News 
 National News 
 National 
 General 
 Rudd has no shame, Howard says 

Rudd has no shame, Howard says

9/07/2008 9:59:00 AM
Former prime minister John Howard has accused his successor and his government of having no shame, and no theme.

And, at a speech in Perth last night, he pointed to the recent Gippsland by-election as proof the public is starting to doubt the credibility of the Rudd government.

"I think that two things have begun to implant themselves in the minds of the Australian people. The first is the absolutely dishonest and pathetic attempt by (Labor) that somehow they (inherited) an economic mess. They have no shame," Mr Howard said.

"How members of a political party that left us with the enormous problems we inherited should dare to do that ...

"(The second is) the new Prime Minister doesn't seem to have a theme. Politics is about conviction. Politics is not just about the joy of being in government.

"But you seem to get the impression that my successor is more interested in the process of government than the opportunity of leadership that government provides."

Mr Howard said that while the Liberals had been shut out of every state and federal government, they should not forget their roots.

"However despairing we may feel politically, however much we may think the political tide has turned against us, we must always remember our party is almost overwhelmingly the party of the individual."

In a rare Australian public appearance, and even rarer commentary on the present state of politics, Mr Howard also lashed out at the South African government.

He told the audience that the Gippsland by-election, held at the end of June, had echoes of the Whitlam era.

Labor suffered a swing against it of 6.42 per cent, as Darren Chester easily retained the provincial Victorian seat for the Nationals.

Philip Ruddock achieved a 9 per cent swing against the incumbent Labor government when winning a by-election for the NSW seat of Parramatta in 1973, just a year after Gough Whitlam ended two decades of Liberal rule. Labor was swept from power just two years later.

Mr Howard said he would "do everything I can" to help federal opposition leader Brendan Nelson and deputy Julie Bishop, but it would be in a "quiet and unobtrusive way".

Meanwhile, Mr Howard savaged southern African nations, and particularly South Africa, for their handling of the Zimbabwe crisis.

He said that action should have been taken five years ago, pointing to a Commonwelath Heads of Government meeting in 2003, when Australia, South Africa and Nigeria were tasked with resolving the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe.

"It was clear to me then ... that there was no interest within the ranks of the leadership in South Africa to bring pressure on Mugabe. If the requisite pressure had been placed ... by South Africa in particular we would not have seen the disaster that has unfolded over the last (five) years."

Mr Howard said rather than holding "starry eyed" views about international organisations, Australia had realised that "if you want to get anything done in the world" it had to do so with like-minded liberal democratic nations.

Send to a Friend
Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size



Comments


you're a complete tosser Howard....crawl back under your rock and wait for your evil little mates Bush and Cheney to come and join you in historical oblivion...
Posted by porge on 9/07/2008 10:15:00 AM
At least he's old, and we probably won't have to put up with this man's ego for much longer.
Posted by Aaron on 9/07/2008 11:44:12 AM
What help could little Johnny possibly be to Nelson and Bishop, yeah it would have to be behind the scenes, your own electorate gave you the big A. Porge said it all, right on mate
Posted by Char on 22/07/2008 8:02:12 PM
What's sad is he is right. The labor party have made fools out of those of us who voted for them. I really felt that Rudd would be great for this country, but all he has been is an ineffectual waste (think George Bush senior-ineffectual). And now with the beyond laughable state that the federal liberal party is in, I have concerns for our nations future.
Posted by Ari on 22/07/2008 9:23:25 PM
What is the difference between Howard and Rudd, they both are like two peas in a pod. They both did nothing for the people of Australia or for the country, it was all for their party and themselves. Howard sold off the country and Rudd's never in the country and when he is he might as well not be here for all the good he does, or should that be bad as in bad government as he is good at that and promising millions of dollars to other countries, while Australia's debt per person is over $50,000 and still climbing the way he keeps promising, it should be near S100,000 within his first year. Maybe its time to get a Governor-General like Kerr, at least he sacked the Whitlam Government for being a bad government.
Posted by deebee on 1/08/2008 11:08:24 AM
1

Post A Comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.

10:59 AM AEST | This top designer remains the only person I've ever met who used the word "genius" to describe himself, writes Claire Low.
World Cup
 
ANU Open Day
 
CT Home Delivery
 
Classifieds