From today’s Crikey email:
On the Crikey Politics Free-For-All blog Christian Kerr asked cheekily if any readers remembered Russell Cooper (the short term Premier of Queensland who was going to be the Nationals’ salvation a few months out from the 1989 election after they dumped Mike Ahern). Kerr wondered who would be Canberra’s Cooper.
It looks as if there won’t be one now. Howard’s ministers have less courage than the state Nats did in the dying days of their 32 year reign, and the great pretender’s non challenge has been defused by a meaningless promise, which significantly fell short of an endorsement of Costello’s claims.
But you could be forgiven for thinking that the epicenter of politics has shifted north. As Kerr observed, “Queenslanders are in the news – Kevin Rudd, Peter Beattie – so let’s use a Queensland simile for current events in Canberra.�
At the beginning of Rudd’s leadership, political commentator and former state Liberal Vice-President, Graham Young observed that Rudd and Swan had a lot of experience in tearing down a long term conservative government.
Indeed they have, but Labor strategists in Queensland are also calling to mind more recent similes.
Costello’s backers routinely deride Labor’s attempt in 2004 to paint a vote for Howard as a vote for Costello. But that may not be Labor’s strategy this time around.
There are many lessons that can be drawn from the disastrous Liberal campaign in Queensland last year. John Howard pointedly remarked, for instance, that dumping a leader just before the election led to electoral disaster. So it did, but there’s one key reason aside from Bruce Flegg’s inexperience.
Flegg’s campaign exploded as soon as he took the leadership because he couldn’t answer the question of who would be Premier if the Coalition won. The Nats wanted the job even if the Libs got more seats (which is what it would have taken for the opposition to win under almost every plausible scenario). Labor rammed home the message that electing the Coalition would lead to a squabbling rabble fighting over the top job. The metropolitan Liberal vote collapsed almost immediately.
Costello’s failure to challenge, this week or ever, has done him inestimable damage. It’s logical to suggest that he won’t inherit the leadership in a blaze of glory if the Coalition is re-elected, but face a scrappy and drawn out fight for it, if Howard leaves willingly or quickly at all. Voters will perceive him as weak, but also unlikely to slot seamlessly into the PM’s chair. And who will believe Howard’s latest form of words is about anything other than what one Minister called his “own rapacious self-interest�?
Labor now has the happy prospect of being able to suggest that a vote for Howard would be a vote for an unstable and leaderless government if he were to be re-elected. Who would take over? Costello? Downer? Abbott? Nelson? Turnbull? “Disunity is death�. Even worse than that, as Peter Beattie could tell the federal Libs, is a plausible story that if you’re elected, you’ll get a rabble rather than a strong leader.
Howard’s strong suit is supposed to be doubts that Rudd has the gravitas and runs on the board to lead. But the inexperience and risk cards can be played both ways. And the Coalition might want to contemplate the prospect of the voters joining the dots. The choice is no longer Rudd or a post-election handover to Costello. It’s Rudd or complete chaos.
The picture is not complete without the realisation that Howard winning his seat is anything but certain. For Howard to run as leader he really should have moved to a safer Coalition seat. Whoever got bumped to allow that to happen wouldn’t have minded, because they are a close knit team and all for the party interest. Anyone voting Coalition now, cannot assume that they are voting for Howard. Furthermore a poor poll result in Bennelong will create all of the uncertainty in all Australian Coalition voting minds, and even the hint of a Costello future under those circumstances will collapse the government vote even further. This is the key reason why Costello or Downer should have challenged before the election. It really can get worse under Howard.
“The picture is not complete without the realisation that Howard winning his seat is anything but certain”
It’s hard to see how Howard could lose his seat yet the Coalition win the election. If that were to happen, constitutionally Howard could remain PM for a short time while a new seat is found for him.
Senator John Gorton was elected leader of the Liberal Party in January 1968 after Harold Holt died and so became PM. But you can’t be PM from the Senate, so he resigned from the Senate and won athe by-election for Holt’s seat. He was PM the whole time he wasn’t a member of Parliament.
Now that would be a weird scenario…
Mark wrote:
But Bettie sold that message from a position of incumbency. It may not have as much potency coming from an opposition.
I’d also question the merit of focusing too much on personalities. People aren’t going to change their vote because Costello and Howard don’t like each other or Costello wants Howard’s job.
The Coalition is in trouble because of their legislative track record not the personalities within the party.
Labor would do well to focus on issues of substance (Work Choices, Education, Health, Broad Band etc.) and seek to highlight the Coalitions ideological and legislative shortcomings rather than be distracted by the Liberal party’s internal rumblings.
delrio, the focus on personalities belies the Coalition’s rhetoric about being a team. A government that has won the past four elections only has ideological problems with those who never voted for it: the trick is to get those who had voted Liberal/national to not do so this time, and ideological scolding won’t work.
Spiros,
I would think that in Gorton’s case he was an elected representative of the people in principle ie endorsed. In Howard’s case I don’t see how and un elected member of the public can be considered a Minister of the Crown, and a Prime Minister at that. But as you point out he was elected leader of the Liberal Party (presumeably by the Liberal Party not the public) which is not the same as elected to be Prime Minister. If Howard were to be called a Prime Minister whilst un elected, I imagine that this would be an ourtesey title rather than an actual position, simply because if called upon to perform the duties of a Minister of the Crown he would not legally be able to do so. But then I am only guessing.
It’s worth considering the hypothesis that Howard is commiting these cock-ups as part of a cunning plan to blunt the ALP accusation that “of course, it is universally acknowledged that Mr Howard is a very clever politician”.
If so, then indeed, Mr Howard is a devilishly clever politician!
