Australia's Best Post WWII Prime Minister

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Who do you believe is Australia's best Post World War II Prime Minister?

That in itself is a hard question. Whilst I can easily name Australia's best Prime Minister as whole, John Curtin (1941-1945), it is quite hard to name Australia's best Prime Minister since the conclusion of the Second World War.

At this point I am tempted to say Malcolm Fraser. Whilst his succession to the Lodge was indeed controversial, Fraser was in a sense, a good all-rounder Prime Minister. He was very active in foreign affairs, denouncing white minority rule in Rhodesia, likewise with Apartheid in South Africa. Supported multiculturalism, which thus created the SBS and numerous others. And my most favourite of all, wasn't much of a fan of Treasurer Howard's pro-Thatcher economics.

I've had my say, now who do you believe is Australia's Best Post World War II Prime Minister discuss.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Well... certainly not
- McMahon
- Keating
- Whitlam

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Chifley!

[Platypus]

The most effective was certainly Howard, in terms of satisfying the PMsd support base. In overall effect on the betterment of Australia, Chifley comes on top, and in moral strength, it is probably Whitlam. In averting of catastrophe, Hawke; in maintenance of power, Menzies. Holt-through-Gorton never really had enough time to make an impact. But overall, even if he was defeated hugely in the 1996 election, I have to go with Keating. He might not have been the best in the above catergories, but he was probably the best mix.

[Хahar 🤔]

No contest. Chifley.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

I shouldn't be surprised that Ben Chifley, the locomotive driver from Bathurst is doing as well as he is. Chifley was a very fascinating man, both personally and politically. It amazes me that, he himself after his loss in the 1931 Election, thanks in part to the Great Depression,  he only survived on his Wife's family's money. Something hard to believe for a future Prime Minister, who only became Prime Minister some 14 years later.

Some of you guys might be surprised, especially you Al, to find out I don't mind him. It's more than likely also that had I been around during his tenure in office, I would have voted for him and his Labor Party in the 1946 and 1949 General Elections, primarily because Iron Bob was a massive prick.

Hopefully the next time I am at a book store, hopefully I shall find David Day's 2001 biography on the man. If I don't, I shall be sad .

[Smid]

WARNING - The following viewpoints may be controversial and are highly subjective and very opinionated.

Ben Chifley was okay, but his plan to nationalise the banks and drive Australia down the socialist path would have done more harm then good.

I think Harold Holt had real potential, it's a shame he drowned before he could really exercise it (or got taken by a Chinese submarine, if you believe those conspiracy theories out there).

Gough Whitlam did massive harm to the country's economy - inflation and unemployment both rose dramatically under his stewardship, there was the whole Khemlani loans affair - it wasn't until the second half of the Howard/Costello government that the economy truly got back on its feet. After failing to pass the budget, he should have gone to the Governor-General and called an election - that would have given him the moral high ground during the campaign, especially since money bills, by convention, are votes of confidence in the Government. His one real accomplishment, as touted by his supporters, was his funding of free university education, however this was wound back not by the Liberal Party, but under the Hawke/Keating Labor Government with the introduction of HECS. Whitlam this nation's worst ever Prime Minister.

Malcolm Fraser was a divisive leader - as Minister for Defence, his resignation was pivotal in the earlier collapse of the Gorton Government (John Gorton, I think, could have been a great PM, if this division in his party room had allowed him to remain as PM and leader). He later caused Don Chipp to quit the Liberal Party to form the Democrats (ironic, given that Fraser has subsequently moved so far to the left, when his right-wing views drove out some members of his own party in his day). I think his support of republicanism in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe is unconscienable. In the same way as the political stability in Iraq over the next 10-30 years will be recorded in the history books as a success/failure of Bush's intervention in that country, Zimbabwe's failures following independence and the leadership of Robert Mugabe is directly a result of Malcolm Fraser.

Bob Hawke floated the Aussie dollar. That was a good thing about his Prime Ministership, although whether that was him, or whether that was Keating as Treasurer, I don't know.

Paul Keating is certainly one of the worst characters in Australian political history - between his failures as Treasurer and as PM and also his general character flaws. Obviously the "recession we had to have" was a great example of the elitest views and general disregard for "working families" that characterised Keating.

He rarely debates on points of policy, instead attacking individuals (such as his "desiccated coconut" comment). This is always a good example of a person bereft of ideas and lacking in the ability to discuss opposing points of view rationally.

