Will he lose this one?
And what will it mean if he does?
UPDATE: He pulled the Bill, so it’s not going to the Senate for the vote it was going to lose.
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
» SUBSCRIBE to LP updates.
Will he lose? Definite maybe
What will it mean? Nothing, life will go on
It will be the first chink we’ve seen in his armour for a while. Leadership speculation will continue to dog a leader of his age, always. Costello’s recent efforts probably mean that he’s out of the running, so who else will try and step up for consideration?
Being the first sign that there are actual liberals within that party, and that they have lost patience with their authoritarian grub of a leader, has some significance. It means Howard’s assumption that the senate will be his rubber stamp must be rethought. And it means there are some outer limits on just how much he can play the race/reffo card from here on in.
Sad it took a christian vs muslim aspect to get refugee rights over the line, but its an ugly game and we take our victories where we can.
Also may represent the beginnings of a long tail of fallout from the war on moderates within the Libs, brought to a head by the further rolling of Costello. Moderates have no end in sight and Howard has demonstrated that, rather than get his way for a while then become magnanimous, he just keeps on taking and taking. So those on the outer have sweet FA to lose and may continue to cause trouble at the fringes and injure the unified and professional image the party was able to portray- as against a Labor party at war with itself.
Yes, it’s lost.
I’m not sure it’ll mean much at all – providing that there’s a continuing dearth of boats. It could indicate that there a few real liberals in the Liberal Party (though they weren’t all that much in evidence back in 2001). It might also mean that the changed circumstances in regard to boat arrivals (i.e. pretty much , there aren’t any) permits a certain contextualised liberalism not formerly viable, politically.
I’m not sure that Howard has been operating under the assumption that the Senate is a rubber stamp, Armaniac. Given that the Coalition has gone down to the wire on a number of votes since 2004, it certainly hasn’t been the way it’s been playing out.
I agree with Armaniac’s second lot of observations.
This revolt represents in some cases the vestiges of moderate liberalism within the parliamentary party and in other cases perhaps a slight revivification of grass-roots liberalism at the Branch level in the Liberal Party.
I think Georgiou’s victory over that rightist Bovver Boy in Kooyong applied a whiff of smelling salts to some previously faint Liberal moderates. They discover that they rather enjoy being conscious.
Yeah, Geoff, but placating or counterbalancing one rogue senator (Barnaby) is different to facing a small coterie of rebels with nothing much to lose. I think your comment about 2001 proves that significant political shifts have occured. What were those small l liberals thinking back in 2001?
To take another tack, events like this have made me more receptive to a future liberal government. And if they can swing me a bit, then they can probably swing others a bit more This is also a good sign for bi-partisanship and democracy in general i think.
I think Armaniac’s outer limits argument is a big one. It seems like there’s a fair chance there will also be outer limits on the economic management card too. Election winners no 1 and 2 which are prolly not going to be as potent as some in the government would like.
Why think like the newspapers when you have the option not to.
“I think your comment about 2001 proves that significant political shifts have occured. What were those small l liberals thinking back in 2001?”
I think it’s maybe more that the asylum seeker landscape has changed. With the exception of the celebrated West Papuan craft, the boats stopped coming pretty much in 02/03. There’s now more latitude to be liberal, if you like.
I doubt that this is registering much as a crunch issue with voters. A resumption of boat traffic would no doubt change that. Indonesia’s reaction will be interesting…..
I’m inclined to agree with the person on Insiders who said it doesn’t do the PM any harm to have people in the Government who object to certain matters every now and then.
Makes the Government look more “moral”.
In other words, the effect will be minimal.
It’s been pulled.
Yeah, and – for whatever reason (no external opposition is another factor) – I do like.
I guess Darlene, it depends on what ‘now and then’ means. It probably helps that Howards hasn’t got too many key pieces of legislation that could be potentially scuttled.
He has indeed pulled it. Ok, if you were Machiavelli…..enter small armada of refugee craft, early election by October1
Thanks for that link, Bismarck. He’s taken his bat and gone home.
So remember kids, when assessing the “moderates”, that every other piece of legislation passed by the Government is OK with them.
