Australian Never-Were Prime Ministers (from Menzies)..

Which would you change?

  • Howard (2007)

    Votes: 7 29.2%
  • Latham (2004)

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • Beazley (2001 or 1998)

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • Keating (1996)

    Votes: 4 16.7%
  • Hewson (1993)

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • Peacock (1990 or 1984)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Howard (1987)

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • Fraser (1983)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Hayden (1980)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Whitlam (1977 or 1975 or 1969)

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • Snedden (1974)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • McMahon (1972)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Calwell (1966 or 1963 or 1961)

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • Evatt (1958 or 1955 or 1954)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Chifley (1951 or 1949)

    Votes: 3 12.5%

  • Total voters
    24
Howard by a wide margin. Fraser's now become a republican LINO who can't seem to remain fully clothed in hotels of ill-repute. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Chifley in '49. Labor could have won that election if just a few things had been different in the previous two years--I think most other potential scenarios here involve governments losing, or Oppositions imploding.

So for a couple of simple PODs Chif gets just an extra term in office. Yet that would see the greatest change in Oz history for the least effort (I started a TL on this very subject here and at SHWI; maybe I'll continue it one of these days.)

(BTW, the title of this thread is confusing. Half of the options did serve as PM.)

Howard by a wide margin. Fraser's now become a republican LINO

There is no such word as 'LINO', Roguebeaver.

Were'd you get that? From an Australian poster at Free Republic? (I notice that most of the references you make about subjects outside of the '60/'74 era tend to be a bit freeperish. You really should enrol in some better history classes the next semester.)
 
I'm torn Howard was a great PM and while I am sure there would have been some stimulus and a deficet he wouldn't have created Rudd Debt Disaster.
On the other hand Hewson would have been great in '93, Fightback! was the most solid policy manifesto in history. Though of course he would have needed the Senate.
 
Wow, surprising number of Australian Liberals here. :eek:

I voted for Chifley in 1949. My second choice would be Whitlam in 1969, third choice Whitlam in 1975, fourth choice Beazley in 1998, fifth choice Latham in 2004 (hey, I liked him despite the blustering, and if it makes you feel any better he'd only last a couple of months anyway and then Jenny Macklin becomes PM in 2005).

Who voted for Calwell? I don't think much of his stance on the WAP...
 
I want Latham. Sure he may have been crazy but at least he believed in things (which is something most recent Labor leaders can't claim). Rudd believes in popularity polls. He will say and do anything to remain popular. Latham would do what he felt was right even if the polls went South.
 
I've always thought Kim Beazley could have been a very capable PM, he did come close a few times.

I do wonder about the impact of a Beazley leadership, especially in regards to foreign policy and defense, the latter even more so given that he was minister for that field during the Hawke years.

There's something that my History teacher said about him a long while ago that has stayed with me

"His language always seems aloof and far too academic. And he never presents himself well, always seems out of breath and has crumbs on his jacket as if he's just eaten before an interview."

:D
 
Last edited:
Chif in '49, of course. He was one of the most decent men to ever serve as Prime Minister of Australia and one whom oversaw profound change (ah yes, when Laborites fought for what they believed in no matter the political costs). Such a scenario would have some rather fascinating ramifications, not only politically (no split in 1954 among other things) but also economically, that's if the High Court deemed his government's attempts to nationalise the banks legal in 1947. And saying this, I don't even consider myself to be a Laborite!
 
Rocky Racoon said:
Chif in '49, of course. He was one of the most decent men to ever serve as Prime Minister of Australia and one whom oversaw profound change (ah yes, when Laborites fought for what they believed in no matter the political costs). Such a scenario would have some rather fascinating ramifications, not only politically (no split in 1954 among other things) but also economically, that's if the High Court deemed his government's attempts to nationalise the banks legal in 1947. And saying this, I don't even consider myself to be a Laborite.

I don't think getting the HCoA to allow the '47 banking nationalisation is enough--the privy council didn't reverse OTL's decision, so I'm inclined to believe there's a more than better chance they would overturn a ruling favourable to the Commonwealth (not than I'm an expert on how the law lords used to interpret the Oz constitution when they were the final court of review, but I'm certain the banks would absolutely, positively take the issue to London, fighting it tooth and nail).

The simplest High Court decision that would stop Chifley from attempting a takeover of retail banking would be if the justices hadn't ruled in favour of the City of Melbourne in the original case brought against the '45 bank laws. It was that reversal that prompted Chifley to issue an ultimatum to the banks, which they then rejected, causing him to go for crash-or-crash-through in the '47 to '49 period of his government.

No bank nationalistion scandal means a much closer election in '49. Add in a decision to postpone the re-introduction of petrol rationing (or at least neutralise the political risk of that decision) and I think Labor falls over the line, much like the Coalition would in close elections in '54, '61, and '69.

(The assault against the banks was uncharacteristic of Chifley, IMHO. F'rinstance, the minister who worked closest with him on the economy, John Dedman, had been convinced that only himself and Eddie Ward wanted to implement a socialist policy RE the finance sector; in the event he was surprised when the PM was the one to propose the move. Since '49 it's been fashionable for historians to analyse Chifley's decision in reference to his grandparents losing their farm during the depression of the '90s, or of Chif's own harsh critique of the banks' behaviour during the Great Depression.

But that back story ignores the fact that he had faith in the original postwar banking regulations. If those laws had never come under attack he wouldn't have felt compelled to confront the big end of town head on.

Otherwise, the forties federal Labor government isn't very socialist. But they were more interventionist than Menzies would be.)

I agree that the fifties split can't happen if Labor is in power for at least an extra term from 1949.
 
My mistake on the acronym, but according to Wiki, the Libs themselves have criticized him.

Okay, I retract what I wrote in my last paragraph in that post responding to you, RB.

But Malcolm Fraser's conservative critics (and they are legion) are not too dissimilar from the tories who dislike the Mulroneys and the Heaths in other countries. They're motivated by spite.

Aracnid said:
I'm torn Howard was a great PM and while I am sure there would have been some stimulus and a deficet he wouldn't have created Rudd Debt Disaster.

Dude, when posting from an ATL you write 'In Character' (IC) before your statement.
 
Top