see you are a Moderator - that sets the bar very low for the behaviour of everyone else on here

[redandblack]

I presume that lot of personal abuse is your substitute for debate and your lack of any argument?

As for behaviour, I note that you have already run foul of another Moderator and I'd suggest you read the rules of the site, as your post, which consists only of personal abuse, should also be deleted under those rules.

I enjoyed it, though, so it can stay

[dedja]

Keating was a recognised failure, Hawke was an unfaithful shallow short man with an insufferable arrogance that even surpassed Howards later years. Whitlam was just out of his league although I voted for him. Rudd the dud no argument. Gillard is a screetching witch and an embarrasment to all of us except those who love Bob Brown and his map of Tasmania.
We are doomed.

This is about who is the worst PM, so I'll try to stick to facts as opposed to just our partisan opinions. Worst PM would indicate a PM who either achieved nothing, or was bad for the country, or was widely regarded as being not up to the job.

I would contend that several PM's fit some of those categories, but not all. Malcolm Fraser was regarded as a failure by many Liberal MP's. I think John Howard was a proven liar and introduced fear of other cultures as a political tactic. Paul Keating was arrogant, Kevin Rudd didn't follow through on important issues and Gough Whitlam led in difficult times and couldn't control his troops.

Each of these, however, regardless of one's bias, achieved different things.

What he said ...

Little Johnny Howard would have been a failure if Keating was, but he wasn't and little Johnny wasn't either, even though I despised many of his policies.

Anyone who thinks Keating was the worst PM ever doesn't understand politics ...

[dedja]

Keating was a recognised failure

By who's reckoning?

Did the financial reforms of the 80's and 90's happen by themselves?

[mick]

I think if one takes Keating's career as a whole, he was a successful economic reformer, unfortunately he wasn't able to persuade Hawke and the ALP on the merits of a GST early in is first term as treasurer. I think Keating was less successful as a PM, however, he was immensely un-popular which tends to cloud people's view of him. I always enjoy seeing Keating interviewed there is no denying he has a superior intellect, and a firm grasp on economic matters, his achievements in his career are all the more amazing considering his lack of formal education. Don't get me wrong, Im not turning pinko, I was happy to see the end of him as PM but credit where credit is due, he had a stellar career by any measure.

[Gozu]

On Former Labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam:

"In terms of the Labor agenda this government has left every other Labor government bare arsed. No other government even gets within cooee of it. We have a cabinet which has a degree of economic sophistication which puts the Whitlam government into the cavemen class in economic terms."


In conversation with Whitlam:

Whitlam: "That was a good speech. You should go back comrade, and get yourself an honours degree."

Keating: "What for ? Then I'd be like you."

http://www.webcity.com.au/keating/

[Sky Pilot]

Gillard is the worst PM this country has ever seen. Leaves McMahon for dead. He was a dunce - she is just a screeching left wing banshee who is caving in to the Greens.

[dedja]

She's certainly not the best ...

[cripple]

worst PM in my life.... peter costello when little johnny was out of the country

To be honest i dont know how any of us can sit here and cast aspersions towards others about their selection for worst PM ever. Maybe Bruce from the 20's should get a mention as we was the first PM to lose his seat at an election with Howard being the second. I know who i like and dislike but not confident to say who the worst was.