Thats not fair Zoe. Dissenting publicly from major parties is hardly standard practise these days. The only way you can know what these guys supported and what they didn’t and what they held reservations on, is to be inside the cabinet or the party room. It’s shitty but that’s how it works, no?
Neither the press nor the ABC ever emphasise that any ALP member of parliament who crosses the floor is expelled.
As far as “He’s taken his bat and gone home” that’s one of the silliest analyses I’ve ever seen, even for this blog. The analogy is that he done a Gilchrist and walked, realizing he’s snicked it to the keeper. Sporting and decent in other words.
It bloody well is fair. These people supported “welfare to work” changes with potentially horrific consequences for some genuinely ill and disabled people.
I don’t need to look behind closed doors when they voted for it in Parliament, and their votes are recorded in Hansard.
They’ve just played a statement by Howard on The World Today where there should be a transcript in due course.
It was mainly about the arithmetic and the unacceptability of “one Senator’s amendment” (=Barnaby).
I understand Barnaby held back his position until the Family First guy coughed up, so as not to leave him the leverage of the final say.
Mwah! for you too, barry.
Yeah, fair enough. I’m not strying to sanctify them. I just think there’s room for a bit more subtlety than ‘but they’re still evil.’ It says a lot that they joined the liberal party in the first place. Or that they didn’t leave when certain trends began to appear.
Zoe, remind me what Hansard tells us about the number of ALP members who crossed the floor to vote against the Marriage Act in 2004….
Oh Geoff, it’s always about what the ALP’s done in the past for you, isn’t it? You poor dear.
On topic: the defeat simply adds to the Government-in-crisis narrative, which is as yet nascent but now fully primed and ready to go next time there’s a bit of a hurdle.
“Oh Geoff, it’s always about what the ALP’s done in the past for you, isn’t it? You poor dear.”
No it’s actually more about “crossing the floor and the contexts thereto” Bill.
Well, speaking of context – as was mentioned in (?was it Baird’s) speech, there is an established principle within the Liberal Party that members are free to vote as their conscience dictates. There’s no corresponding principle in the ALP, where members agree to be bound by collective decisions.
You’re perfectly entitled to decide who to vote for on the basis of the Marriage Act vote alone. My point was to argue in favour of judging a candidate on the totality of positions they support, not on the basis of their view on one contentious issue.
Down the tubes it goes. Good riddance.
This has played pretty well for the ALP: with this ‘appease the TNI abusers’ legislation, Howard now looks like the wet unAustralian blanket bowing to international pressure over ‘border protection’ issues. Nice turnaround, Johhny!
Zoe, rest assured that I actually won’t be deciding my vote on the Marriage Act alone but that vote – where a number of Labor members were deeply opposed to the legislative intent – illustrates the context point incredibly well. The Liberal moderates were able to be liberal on this bill because they assessed a degree of latitude in terms of the circumstantial context.
Would Latham have allowed a conscience vote for Labor in circumstances other than an election year and a potential wedge? Maybe.
The point is that morality in politics is contextualised.
howard realizes he’s going to lose, so he pulls the bill?
How’s that for having the courage of your convictions?
He’s absolutely shit scared – I sense he thinks he’s going down.
Nice to agree, Geoff
(Another interesting question – would Barnaby Joyce have been so concerned if Howard hadn’t buggered up dinner at Watermark by congratulating himself for encouraging Queenslanders to vote Liberal, not National?)
I wonder what happens now for the MPs that Howard said were passionately in favour of the legislation?
They must be devastated that it has been pulled.
Or maybe there are no coalition MPs passionately in favour, merely a room of coalition MPs who argued for what they thought their leader wanted to hear.
Sometimes you do not need the principle of cabinet solidarity to secure group think.
I find it hard to believe that other coalition MPs do not share the concerns of the opponents to the bill. Imagine if other MPs had voiced concerns during the party room debate then the bill would never got as far as it did.
Guess its over ot the passionate majority now.
To try to argue it had nothing to do with the Papuan asylum seekers really was a bit silly on his part. He seems to have spent alot of time lately arguing black is really white and bananas are stuffing up the economy. I don’t think he has been on the pace politically for a while now.
