Howard and the ICC

  • 02 Jul

    Howard and the ICC

    02, Jul, 2010 (2:09 PM)

    Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard’s vice presidential nomination for the International Cricket Council has been rejected, without official explanation, by African and Asian member countries.


    Yet, despite being given until August 31 to put forward an alternative candidate, Mr Howard, a long-standing and passionate cricket fan, has refused to step down as the Australasian nominee.

    Overnight media reports suggest the rejection is all to do with power and politics. In India some commentators have labeled the former prime minister “racist”.

    According to the ABC, a presenter on India’s top-rating news channel Times Now has described Howard as “a museum piece” and “a symbol of the black-white divide” whose rejection has “upset other closet racists”.

    But new ICC president, former Indian cricket board president Sharad Pawar, denies politics has played any part in Howard’s rejection.

    Mr Howard says the snub is an insult to the Australian and New Zealand cricket board members who made the nomination with integrity and in good faith.

    Now, as Howard digs in for a fight, so too do current Prime Minister Julia Gillard and New Zealand counterpart, John Key, who today publicly threw support behind their Australasian nominee.

    What do you think is behind John Howard’s rejection? Is this treatment of him fair? With Gillard and Key weighing into the debate is this worth a diplomatic stoush?


    Please note: any personal details shared here are public and can be found on internet searches.

Comments (56)

  1. National Seniors moderator - 27, July, 2010 (12:57)

    Brian O'Neill - 2, July, 2010 (19:15) - this comment has been removed as it was deemed inappropriate for the site.

  2. National Seniors moderator - 27, July, 2010 (12:50)

    Alan - 5, July, 2010 (13:16) - this comment has been removed as it was considered inappropriate for this site.

  3. Ralphe M de la Croix - 22, July, 2010 (14:14)

    Amen to that, Alan.

  4. Mike Verran - 5, July, 2010 (11:18)

    I agree with every negative comment so far and for all the variety of reasons. Who does he think he is, when in government he had the social consience of a slug, there is another good reason.

  5. F Sergi - 5, July, 2010 (10:11)

    John Howard is a racist relic as evidenced by his policies when in government. Given that he has spent $190,000 in the past six months alone, hasn't he sponged off the Australian taxpayer long enough. I am staggered that so much media publicity has been given to his missing out on this position and none on the fact that he is costing us a fortune.

  6. Greg - 5, July, 2010 (9:08)

    I was wondering if JH would be pepared to arrive in India by boat. As a boat person he may be looked after better by the Indian Government than he looked after boat people on their way here. He cant bat and he cant bowl so how come he was even nominated?

  7. Lyn - 5, July, 2010 (8:36)

    I cannot for the life of me understand why they are not asking a retired International cricketer who would surely know more about the workings of the ICC. How arrogant not to stand aside for a more appropriate candidate JH.

  8. Cricket fan - 4, July, 2010 (22:23)

    "bigal" blogs are for people to express their opinions. You expressed yours, and others will express theirs.
    If you can't handle others opinions, stay in bed.

  9. bigal - 4, July, 2010 (22:15)

    Moderator or whoever is running this site....PLEASE JUST CLOSE IT DOWN, it's mostly a vitriolic hate attack on an individual and has completely lost the plot. Any goose can vomit their vitriol and political diatribe but I don't think the sensible people among us need to be subjected to it.....do we?

  10. John Burrup - 4, July, 2010 (21:10)

    what an enormous ego to expect JH could even be considered for the job in which he has no qualifications or experience,except as the worst PM we have ever had

  11. merv hazell - 4, July, 2010 (17:11)

    It just goes to show how out of touch the cricketing officials are. They forgot that because of his idiotic policies howard got the boot. What about the hundreds of thousands of dollare of OUR money he wasted by refusing to move to canberra. He should be doing hard time!

  12. Henk Pasma - 4, July, 2010 (12:52)

    John Howard has served his country well. He is passionate about Australia's position on the world scale of cricket and a perfect ambassador for the SPORT. I have not seen him biased against anyone country. Can't say that for some of the other nominees.

