In yesterday’s Crikey, Senator Christine Milne of the Greens says, “If the Coalition was smart, it would change leaders to rid itself of the Howard baggage, repudiate the compromised pulp mill assessment process, and develop good forest policy based on downstreaming the plantation estate. Then it could sit back and watch the polls shift.” Her remark about changing leaders got me thinking. On Wednesday I read Paul Kelly’s riff on the Costello-Howard leadership tussle. Although Kelly talks as if Costello will eventually become leader, the subtext suggests to me that Costello doesn’t actually have much hope of that happening, either before or after the election, whether the Coalition wins or loses.
There are some people I know who have always voted Coalition who are finally disenchanted enough with Howard to consider voting for a different party this time – and concern about the environment is a large part of that. So Milne correctly identifies a pro-Liberal, pro-environment group of voters. What would it take – or who would it take – for the Libs to retain this vote at the coming election?
Paul Kelly says The only conceivable event (outside sickness) that would prompt Howard’s resignation would be a change in party sentiment symbolised by an approach from a delegation acting in the party’s best interest. It is doubtful whether any such group would emerge with sufficient faith in a transition, or the guts to confront Howard. Such action would plunge the Liberal Party into a catastrophic election-eve crisis.
Maybe not catastrophic if the new leader were seen by the electorate as sufficiently new, different and appealing. I’m someone who wants the Coalition out of office (and no new leader would change my vote) and I’m not an expert on machinations inside the Liberal Party. From that perspective, the scenario which would most worry me would be a Malcolm Turnbull leadership. Turnbull would be a new face, with a modern, environmentally-friendly veneer (emphasis on the ‘veneer’.) I think he’d win back many ‘natural’ Lib voters who were thinking of straying. (Whether he’d ever appeal to Howard’s “battlers” is another question. And whether he’d get the internal support is the even bigger question – which no doubt is exercising some minds in the Liberal Party. We read about polls which compare votes for Howard vs Costello. Surely there’s polling going on about the other possible leaders…)
I think, as Senator Milne suggests, if the Libs were smart – and brave – enough to grasp the nettle, they’d change leaders now. I think they’d be smart, purely in electoral terms, to choose Turnbull. Turnbull and Rudd would be a more even match [not that I think Howard is a pushover for Rudd.]
But I’d be very surprised if Turnbull – or any new Liberal leader – adopted the Tasmanian environmental policies that Milne wants to see. In that sense, her speculation is as much pie in the sky as mine.
Milne’s statement was pretty silly. She sought to get publicity about an issue that nobody who doesn’t live in northern Tasmania gives a shit about. It’s almost as though journos do stories by Google search: senator … environment … howard costello = 800 words and there’s your story.
The Liberal Party likes the Howard baggage. It can’t get enough of it. Seriously, there is not a Liberal candidate who is at all squeamish about having Howard walk down their local shopping mall, shaking hands etc. Look at the whole Liberal response to the polls: puzzlement, and insistence on “steady as she goes”, deep denial.
That said, Costello’s time has passed. Like Kim Beazley and Andrew Peacock he spent his life being tomorrow’s man, woke up one morning and he was yesterday’s man, without ever having had his day.
Turnbull’s roots do not go deep within the Liberal Party and he has a reputation for not being able to manage an office (if you can’t manage your own office, etc.). I don’t think he’s out of the woods with HIH, and an Opposition Leader ensnared in legal action against the Federal Government would be, um, difficult. After an election loss, you need someone to smooth over the cracks and get some unity going while allowing people to let off steam. Some of the subtleties in picking up on Canberra scandals early on in the piece would pass Turnbull by. That said, Malcolm Turnbull didn’t get where he is today by listening to me.
Tony Abbott is hated by the moderates, and despised by the far-right for his role in scuppering Hanson. He is seen by non-Catholics as Captain Catholic, moderate Catholics hate his apologetics for Pell, while hardline Catholics are dismayed by the fact that he is responsible for spending taxpayer funds on abortion, stem-cell research and RU-486. He is never more ridiculous than when he tries to rise above being a headkicker. If he became leader the Liberal Party would collapse in an orgy of violence.
