Sir John Howard

[Julia]

John Howard wasn't perfect, but overall he ran Australia with a certain calm resolve.
This is utterly different from the hysterical ranting that characterises parliament these days.

I never once heard him ranting in that ghastly shrewish tone so unbecoming to the present Prime Minister.

I might be wrong, but I'd say the current disaffection for both sides of politicians at present is largely because of their pathetically childish accusation and counter-accusation. The electorate has no interest in their stupid squabbling. We just want them to have a bit of dignity, and a level of integrity which might just begin to convince us that they have even the slightest interest in actually running the country for the benefit of the Australian people.

Instead of that, we see the government instigating a damaging class war, defending people who abuse funds, and above all, acting in their own personal interests.
No wonder the dissatisfaction rating of both leaders is where it is.

 

[Caveman]

and made workers proud of their achievements,

gg

By rewarding them with Workchoices?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorkChoices

 

[Caveman]

John Howard encouraged apprenticeships and training

gg

Well I think this is rubbish,you got any links GG?

 

[MrBurns]

Well I think this is rubbish,you got any links GG?

No links needed , anyone who handles the economy correctly automatically encourages all levels of employment.

 

[Caveman]

I dont think he gave a stuff about tradesmen apprentices and training untill their was a dire skill shortage.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Well I think this is rubbish,you got any links GG?

Certainly Caveman,

A 161% increase in apprenticeships under Mr.Howard.from 1996 to 2006.

He increased apprenticeships and encouraged workers in every year he led this country. All the present muppets do is bring in taxes, like the carbon tax which cause workers to lose jobs, and the first ones to go are apprentices.

403,600 Australian Apprentices in training in the March Quarter 2006 – a 161% increase since the Coalition was elected in 1996, latest vocational and technical education figures released today reveal.

Figures from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER), are proof the Australian Government’s initiatives and Work Choices changes were encouraging people to seize training opportunities, particularly in the trades.

The report also shows that in the 12 months to March 31, 2006, there were significant increases in Australian Apprenticeship commencements, including in higher level qualifications and Australian School-based Apprenticeships.

“Australian Apprenticeship commencements grew to 271,100, an increase of 5%, Australian Apprenticeship completions grew to 142,600, an increase of 6%, and there was a 6% increase in the number of females taking up Australian Apprenticeships,” Mr Ruddock said.

The NCVER data also shows 16,100 Australian School-based Apprentices commenced in the last 12 months an increase of 23% over the previous 12 months.

“These increases are tangible evidence of the effectiveness of the Australian (Howard)Government initiatives

http://www.ruddockmp.com.au/Berowra...-APPRENTICESHIPS-UNDER-HOWARD-GOVERNMENT.aspx

gg

 

[Ves]

Can you post some figures regarding the increase in Australia's productivity under Howard? More skilled employees (well, apprenticeships leading to more skilled workers) mean that it should have risen dramatically?

 

[Caveman]

lol i wasnt really looking for a Liberal Party source

 

[sptrawler]

Spain and Ireland were both in surplus until their property markets tanked. Like to take a guess where state governments get a fair whack of their revenue?

We have the highest household indebtedness in the world and run a current account deficit. What's really happened is that government saving has forced the household sector to borrow more in order to finance the CAD.

It's hardly a ringing endorsement for the 10 years to 2007.

Maybe you should re read your post.
That is the biggest crock I have heard in a long time. Get a grip.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

John Howard has always behaved with decorum.

None of his office organised a riot wherein he lost a shoe.

On the other hand, he has had shoes offered to him, which he graciously declined.

When did that ever happen to the muppets we have leading the ALP?

gg

 

[Calliope]

John Howard has always behaved with decorum.

None of his office organised a riot wherein he lost a shoe.

On the other hand, he has had shoes offered to him, which he graciously declined.

When did that ever happen to the muppets we have leading the ALP?

gg

You have certainly exposed all the Howard haters GG. Perhaps you should nominate an award for the nastiest.

It reminds me that Phillip Adams prided himself on being Australia's leading Howard Hater. He had a period of withdrawal when Howard was deposed. He has now switched to being a Gillard hater...but only because he loves Rudd.

 

[McLovin]

Maybe you should re read your post.
That is the biggest crock I have heard in a long time. Get a grip.

Which part?

 

[Ves]

Which part?

Struggling to see it too.

Also notice that GG has ignored my post on productivity. Funny that!

 

[MrBurns]

Struggling to see it too.

Also notice that GG has ignored my post on productivity. Funny that!

I would too, go research if you doubt.

gg is a respected authority in here and has to justify nothing.

 

[Julia]

Also notice that GG has ignored my post on productivity. Funny that!

I couldn't count the times I've posed a request for justification/information to various posters and received no response.
It aids the discussion if we do all respond to anything we're asked, but it's not obligatory.

 

[sptrawler]

Which part?

The part where you infer the gov saving, forced households to borrow to support the current account defecit and blame the years from 1997-2007.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Can you post some figures regarding the increase in Australia's productivity under Howard? More skilled employees (well, apprenticeships leading to more skilled workers) mean that it should have risen dramatically?

My apologies Vespuria,

I did not wish to ignore you, but had to await the return of our chief economist here at the Ross Island Hotel from a sojourn in the Stanley St. Watchouse.

As is normal for economists he needed to be oiled, but eventually he stopped shaking and managed to give me an answer.

I must admit as a non-economist I found it hard to follow. He dribbled words such as aggregation, determinants, Ireland, USA, Keating, Howard, entrepreneurial action being preferable to socialist input, but nary a mention of Rudd or Gillard. Before he was taken by a fit and an Ambulance was called.

He did suggest a recent paper from the IPA library which may help you, I'm buggered if I can understand it.

http://ipa.org.au/library/publication/1331585603_document_davidson_desilva_productivity.pdf

gg

 

[McLovin]

The part where you infer the gov saving, forced households to borrow to support the current account defecit and blame the years from 1997-2007.

The three sectors (public/private/external) need to balance to zero. It is impossible to have a government sector that is a net saver have the economy running a CAD, and have the private sector as a net saver. This isn't theory it's accounting fact. You sum the government surplus and the CAD together and you get the net negative savings amount of the private sector. So all that happened was the debt was transferred from the public to private sector. The end result being an overindebted household sector. If you want to, have a look at how unindebted households are in countries like Italy and Greece, in that instance the government paid for the CAD not the private sector. The result is more or less the same, it's just who has the debt at the end of the party.

 

[sptrawler]

The three sectors (public/private/external) need to balance to zero. It is impossible to have a government sector that is a net saver have the economy running a CAD, and have the private sector as a net saver. This isn't theory it's accounting fact. You sum the government surplus and the CAD together and you get the net negative savings amount of the private sector. So all that happened was the debt was transferred from the public to private sector. The end result being an overindebted household sector. If you want to, have a look at how unindebted households are in countries like Italy and Greece, in that instance the government paid for the CAD not the private sector. The result is more or less the same, it's just who has the debt at the end of the party.

Doesn't private sector debt include all non Gov debt? Not just household debt?

 

[McLovin]

Doesn't private sector debt include all non Gov debt? Not just household debt?

Yes, and?