John Howard was the second longest serving prime minister of Australia, serving from 1996 to 2007. In the 2004 election he and the Liberal-National Party coalition were re-elected in a landslide victory. At that time it seemed he and his government could do no wrong.

Yet, just a couple of weeks ago, the Liberal-National coalition were ousted from government in a stunning defeat, and John Howard even lost his own seat.

What went wrong? I’m no political expert. But let me suggest a theory. A theory that may be food for thought for others who aspire to lead - in politics, business or some other capacity.

I’ve been pondering this theory since reading Jim Collins’s fantastic book, Good To Great, about how “good” companies become “great” companies. One of the key factors required for a good company to become great is what Collins calls “Level 5 Leadership” at the CEO level.

Among other things, Level 5 leaders have a unique combination of humility and ambition. Importantly, though, this ambition is ambition for their companies, not so much personal ambition. In other words, they are far more concerned about helping their companies succeed, rather than helping themselves achieve personal wealth or accolades.

So what kind of leader was John Howard? Although I personally did not agree with some of his government’s policies (particularly those relating to the war on Iraq, employment laws and the environment) and his stance against Australia becoming a republic, I do believe that he and his government were pretty good economic managers. I also think that Mr Howard displayed many of the Level 5 traits.

Put it this way - he was certainly no egomaniac oozing with charisma. On the contrary, he seemed fairly humble and dedicated to doing what he believed to be best for Australia. And he worked hard to bring about the policies he believed would benefit the country. In accordance with the traits of Level 5 leaders, he also built a strong ministerial team - probably best epitomized by the treasurer, Peter Costello.

However, in my estimation, John Howard made two fatal flaws which led to the defeat of his government. The first one was failing to pass the leadership baton to Peter Costello and not allowing for (at least the appearance of) a fresh, new government team to compete with the invigorated Kevin Rudd-led Labor party in the lead-up to the 2007 election.

The second was failing to read the shift in the Australian people’s mood on such matters as the Iraq war, employment laws and environment. Had the government realized how unpopular some its policies had become and made significant changes earlier, it may not have endured such a backlash at the recent Federal election.

Of course, I’m by no means being original when I suggest these reasons as being the key causes of the Howard government’s defeat. And, by the way, it’s easy to say what went wrong with the benefit of hindsight! But the point I wish to make is that, in the context of Good To Great, John Howard was almost a Level 5 leader… but didn’t quite get there.

He didn’t get there because, whether myth or reality, he had bought into the idea that he was indispensable to the leadership of both the Liberal Party and the nation. That is not the sign of someone who has prepared either his party or country for greatness beyond having him at the helm. And for political parties and governments - as well as companies - to be great, leaders must make it a priority to prepare others to lead just as well, if not better, than they.

So… for others who lead or aspire to lead, you are wise to build up a leadership team that can competently take over when you are no longer around. Otherwise, you may well miss the chance to create something that’s not just good, but great.

Warley Hospital, a not-for-profit community hospital located in Cowes, on Phillip Island - a popular coastal tourist spot in Victoria, Australia - is on the verge of closure.

This small, rural hospital has 35 aged care and 13 acute care beds and employs 80 full-time, part-time and casual staff including nurses. According to the vice-president of the hospital’s board, Gwen McRae, Warley Hospital provides essential services for both the island’s 8,000 permanent residents, and the hundreds of thousands of tourists who visit each year.

Up to 50,000 people visit Phillip Island on a daily basis over summer and many thousands visit during the annual Australian motorcycle Grand Prix. Meanwhile, the nearest hospital is located at Wonthaggi, a 45-minute drive along the only road connecting Phillip Island to the mainland.

The board is calling on the State and Federal governments to contribute funds to keep the hospital going… but my question is: should the government pitch in to save a private hospital? Is it the government’s responsibility?

Yes, of course, adequate medical and hospital services should be available to any given community… and, if the closure of the Warley Hospital means that the community will not have access to sufficient care, the relevant government should consider upgrading facilities at Wonthaggi, investing in or buying Warley, or providing a public facility on Phillip Island.

But should the government - i.e. the tax payer - simply give the hospital a stack of money so it can continue to offer services that are essentially only available to private patients i.e. people with private health insurance? It may be a not-for-profit, but it’s still a private hospital based on the “user pays” principle. So why should the government be putting in money into a service that isn’t available to the general public?

Now I don’t know all the facts. But that’s the problem. The media releases a story about a poor hospital about to go bust unless the government (pick any one) puts in money. We’re not told whether the hospital has been mismanaged or why it can’t keep operating. We’re told that it’s essential to service the local community… but how a 48 bed hospital can cater to an up to 50,000 daily population I don’t know… unless that’s the reason its struggling… or unless the community is actually being looked after reasonably well by the hospital in Wonthaggi.

Overall, too little information has so far been made publicly available for the average person to make a call on this. Hopefully the various governments have been given more information with which to make a decision…

Personally, I find the idea of a hospital going bust and 80 people losing their jobs very disturbing. But I’m also a big believer in the private sector and the desire for it to be largely self-sufficient. While there’s a strong argument for governments to invest to some extent in private hospitals to help alleviate the burden on the public health care system… that doesn’t quite work if they end up having to bail out such private hospitals!

So… anyone want to buy and turnaround a country hospital?

The results are in and it’s unequivocal. The Australia Labor Party has been elected to govern Australia in a landslide victory over the Liberal Party.

The full implications of this aren’t clear yet, but after 11 years of the same government, there are sure to be changes. New faces, new ideas, new policies. Hopefully, they will be for the better.

Whilst, among other things, I’m gladdened by the ALP’s plans to rein in some of the unfair aspects of the previous government’s employment laws, and its plans to be serious on climate change (signing the Kyoto Treaty for a start) I also believe the Liberals have done a pretty good job managing the country’s economy. I hope this will continue under the new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and his team.

Meanwhile the Liberal Party will soon be electing a new leader. I’d love to see Malcolm Turnbull get the job. He’s smart, socially progressive, favors Australia becoming a republic (hear, hear!) and - having built a fortune in business - has an entrepreneurial bent.

In two days time, Australians will be voting for their next Federal Government. All indications are that the country will be replacing the existing Liberal Government with an Australian Labor Party (ALP) Government.

In my opinion, both major parties - the Liberals (the more “conservative” party) and the ALP (the more left-wing party) - have similar policies in most areas. Sure, they may have different philosophical underpinnings, but for all intents and purposes they really only differ on certain issues that may, or may not be, important to various people. These are issues like the employment laws and the environment.

As you might imagine, political campaigning is quite the spectacle. All the relevant parties spend millions of dollars on political advertising, “touring” and other promotional efforts. Political marketing in Australia is pretty sophisticated too. A lot of polling, analysis and testing goes on to craft just the right message to the right target market. From a marketer’s point of view, it’s absolutely fascinating.

This doesn’t mean the campaigns work… or that people base their vote on an advertising campaign. But how people do come to vote, and why and how certain campaigns are constructed, who they’re designed to appeal to, and what their objective is, is all very interesting.

So… will it be close… or an ALP landslide? Well, we’re hosting an “election party” on Saturday night to celebrate or commiserate (depending on your view) as the votes are counted, the results come in, some candidates win, others lose, and the new government is decided.

I can’t believe some people find politics boring!