I come to bury Joh, not to...

Look, I like John Howard and his government quite a lot. It's not perfect; no government ever is. I support the Iraq war efforts, and think that the Left has lost all sight of common when it tries to ignore the undoubted good in ridding the world of one its harshest and bloodiest regimes. It would please me enormously to see Tony Blair win the election against the predicted electoral backlash at the time he joined the Iraq effort. I am pretty happy to see a conservative new Pope (with the added benefit of his being a former "liberal". Nothing is quite as pleasing as a liberal who changes his tune.)

So you can see where I am coming from policitically.

However, one thing that is sticking in my conservative craw is the reverence with which Joh Bjelke Peterson's death and funeral have been covered.

Yesterday I was home at 2.15 pm and saw his State funeral being covered live on Channels 7, 9, the ABC and Skynews on cable. On radio 612 (ABC) it was also being broadcast. The coverage seemed barely short of that given to the late Pope. Not to mention the breathless interruptions to programs while he was dying, usually just to say "he's not dead yet!"

Come on guys..is this much respect deserved for a Premier and his government who came out so badly in the Fitsgerald Inquiry? There was the smell of corruption around his government for years before the inquiry, but the extent of it was still surprising. He only avoided a criminal conviction himself by the skin of his teeth.

I had little time for some of the Left's agenda at the time. Their furore over the street marching legislation was self-defeating, but then choosing idealogically sound, self-satisfying grandstanding over practical steps to actually change things seems a common characteristic that the Left. As I recall it, Joh said you can't have street marches without a permit, and (so I am told by left leaning friends) made legistlation with an extremely wide definition of what could constitute a march. But it was not like political meetings or gatherings were banned per se. Just ones on the streets; especially city streets at lunch time. The justification, accepted by most Joh voters, was that marchs were too disruptive. So how did the Left react to the legistlation? By having more street marches, timed to be most disruptive for city traffic, thus cemeting Joh's original justification in the minds of his supporters.

Does a total ban on street marches alone ever stop democracy? Do street marches in Australia ever achieve much more than satisfy the emotional needs of the marchers? (OK, OK, I can see that street marches or rallies in certain countries at certain times have had dramatic political consequences - eg Beirut. But in Australia? Can't think of an obvious case where one has.)

And the sackings of the electrical trade unionists, who were conducting an industrial dispute by interrupting everyone's electical supply. Not much sympathy there when all got the sack, and as it turned out, did not need to be re-engaged.

But back to anti-Joh. Even giving him a huge "benefit of doubt" about the degree of personal knowledge about the goings on in the government and its arms, he has to take the can for presiding over such a corrupt government and doing nothing to stop it. And then the ludicrous "Joh for PM" campaign. I don't think even my dear old Mum (who has never voted Labor in her life, and has the typical admiration for Joh that most people her age had) thought that was a good idea.

Ok, he did some decent things in terms of modernization of Queensland. Hard not to when you are in charge for so long. And for obscure reasons, some things in Queensland were run well compared to other states (public hospitals, and some legislation was pretty progressive.) But, my feeling is still that his death attracted way too much attention. It would be entirely appropriate for the media to not forget the word "disgraced" in front of the words "former Premier."