  13. Ross R. Melrose - 4, July, 2010 (10:07)

    The reason supposedly given for the rejection of John Howard is just a smokescreen for the next stage of the attempt to take over world cricket by India. The Indians see the John Howard as the single great threat to their ambitions.

  14. Mark Brown - 4, July, 2010 (7:52)

    Ditton Mr de la Croix. Will we have similar comments (albeit for different reasons) said about one K Rudd when he is named Ambassador to China? Or will people be gracious and remember some of the fantastic work he did when he made decisions he believed were beneficial to his nation (a lot of which I did not agree)?

  15. Steve Doyle - 3, July, 2010 (20:49)

    Apart not being qualified for the position, perhaps John Howard should reflect on not giving reasons for his stance on Dr, Haneef and David Hicks before he bleats on about not getting a reason for his non selection.

  16. Tony Thurling - 3, July, 2010 (20:32)

    John Howard and some commentators, political and sport, are now finding out about the image he has given the world of Australia. It doesn't matter whether he is racist or not, he gave that image to others and that is all that counts. He has shown hypocrisy in complaining that he has not been given a reason for the rejection of his nomination (what about all those asylum seekers, refugees, suspected terrorists - Haneef et al, who have never been given reasons for actions taken against them?), and should accept that the ICC will decide who joins their ranks and the manner in which they will join, to paraphrase his own words. John Howard tried to project an American style presidential image to the world instead of being a spokesman on behalf of his country and so now must accept the responses which are against him personally rather than the country.

  17. Yvonne Allen - 3, July, 2010 (19:16)

    John Howard should retire gracefully on his tax payer funded pension. But he just doesn't want to give up the limelight or the powerplays. Thats why he wants this job - united nations wouldn't have him!!

  18. Ralphe de la Croix - 3, July, 2010 (17:51)

    I am just amazed at the general vile against JH expressed here. I cannot believe that blind hate of a man who served this country well indeed, contrary to the pertaining general view. Like him or hate him as a person is one thing, but the reality of his tenure has been distorted by softies and Green inspired attitudes.

  19. Marguerite - 3, July, 2010 (17:15)

    I had a quick look at the previous comments and many seem to be so bias and perhaps racists themselves. I agree with Beryl, 2 July, just above this: "not cricket, chaps"

  20. Peter Boland - 3, July, 2010 (16:31)

    Perhaps, Mr. Howard, some of your "chickens are coming home to roost"!! Decent people remember some of your bigotted, arrogant comments from the past. Perhaps there is such a thing as Karma.

  21. Manuela Epstein - 3, July, 2010 (15:54)

    John Howard's interest in cricket makes him not more suitable a candidate to lead the ICC than my interst in music to chair the SSO. His comments about the problems of "too many Asians coming to Australia" and "we decide who comes here ..." won't be easily forgotten

  22. John Schindler - 3, July, 2010 (12:51)

    Ex politicians with over generous taxpayer benefits for the rest of their lives should leave paid jobs to others. If they take a paid job then their taxpayer benefits should be reduced by the amount they get paid and thus reduce the financial burden on Australians.
    Who says that the Australian nominee for the job has to be the one who gets the job?

  23. Richard - 3, July, 2010 (12:23)

    Get a Life John, retire gracefully & let the "Asian" block have their day. For too long white imperialists like you have ruled the roost too long now its the non whites turn like it or not, we should accept their decision with good grace. The future is in the emerging nations hands, & we should be partners with them

  24. Ian Woolley - 3, July, 2010 (11:16)

    Here is another example of Howard trying to bully people into supporting him. He is of the opinion that he, alone, has the sole right to lead.The last election should have opened any normal persons eyes, that you don't lead by being a bully. Anyway, would you support him after seeing him bowl a cricket ball.

  25. "Chookie" - 3, July, 2010 (9:14)

    Oh, by the way...we are ALL going to be 'museum pieces' one day; if anyone knows the secret to avoiding this, I'd love to know!!
    Cheers!