Nelson’s roots in the Liberal Party are even more shallow than Turnbull, and he’s so shallow he makes Crean or Peacock look like statesmen.
The post-loss leader for the Libs is Alexander Downer (you stop that laughing right now!). The ultimate compromise candidate for a party which has commpromised way too much, which will have the knives out. He can do a passable imitation of a man who’s done the hard yards and learned the hard lessons, and the Liberal base loves that shit. Howard came back from an unsuccessful stint as Opposition Leader, so why not? It is he who would, as suz sez, appeal to the Liberal base – and the people who think he’s ridiculous are those who never voted Liberal and never would. If the ALP complete the Cole Commission into AWB he’ll be damaged, but his role will be to hold the party together through the difficult initial period of opposition before Brough or Hockey are ready – and it is one of them who is the likely next Liberal PM.
I’m far from an expert on Lib machinations either, Suz, but I get the impression that there’s strong sentiment against parchuting Turnbull into the leadership when others feel that they should have their turn first. I doubt he could get the numbers.
I suspect that any potential Liberal leaders would rather wait till after the election loss, rather than grabbing the helm now (there would necessarily be blood on the carpet, given Howard’s refusal to step down) and then copping the blame for the landslide defeat.
To mix a few metaphors, the conga line of suckholes are caught like deers in the headlights.
Andrew E,
That should be “next Liberal Shadow PM” because if Labour do the job properly then it will be up to 20 years before the coalition get another chance to perform in the lead position. So what does doing the job properly involve? This is the open question. Top of my list would be that Australia begins an aggressive programme of change of the energy sector to become carbon neutral in as short a period as possible. And this does not mean setting up endless enquiries that propose action for commencement in ten or twenty years time. That was the approach that lost the coalition support of the younger, more dynamic, impulsive voters. We are entering a whole new frontier which, if properly engaged, will sweep the public along with a sense of involvement for decades to come.
We all have our views on what we’d like to see happen BilB, but we’re not Liberals are we.
Assuming an election loss, this will be a people suffering psychological pain with little available balm. They will be so scared of throwing the baby out with the bathwater that they will cling to both – talking about renewal and fresh thinking of course, but any actual evidence of such will be seen as me-too-ism or the very sort of abandoning traditional Liberal values that led to defeat (it may seem like a form of mental illness to accuse Howard of not being conservative enough, but inside the Liberal Party its a default position.
When Menzies won in 1949, nobody said that Labor would spend two decades in Opposition and that Evatt and Calwell would never become PM. On the other hand, when Labor won in 1972 it looked entirely likely that Labor would be in for a decade. Let’s just see what happens, hmm? I note that if you wish to dine at the Lodge within the next few weeks then you do so at the invitation of the Howards.
Hopefully the voters will soon start waking up to the fact that we currently have Howard-lite. With Rudd we would have Howard-Full-Throttle. A Rudd led government would be a disaster of division and absolutely no vision.
There is an even more important issue than the environment: that basket of matters labelled GLBT.
The ALP shows no sign of changing policies for that group of people. They have been busily working the happy-clappies (a large proportion of whom are in debt to their eyeballs, very likely to change their vote, and have backward social views) and other religious conservatives. It was the ALP that spat on the separation of church and state in South Australia with their appointment of a monsignor to cabinet.
However, the polling is showing a big shift in attitudes towards same sex marriage and GLBT issues in general. This is a prime opportunity for the Coalition.
E,
I don’t want to say one issue is more important than the other; they are both very important issues. But if you think the number of people deeply concerned about GLBT issues and the number of people changing votes because of the environment are the same, I want whatever you’re smoking, cause it’s some pretty far out stuff.
If the coalition was smart, it make doing the opposite of whatever Greens senators propose a central plank of its policy suite.
Bracks, eh?
At the risk of being made to look foolish later, I reckon there are far too many wannabe prime ministers in Howard’s cabinet for there to be an orderly handover to anyone, let alone Johnny-come-lately Turnbull. Does anybody seriously think Costello after all these years would meekly agree that his time had passed? And even if he did – which I don’t believe for a moment – people like Abbott, Nelson and maybe even Downer would give Turnbull a stern look and tell him that queue-jumping is bad manners.