As the cheap plastic imitation Bob Hawke you have when your not having Hawkie, Howard can spin this as a talking point – he’s good at pr if nothing much else. The real question of real justice for West Papua remains.
Here is where I see the Aceh war flaring up again. And now we should support succession for Aceh AND West Papua. The centralized Javanese colonialists have got away with far too much in the past.
Make no mistake this is a real defeat for centralized fascist colonialism here in Howardstan but it can be for the Kopassuss types upstairs as well if we are smart. BTW – International law – 1
Racist fascist dictatorships – 0
It’s a great result. Not the end or even the beginning of the end…but the end of the beginning, blah, blah, blah.
He pulled the Bill.
Yay!
Hat tip: mark lawrence.
Hooray indeed, Cristy. We were briefly happy about that when Bismarck told us at lunchtime, then we found other stuff to gripe about.
Everyone:
Since the proposed new prison hulks would have had one fisheries poacher for every hundred Australian political dissidents, I wonder how much influence the prospect of becoming an unwilling passenger on one of the “voyages of the damned” had on Liberal backbenchers over this failed bill? Just wondering, that’s all.
BTW there is a group of assylum seekers waiting on Ashmore reef, waiting to be picked up. How conveniant.
Link for that Ashmore Reef and Boat People
I am trying to work out this link thing
a a
Yeah. Thats a political molotov alright. what struck me is that we’re back to ‘Boatpeople’ already. ten points for the first person who spots a ‘queue jumper.’
Apparently they have come from Burma… might raise a few junta related issues.
One thing we shouldn’t forget about Beazley’s position on this, is that it was always based on political point-scoring about not kow-towing to Jakarta. Fair enough but note that the ALP’s position was not about fair and just treatment of refugees. Only the Greena and the Dems have had a consistent and fair position on this issue.
That was Beazley’s spin, wbb, but it’s fair to point out that a lot of people in the ALP would have been motivated by fair and just treatment of refugees. And the point about Howard kow-towing to Indonesia also happens to be true.
By the way, I suspect that Howard may have pulled the bill because the number of defections would have been greater than anticipated (ie Troeth no, Joyce abstain) and very embarrassing.
Just to clarify, wbb, and we’ve had this debate before, it’s not incompatible for a position taken on principle to be held at the same time as a favourable political attack line. In fact, it’s good, if you agree with the principle, because it’s good politics. And Bob Brown knows that better than Beazley most of the time.
Gee, that was quick! The weak enemies of our nation only sunk the bold border protection squad yesterday.
They must have sensed our weakness and really hauled canoe.
Fact is, asylum seekers havent been arriving owing to the absence of refugee producing situations in the wider region of late (except Papua). Laws wont actually stop smugglers and their vulnerable human cargo – they make an awful lot of money out of human misery, and would have worked out that Nauru was just a stupid & expensive detour to Australia (as no country takes our ‘pacific solution’ refugees except us! yeah wake up to that one, Australia. Maybe you have…..).
I agree that some ppl in the ALP would hold that the Refugee Convention is important to adhere to, so I should have confined my comments to Beazley. I do not believe he is very far from Howard on this issue.
LE – ring-fencing laws also won’t stop political persecution and won’t stop people from trying to escape said persecution; I’d never judge a people smuggler without knowing the exact circumstances. Love the way Vanstone says the recent asylum seekers were “dumped” on Ashmore Reef. Love it even more the way our intrepid meeja uncritically repeats her propaganda. Until we know otherwise we should assume that the people were brought to Australia at their request.
It’s almost getting to the point in Australia where the concept of fleeing political persecution is seen as a crime in itself. It’s way past the point where to aid refugees in such a way is thought to be a crime. Schindler must be turning in his grave.
Well ed, you might as well delete my pisstake of the missing comments too! What were they anyway? Some new sort of ‘affable airhead’ spambot?
As you wish, Lefty E.
They were typical of one kind of spam we get in great quantities. We get perhaps a couple of thousand a day, which luckily Askimet usually intercepts. For some reason when they get through they are usually on old posts.