  26. Trevor Govey - 3, July, 2010 (9:11)

    Mr Pawar should come clean and openly give the reasons for not accepting Mr Howard. Maybe the "asian" block are too frightened about their own bias and corruption being brought into line.

  27. "Chookie" - 3, July, 2010 (9:11)

    Well Helloooooo! (1) This is not a political issue. (2)This is a 'Cricket' problem...a GAME, and it is the Cricket Board's responsibility to pay whomever is in the Chair; it is not any Nation's problem. (3) Racist? Everyone has some racism in them....so pack it in, people. Get a life.

  28. Heather - 3, July, 2010 (8:26)

    Is John Howard a "racist"?? I don't know nor care.

    Is John Howard a "museum" piece - yep, that's probably one of the reasons why his electorate dumped him.

    What I do care about is the extra-ordinary amount of money that Australians have to pay for his upkeep - office, staff, travel etc.

    I hardly think that the position of Vice-Pres of the ICC is of benefit or relevance to the majority of Australians - why should we "fund" him for what I think is essentially a private posting when he was sacked by his electorate?

  29. chris roberts - 3, July, 2010 (8:25)

    I do not know if Howard played cricket or was even an administrator. The NZ nomminee did this and he should have been given the chance to stand, not some ex political FIGJAM. I am not a kiwi either.

  30. Christine Brierley - 3, July, 2010 (7:45)

    I think John Howard was a good nomination but I am not too sure what Cricket Australia expected. The ICC is more political than anything I have previously experienced as a the last president of the International Women's Cricket Council as we merged with the ICC in 2005.

    I am not surprised and what has transpired and I did wonder whether he may be rejected even though that does not normally happen. The ICC has voted in some very questionable nominations in the past.

    The Indian bloc with its supporters in the subcontinent and Africa are now all powerful and countries like India have put up with what I would describe as western imperialism in world cricket for many many years.

    Now that the the BCCI is the wealthiest cricket body in cricket today and the appeal of the IPL they can grand stand about anything they like. The Indian media has always been petulant and some of the comments are quite extraordinary but then some of John Howard's comments when PM were out of the dark ages.

  31. Elizabeth Shadlow - 2, July, 2010 (23:12)

    For goodness sake - its only a game of cricket - lets not make a world crisis out of this. As somebody said earlier; some body gets the job or gets rejected in favor of somebody more qualified - thats life. World survival does not depend on John Howard, or anybody else being able to massage his love of a bat and ball game. And as for the Prime Ministers involvement, I should have thought she had more more to worry about than a bunch of old kids throwing temper tantrums because no one will let them play.

  32. Brendan Coyne - 2, July, 2010 (22:28)

    The selection criteria for this position should be the only determinant of the successful candidate. Get the proces into the open out of the smokey dens of London or new Delhi. Until then it's John's job.

  33. Bigal - 2, July, 2010 (21:16)

    I'm not sure whether John Howard is the best contender but the political comments so far are just woeful. This is a sports administrator position, not a seat in parliament. The Labor voters should control their vitriol and accept that Howard as a private citizen, has a passion for the game. Some of the comments from India are to be expected from a corrupt and racist regime. Probably why they don't want him, he might try to clean things up in their cricket.

  34. alan davey - 2, July, 2010 (21:15)

    john howard and jannette are both over the hill let them go over to phil ruddocks house and re- live the glory days tampa , george bush , tell tony abbott and that opposition immigration spokesman how to run fear campaigns. plan a trip to tex mex border towns using there gold cards and see what is happening. i vote liberal malcom turnbull where are you the country needs you

  35. David Manson - 2, July, 2010 (20:53)

    As an avid cricket supporter and volunteer for over 40 years, this position on the ICC is not intended for a politician. John Howard has not devoted his time to the game like many others in this country. Why should he get a salary and fly around the world when there are other deserving CRICKET people like Tony Dodemaide or James Sutherland who could do the job and understand cricket better than an old Pm who got kicked out of Canberra!!