When Howard goes – for whatever reason – there’ll be a shitfight in the Libs that will go on for ages. With any luck it will be as entertaining as the Howard/Peacock/Howard/Peacock/Hewson/Downer show we enjoyed for so long … and if they can throw in a Bronwyn Bishop and a Jo Bjelke-Petersen for the 21st century I will be even happier.
Personally I favour Captain Brough for the top job. A bit of discipline is exactly what this country needs.
Urgh. Me dyslexia is actin’ up.
You’re right, Ken. Captain Brough would offer the sort of discipline of which the likes of Downer and Nelson would not be capable.
But what about the other Bishop? I’ve heard that she’s quite the disciplinarian when she’s in tune focused.
All this talk of Howard’s replacement is only relevant if Labor wins the next election.
If, shock horror, Howard pulls it off yet again I can see him staying in the job for another full term only to front up for the following election. Janette is not going to want a return to Longeville anytime soon and while there is still a bottle of red in the cellar at Kirribilli Johnny will be of the same mind. Unless we throw him out they’ll have to carry him out in a box IMO.
OMG adrian yes! Captain Brough and Headmistress Bishop … talk about a dream team!
Where’s my leather coat … and I’ve got a riding crop somewhere, I think …
No way would it be smart for liberals to change leaders at this point. Turnbull is highly disliked, for his arrogance, snobbyness and tendency to get flustered when forced to do banal things like justify his policies to plebians. Check out his whipping when debating Peter Garrett that time. His wealth would also make him an easy populist target every time Liberals bring in an unpopular economic policy. This problem combines badly with his personality.
She sought to get publicity about an issue that nobody who doesn’t live in northern Tasmania gives a shit about.
That is simply offensive. Many people do give a shit about it. You are simply projecting your own concerns onto the country as a whole.
Turns out someone has been doing polling which compares Costello with Turnbull with Howard. (I wonder why?) Turnbull and Howard are equal in this poll while Costello does dismally. Given that Turnbull’s not that well known a face, I reckon it’s a reasonable showing. [Not that I'm spruiking for Turnbull, you understand.]
Keating was unpopular too. When he became leader in ’91 I thought Hewson was home & hosed.
Helen, this is not nearly so significant beyond the area affected as the Franklin Dams issue. You can disappear up your own sense of outrage or you can accept that it’s true.
You have to win a seat at the next election to be a candidate for the job, remember.
Which of these has a 10% buffer?
suz
I doubt there are many people in Australia who do not know who Malcolm Turnbull is.
She sought to get publicity about an issue that nobody who doesn’t live in northern Tasmania gives a shit about.
That is simply offensive. Many people do give a shit about it.
It’s not offensive, it’s an opinion.
And I agree, I don’t think tassie forests are on the radar of any marginal voters on the mainland. Unless there’s a big showing for a Green in an inner city seat.
Good point wbb. In fact, at midnight last night it occured to me to add that into this post, but I forgot to! I think Turnbull’s seat, after some recent changes, is now about as marginal as Howard’s. He’s been looking nervous recently. (He’s my MP.)
Downer as Liberal party leader…. yes it makes perfect sense.
The rest of them are too new or too clownish except for Costello. But Costello has an inflated opinion of his own political skill that I don’t think is shared by all that much of the Liberal party for him to be leader. His attempt at Howard was a clumsy joke that simply underlined how little confidence he has won from his caucus despite 11 years as number two.
Should the Liberals lose the next election with Howard still in the saddle, I doubt that any of the current leadership group will escape a monstering.
Clearly, “the time is up”, “the writing is on the wall” and “the fat lady is belting out her tune” for the Liberal leadership.
Do you really think the Libs will look kindly on a generation of leaders that become losers? Especially, since this bunch of obsequious tossers put their own self interest and petty jealousies above all and clearly lack the intestinal fortitude to force the necessary generational change will consign them to a new career as feather dusters.
And, deservedly so!
Well, I found it an offensive opinion, as Helen obviously also did. Saying ‘nobody else gives a shit about’ something is actually pretty dumb as well. How on earth would he know?