He overturned a hundred years of case law with the introduction of Capital Gains Tax - previously profits made from the sale of assets such as property had been untaxed, with the judicial view that this was separate from income. In a further attempt to construct tax-and-spend budgets, he also attempted to remove negative gearing tax deductions on investment properties, however was forced to backflip on this when landlords responded by increasing rents (and thus disadvantaging to a greater extent the poor and needy).

He rode roughshod over the concept of an independent central bank, even boasting to have the Governor of the Reserve Bank in his pocket. Youth unemployment hit 25%, interest rates hit 18%, Australia lost its AAA credit rating. He sold off Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank and would have sold off Telstra if he hadn't been tossed out of office in 1996. Privatisation is not a bad thing per se, however he sold off the public assets, spent the money and then racked up even more debt. When finally removed from office, his legacy was $96 billion of public debt. He has subsequently attempted to claim credit for every positive aspect of Australia's economic growth, however his record while Treasurer and PM paint a very different picture. His one redeeming point was his introduction of compulsory superannuation, which will reduce the impact of the pension on future taxpayers (and has already begun to achieve this).

Australia's economic growth over the past decade has been more due to the stewardship of Howard as Prime Minister, and especially Costello as Treasurer. Paying off government debt (and regaining Australia's AAA credit rating) allowed the economy to ride the world market flexibly during some times of massive fluctuations over the past few years. This resulted in the Phillips Curve shifting in, with unemployment falling without a simultaneous rise in inflation (until the last few years - and even now, inflation is still lower than it had been in some previous years). This also brought interest rates down.

Their stewardship allowed the Australian economy to weather the Asian economic crisis of 1997/98, the US recession of 2001 and the worst drought on record without once falling into recession. Their reform of the tax system with the introduction of the GST has helped to curtail inflation by reducing consumer demand (although this is only somewhat).

The Future Fund and the University Fund were groundbreaking ideas and have helped prepare Australia for future economic challenges without placing an increased burden on taxpayers in years to come.

Living standards rose throughout the Howard/Costello government and Australia has taken a new place on the world stage - with a pride of identity that we had lost in the Keating years.

Howard never shied away from controversial reforms/decisions when he considered it to be in the best interests of the country. It's rare to see that type of courage in a politician.

[Cubby]

Whitlam

Howard and Fraser were the worst.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

BUMP

At this point I am tempted to say Malcolm Fraser. Whilst his succession to the Lodge was indeed controversial, Fraser was in a sense, a good all-rounder Prime Minister. He was very active in foreign affairs, denouncing white minority rule in Rhodesia, likewise with Apartheid in South Africa. Supported multiculturalism, which thus created the SBS and numerous others. And my most favourite of all, wasn't much of a fan of Treasurer Howard's pro-Thatcher economics.

Oh dear. I really said that didn't I? Of course I don't believe in it now, as I believe Australia's best Prime Minister since the conclusion off World War Two was (drumroll please)... Joseph Benedict Chifley. An admirable man, who continued the policies of his predecessor John Curtin, whose policies set the foundation in which Australian society is built upon today.

I think Harold Holt had real potential, it's a shame he drowned before he could really exercise it (or got taken by a Chinese submarine, if you believe those conspiracy theories out there).

Holt, even if he returned to Cheviot Beach on the afternoon of December 17 probably would have never exercised such potential. During the time of his disappearance many Liberals had concerns about his leadership, especially after the series of scandals that engulfed the Government throughout 1967, in particular the VIP affair. If anything, I'd expect a Holt premiership from 1967 until 1969 to have been Gortonesque, unable to stamp authority as leader and keep a lid on infighting amongst caucus. However, he might have been able to defeat Whitlam in 1969 due to the ALP's electoral weakness in Victoria, not to mention the flow of DLP preferences.

[k-onmmunist]

Menzies.

[Psychic Octopus]

Menzies.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Hewaahd

[Platypus]

Hewaahd

Is that meant to be a posh British lady with a pineapple stuck up her fanny?

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Hewaahd

Is that meant to be a posh British lady with a pineapple stuck up her fanny?

I sounded Auusstrahllyan in my head

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Menzies.

If I might be able to ask you gentlemen ever so kindly, why? Just because one is a skillful political operator, which Menzies was during his sixteen year tenure as Prime Minister, does not make one a successful Prime Minister. Then again, I guess you can say the same thing about Howard as well.