  36. geoff cole - 2, July, 2010 (20:28)

    who knows or cares (except for john) why he missed out. in the real world, woman/man applies for a job and misses out. she/he never finds out why. obviously there is someone else who is better for the job. life goes on !! i guess he's just missing the limelight...

  37. denise - 2, July, 2010 (20:25)

    HE DOES NOT DESERVE TO HAVE THE POSITION AND OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT LIKE TO BE REJECTED!!

  38. Peter Ferguson - 2, July, 2010 (20:18)

    Cop it graciously Mr H! You never were even vaguely qualified for this job.

  39. fred steven - 2, July, 2010 (19:35)

    This tired old man is yesterdays guy & only shud be used as a Museaum piece,cant bowl,,cant bat,,
    cant take a beating,,bye bye dishoneast jonny

  40. Irish Eyes - 2, July, 2010 (19:14)

    The rejection of John Howard as the ICC nominee from Australia and New Zealand is a slap in the face not just for him, but for all of us. Can you imagine the outcry if Australia rejected the Indian or African nominee? Racism indeed, but this time the boot's on the other foot. And to those people whose criticism is based solely on their dislike of Howard's political leanings, grow up and get your other eye working. No political leader is perfect (as we've just seen with Gillard knifing Rudd in the back) but neither are all their decisions bad.

  41. Barbara - 2, July, 2010 (19:09)

    I think this is a real insult to Australia and New Zealand by racists in other countries. According to the rules of the ICC, John Howard's nomination should have been rubber stamped, as was the case previously. If you go against current practice to refuse a properly nominated person who has been through a rigorous selection process, you should give serious and major reasons. Of course those who refused him could not do this - because their opposition to him was racist. I think the Australian cricketers should boycott a Test or one-day series against India, South Africa, Zimbabwe - see how they like that!

  42. Brian O'Neill - 2, July, 2010 (18:57)

    JH was the worst PM Australia ever had. He presided over so much corruption, thieving and lying. This is the man who went into Iraq all by himself, no backing from the Australian population.He upped the lies to justify his going in there and was subsequently dobbed in by whistle blowers. He is a cretin and a sad black mark on Australian history.
    He really thinks that it is due to get this job. His arrogance, petulance and his autocratic personality have been well read by those opposing him. Go to bed John and think about all that money you are getting from Australian taxpayers to feed your monstrous ego. Maybe you could throw a few bob to the pensioners that you rorted and are still rorting.Not forgetting the hundreds of thousands you killed in Iraq.
    Go away. Yo are a blot on Australia.

  43. Zenon - 2, July, 2010 (18:49)

    Suck it up Mr Howard, talk to the unemployed and they will tell you how many jobs they failed to get, try doing some Voluntary work put something back into the country you have taken and are still taking from us

  44. Phil Smith - 2, July, 2010 (18:48)

    My opinion is that nobody has the right to any position on any board no matter what sport, company, government or what every body it is. They have to be elected like anybody else any if the majority vote is that they did not succeed then they should wear that. The best person may not get the job in our eyes but a majority vote is a majority vote!!!!

  45. Elizabeth - 2, July, 2010 (18:43)

    John Howard has been stumped and should accept the umpires decision and withdraw his nomination so a more suitable candidate can be put forward by Australia/New Zealand. If he doesn't walk, the position will be lost to Australia. Being a cricket tragic does not necessarily qualify him, or anyone else, for the position.

  46. Wesley Walker - 2, July, 2010 (18:33)

    JWH couldn't/wouldn't stop corruption in his own cabinet, so how could he stop it anywhere else. As for being respected, and experienced in diplomacy, respect is a personal issue, and diplomacy is something no-one could ever accuse him of. Liking/disliking Howard, bias and vengeance has nothing to do with his suitability for this position. As Pres/VP of the ICC he would not have a sycophantic cabinet (of his own party) to back him up, but would have to contend with a range of conflicting ideas and agendas, a scenario in which he has no experience or expertise. As PM he could always fall back on cabinet solidarity and party loyalty to support him, but here he needs interpersonal and negotiation skills. His own party people admit he doesn't have these.

