John Howard’s dramatic re-entry in the political debate is notable for two reasons - the former PM has steadfastly refused requests for anniversary-type interviews, and he has also said repeatedly he would not “do a Keating” by commenting on domestic affairs, save to defend his record.

His interview with The Herald-Sun’s senior writer John Hamilton went well beyond defending his own record - rather, it was an exocet missile aimed squarely at Kevin Rudd’s record, most provocatively on border protection. The word in Liberal ranks is that the interview went ahead with the knowledge and support of Malcolm Turnbull, who has been buoyed by a Newspoll turnaround widely attributed to the border question. EMC director and Punch contributor Peter Lewis detected the same sentiment.
Lefties will regard the re-emergence of the man they despise as like something from a horror film. But the many millions of Australians who still voted for Howard in 2007 - and more disturbingly for Labor, some swinging voters who gently saw him off with no major sense of animosity - will have been interested to hear the input from the man from the toughness side of the ledger on unauthorised arrivals.
Howard’s intervention covered several themes - he labelled Rudd a “do-nothing” PM and a lousy economic manager who had squandered the surplus bequeathed to him - but it was the asylum question which resonated most strongly with the public.
On a normally sleepy Sunday, more than 400 people logged on to comment at dailytelegraph.com.au alone, with the comments ranging from the shut-up-John-you-lost variety, to why-did-we-ever-vote-this-man-out.
Will Labor be worried? Not sure. Howard’s spruiking of his policy reforms - he cited gun laws, the waterfront, IR and tax reform - is a bit of a mixed bag. It may only serve to remind some voters of what they saw as the excesses of Workchoices.
But one thing that came through most clearly - and it’s in contrast to Rudd at the moment with his tough-but-fair mantra, which appears to be confusing some voters on the asylum debate - is how clear and direct and comprehensible Howard’s positions on big issues always were, whether you liked them or not. His 11-year reign was due in no small part to the clarity of his convictions, and his talent for explaining them in plain language, which are two things Kevin Rudd might reflect on as he negotiates his way through a challenging phase.
Facebook Recommendations
Read all about it
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision
The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision
Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses
Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…
Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this
Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…
Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?
ClubsNSW is set to introduce a fresh new effort to combat schoolyard intimidation, insisting on a principal’s…
Gentle jabs to the ribs
They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more
Most commented