[Dan the Roman]

1. Menzies
2. Fraser
3. Howard


Howard would be higher but he had the flaw that afflicts many world leaders, not knowing when to quit. Had he left office in 2005, he would have been one of the greatest, but he stayed for one more disastrous term.

[Mordecai]

Paul Keating is certainly one of the worst characters in Australian political history - between his failures as Treasurer and as PM and also his general character flaws.

Not true, he's probably the greatest Treasurer that Australia ever had and one of the greatest Prime Ministers.

Obviously the "recession we had to have" was a great example of the elitest views and general disregard for "working families" that characterised Keating.

Well, it was technically true, it's just like that joke that the only time politicians get in trouble is when they accidentally tell the truth. It was a recession that had to happen, there was no way around it. But Keating did not have general disregard for working families, that was Howard all the way with WorkChoices and his sabotaging of superannuation.

All of Keating's reforms and policies went toward improving the lives of working families.

He rarely debates on points of policy, instead attacking individuals (such as his "desiccated coconut" comment). This is always a good example of a person bereft of ideas and lacking in the ability to discuss opposing points of view rationally.

Nonsense. Keating was full of imagination (as you can see in his insults, which are the icing on the cake) and is probably one of the best at being about to debate on points of policy. The conservatives mainly hate him because he ran rings around them and embarrassed them.

He rode roughshod over the concept of an independent central bank, even boasting to have the Governor of the Reserve Bank in his pocket. Youth unemployment hit 25%, interest rates hit 18%, Australia lost its AAA credit rating.

Only because it followed the economic boom of the 1980s from his reforms.

He sold off Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank and would have sold off Telstra if he hadn't been tossed out of office in 1996. Privatisation is not a bad thing per se, however he sold off the public assets, spent the money and then racked up even more debt.

Howard continued the privatization of the Commonwealth Bank, going further than Keating did, and Howard was also responsible for the privatization of Telstra so I'm not sure what your point is. Howard squandered his revenue on middle class welfare and refused to lift the minimum contribution for superannuation when he presided over economic boom, which was a lost opportunity for the Baby Boomers.

When finally removed from office, his legacy was $96 billion of public debt.

That's disingenuous, you'll blame him for the debt but won't credit him for the reforms and policies that created a modern economy when he handed over power to Howard and Costello in 1996.

He has subsequently attempted to claim credit for every positive aspect of Australia's economic growth, however his record while Treasurer and PM paint a very different picture.

He does deserve credit, he was responsible for floating the dollar, the six pillars policy preventing the big four banks from merging, decentralization of wage fixing and introducing enterprise bargaining, reduction of tariffs, the Prices and Incomes accord, moving the Australian economy away from dependence on the United States and the United Kingdom and opening up trade and foreign investment with the rising Asian economies, and compulsory Superannuation which made the first moves to solve the ageing Baby Boomer crisis and also creating a massive domestic savings pool for the private sector.

His one redeeming point was his introduction of compulsory superannuation, which will reduce the impact of the pension on future taxpayers (and has already begun to achieve this).

Compulsory superannuation was a damn big achievement considering the discussions now about how we are going to take care of the Baby Boomers, Keating was twenty years ahead of everyone else on that one and Howard and Costello completely f[Inks]ed up by refusing to lift the minimum contribution. Keating's plan was for it to eventually be lifted to 15% (or to at least 12%, at the bare minimum) but he left office before it could happen and then Howard broke his promise to lift it.

Australia's economic growth over the past decade has been more due to the stewardship of Howard as Prime Minister, and especially Costello as Treasurer. Paying off government debt (and regaining Australia's AAA credit rating) allowed the economy to ride the world market flexibly during some times of massive fluctuations over the past few years. This resulted in the Phillips Curve shifting in, with unemployment falling without a simultaneous rise in inflation (until the last few years - and even now, inflation is still lower than it had been in some previous years). This also brought interest rates down.

Howard and Costello rode off of Hawke and Keating's economic reforms. Any fool would have been able to preside over that economic growth with the reforms in place.

Furthermore, if Howard was such a great economic manager, why, when he was Fraser's Treasurer, did he let wages grow by 16 per cent, creating a recession with stagnant growth of 1.4 per cent, high inflation at 11 per cent and unemployment at 11 per cent? At least Keating's recession killed the inflation problem, after Howard's recession there was still double-digit inflation.