  47. sealion - 2, July, 2010 (18:20)

    The Indians have got to be joking by calling Australia & John Howard in particular "Racists". The indians are the biggest bunch of racist bigots in the world & the only reason they don't want John Howard on the ICC is because he would expose their rorting, gambling, match fixing & corruption amongst their "mates" which would lose them the control they have over world cricket... They are just like the Yank TV Networks, control means money & corruption & they are very good at being corrupt... Never trust any Indian & watch for the "Knife in the back" ask any Pakistani...

  48. John Hunter - 2, July, 2010 (18:02)

    The "little man" is being petulant. As he has been throughout his political career.
    Being a great fan does not put him in the position to be a leader in the field.
    As he never did anything in politics to help anyone why would he start now? Corruption would not neccessarily be stopped by him unless it was in his own best interests.

  49. David Walker - 2, July, 2010 (17:38)

    The Howard haters amongst the Australian media and in the chattering classes are just repeating the same old rubbish. The real reason Howard was rejected is because he would have curtailed corruption in the cricketing fraternity. The Indian cricketing association and others simply don't want the scrutiny and transparency that he would bring to the game. The Howard haters should put their own biases and vengeance to one side and realise the good that he can bring to the game internationally.

  50. keith byron - 2, July, 2010 (17:37)

    I really think that mr howard is acting like a petulant schoolboy after being told"no" He jumped the queue by rather insideous means, against the New Zealand representative, I believe.To Cry," why I am not wanted" is not the stuff a leader is made of

  51. Peter Feeney - 2, July, 2010 (17:34)

    What happened to accepting the decision of the umpire and abiding by the majority vote. It is a sporting body with delegates from all its member nations and despite past history Australia New Zealand and England can no longer control a majority of votes. So he lost, get on with it and pick a new candidate and this time why note avoid a politician with a divisive history.

  52. Gary Byron - 2, July, 2010 (17:34)

    John Howard is not everyone;s cup of tea, but he has always had the courage of his convictions. His outspoken criticism of Nelson Mandela many years ago and his failure to strongly oppose the apartheid regime would not have helped his cause in trying to get the African vote now. It is quite probable that the Zimbabweans have lobbied against him behind the scenes - just to get square for the leading role he took against the corrupt and oppressive Magabe regime. Apart from all that I think that the issue is bigger than John Howard. There is a power struggle within world cricket and that is no secret. John Howard is not a "cricket identity" and therefore it is easy to oppose his nomination, as a matter of cricket politics. Clearly though, he is not well liked on a personal basis. However, the matter ought to be pressed so that it can be properly decided on merit, not solely on personality. What has happened to date is not appropriate, and it does the ICC no credit.

  53. Bill Langfield - 2, July, 2010 (17:21)

    I agree with the decision to reject John Howard
    The position should go to someone with a history in cricket administration not some has been politician

  54. Beryl - 2, July, 2010 (17:12)

    The ICC is turning into a paper tiger if they do not accept John Howard's nomination. He is an elder statesman who has a lot of experience in administration and diplomacy. To not accept his nomination is to show that racism and politics are the driving force behind the ICC, not cricket and the advancement of sport. The racist members already there should be ashamed of themselves. He is more honorable and capable than those voting against him, and I suspect that is partly why they don't want him. He would show them up for what they are.

  55. Kevin Peate - 2, July, 2010 (17:10)

    I think John Howard was a perfect candidate for this position as he is a well respected ex prime minister of Australia who has a passion for cricket . He was endorsed by Cricket Australia and NZ Cricket. They should re submit his nomination

  56. KWA THOM - 2, July, 2010 (17:03)

    I think it is totally fair to exclude Howard. John Howard was never fair and 'liking cricket' is no reference for the job. Australia/New Zealand should put up another candidate in his place.

Post your comment

 
*
*
*
*Security Check
Security Check
Enter the text in the image above.

In this section

 

Brightlabs Web Design Melbourne