Their stewardship allowed the Australian economy to weather the Asian economic crisis of 1997/98, the US recession of 2001 and the worst drought on record without once falling into recession. Their reform of the tax system with the introduction of the GST has helped to curtail inflation by reducing consumer demand (although this is only somewhat).

No, once again they rode off the reforms of Hawke and Keating. They avoided the Asian economic crisis because by that time Australia had a floating exchange rate.

Living standards rose throughout the Howard/Costello government and Australia has taken a new place on the world stage - with a pride of identity that we had lost in the Keating years.

Living standards rose because of Keating's economic reforms.

Howard never shied away from controversial reforms/decisions when he considered it to be in the best interests of the country. It's rare to see that type of courage in a politician.

What reforms?

[Platypus]

I'm going to go with Gillard now.

Mostly serious.

[Cubby]

Thank you for bumping this. I always enjoy a trip down memory lane

WARNING - The following viewpoints may be controversial and are highly subjective and very opinionated.

Gough Whitlam did massive harm to the country's economy - inflation and unemployment both rose dramatically under his stewardship, there was the whole Khemlani loans affair - it wasn't until the second half of the Howard/Costello government that the economy truly got back on its feet. After failing to pass the budget, he should have gone to the Governor-General and called an election - that would have given him the moral high ground during the campaign, especially since money bills, by convention, are votes of confidence in the Government. His one real accomplishment, as touted by his supporters, was his funding of free university education, however this was wound back not by the Liberal Party, but under the Hawke/Keating Labor Government with the introduction of HECS. Whitlam this nation's worst ever Prime Minister.

Good thing you had Queen Elizabeth do the dirty work of getting rid of him then. Really, the worst? Hyperbole much? No matter what he did as PM the fact that he was overthrown like Mossadegh and Allende minus the bloodshed means he's far superior to that arrogant Bush-clone Howard.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Someone majored in Soviet Propaganda in college.

Hawke, Keating......very bad

Howard/Costello......very good    and they love their country and they did it for the people they love and rah rah patriotism

If you love Howard so much why don't you marry him? Oh that's right, Howard banned gay marriage in 2004. How ironic that he did it the same year as Bush.

[Platypus]

Smid is not now and was not half a decade ago a homophobe, mate. In fact, I believe he has a particularly nuanced view on gay marriage.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

and the Queen didn't remove Whitlam... it was the Governor-General who did NOT seek the Queen's advice.

[Mordecai]

Gough Whitlam did massive harm to the country's economy - inflation and unemployment both rose dramatically under his stewardship,

There was an oil shock in the middle of his term. That wasn't his fault.

His one real accomplishment, as touted by his supporters, was his funding of free university education, however this was wound back not by the Liberal Party, but under the Hawke/Keating Labor Government with the introduction of HECS. Whitlam this nation's worst ever Prime Minister.

What about abolition of the death penalty, the Racial Discrimination Act, universal health care, the Trade Practices Act 1974, no-fault divorce, the Family Law Act 1975, the Australia Council for the Arts, the Federal Court, the Order of Australia, federal legal aid, needs-based schools funding, recognition of China, the Law Reform Commission, abolition of conscription, FM radio, the Heritage Commission, non-discriminatory immigration rules, Aboriginal land rights, lowering the voting age to 18 years, fair electoral boundaries, and Senate representation for the territories?

[BaconBacon96]

I've always had an affinity for John Howard.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think Rudd would be up there if Australia had a Semi-Presidential system, with Gillard as a PM. All of Rudd's flaws (disliking dealing with members of his own party, trouble negotiating with things, his micromanagement, his obsession with public popularity) would have been less important; and the position would have complemented his own skills.

That would mean whenever he got completely insane, Gillard could quietly get on with it; while he would bask contented with high poll ratings, and dream of replacing Ban-Ki-Moon or Pope Benedict or whoever else Rudd thinks he's better than.

[Cubby]

and the Queen didn't remove Whitlam... it was the Governor-General who did NOT seek the Queen's advice.

These governor-general people seem to be nothing but trouble, have they ever made a major policy decision that wasn't terrible?

In Canada, Michelle Jean did what Harper told her to and prorogued Parliament so that the other parties couldn't form a government in 2008, I was very disappointed by that.

And in 1975 John Kerr, well we all know what happened there. In both countries the public just accepted what happened and not only barely protested, they elected Conservative governments soon after!