Bilb, I think the constitution allows a person to be minister of the crown even if unelected, at least for a certain period of time (3 months from memory).
BilB, from memory you can be a Minister without being an MP for up to three months. After that I think you’d need to find a seat or resign your commission. There must be some constitutional experts around here to clarify…
BBB
Drats!
BBB
Andrew E wrote:
True, but that in it’s self won’t change votes.
So you think Labor should ignore issues relating to equity & fairness, industrial relations, education, health, the environment in the upcoming election campaign?
The Coalition’s legislative track record, in these areas, is not popular at all, even amongst swinging voters.
Obviously, there are elements of the Coalition’s ideological agenda that does appeal to swinging voters (eg. work for the dole, asylum seeker legislation, bashing gays) but much of that seems to have run its course and is no longer a potent electoral issue.
I imagine that that could only be by appointment from the Governor General then, the three months. I guess I can see why that was put into the constitution, to allow for the caretaker government situation. That would be a distortion of the rules to allow a displaced rat time to scurry around to find a new hole. I don’t approve.
It’s hard to see how Howard could lose his seat yet the Coalition win the election. If that were to happen, constitutionally Howard could remain PM for a short time while a new seat is found for him.
That would be an outrageously arrogant and undemocratic move – hopefully it would be beyond even Howard and the Liberal Party. John Gorton was at least an elected member of Parliament, not someone who had just been voted out (speaking hypothetically and futuristically.).
It was the norm in nineteenth century elections, and it’s why the rule about three months exists. Candidates used even to run in multiple seats to make sure that they were elected somewhere.
This whole thing just gets more bizare by the minute
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/mr-similar/2007/09/13/1189276869537.html?sssdmh=dm16.278935
I’m imagining Costello getting around parliament with his shoes on his knees and his head half shaved, just to keep up the impression of business as usual. They seem to think of Howard as some sort of god.
They still haven’t resolved the problem that if Howard is the problem they’ve decided to keep the problem. They’re effectively asking voters to vote for a problem they’ll sort out later.
If Labor say anything at all it should be something along the familiar lines of “We support the Prime Minister in his decision to retire after the election, and we support the Liberal Party’s decision to decide who will run the country when he’s gone. If that’s how Australians want the country run, far be it from us to interfere”
The GG can appoint whom he likes for those three months.
But it’s up to the Cabinet to decide who gets what portfolio. (Of course, the GG could refuse to commission any ministers unless an individual (in this case Howard) were accepted by the rest of Cabinet as PM.) The rest of the Cabinet could either accept that situation or withdraw their nominations to become ministers.
There is no minimum number of ministers of the crown. After the 1972 election Whitlam and Barnard were a duuvirate for some period of time.
If Howard were invited by the GG to become an unelected minister, then presumably Howard could ask that the GG dissolve parliament and that fresh elections be called.
If the current GG refused, presumably unelected PM Howard could call the Palace and obtain the appointment of a fresh GG. HM would probably have no alternative but to accede.
However, if the current GG got wind of such a plan to have him replaced, then the GG could withdraw the commission of unelected PM Howard.
The outcome would be determined by which of the two (the GG or the PM) jumped first.
Isn’t the Australian Constitution a wonderful thing?
This strategy is being picked up by Mumble:
“Isn’t the Australian Constitution a wonderful thing?”
It works quite well, except in times of crisis, when it becomes Rafferty’s Rules.
Yes it will, leaving aside your appalling grammar. When the Coalition worked as a team, they had credibility that voters found attractive. Now that they no longer do so, this attractiveness has gone.
No, it’s not what you do it’s the way that you do it. You said that focusing on ideological and legislative matters would change votes, when all it would do is make Labor voters feel better. Those of us who don’t have a Labor mindset would feel ignored by an insular bunch of hacks wittering on about stuff that doesn’t appeal to those who lack your ideo-legislative fetish.
I ain’t no Constitutional Expertâ„¢ but…
the relevant section is 64: “After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.”
It’s been used twice, I believe. First, after Bruce’s defeat in 1929, he remained PM until Scullin was sworn in. And of course when then Senator Gorton was elected Leader of the Lib, he was PM without holding a seat for the time between his resignation from the Senate until the by-election.
It was also practice in the UK that a once a member was appointed a Minister, they had to resign their seat and face a new election, a practice that continued into the 20th Century. Churchill, for example, had to resign his seat when first appointed a Minister, then *lost* the by-election and had to find another seat to contest.
(And I remember thinking it odd at the time of the Dickson(?) special election in 1993, that Keating appointed Larvach ‘Attorney-General designate’ or something, and didn’t just have him sworn in with the rest of his Ministry.)
d
d
“If Howard were invited by the GG to become an unelected minister, then presumably Howard could ask that the GG dissolve parliament and that fresh elections be called.
If the current GG refused, presumably unelected PM Howard could call the Palace and obtain the appointment of a fresh GG. HM would probably have no alternative but to accede.”
Ah, this was tangentially covered at Pollbludger the other night.
d
Mark, I know it has been a heady week for you, with a lot of silly jeering from the side about gutless cabinets, sinking ships, and the hope that you might actually have seen Howard depart sooner rather than later, but really you need to calm down. Only a week or two ago you were telling people in your camp to do the same, then promptly forgot your own advice.
Costello has already reminded Parliament that Rudd was not annointed leader by unanimous vote: his own shadow treasurer didn’t even support him. Labor can’t keep sniping about how much support does Howard really have without this come back, so they’ll move off that topic soon enough.
As for the “complete chaos” if Howard is elected. You list 5 possible contenders. You seriously think the public thinks Downer has shown any inclination at all to have the top job again? Or that Abbott is not seen as potentially too divisive with his staunch Catholicism (and I personally don’t mind him, but I can’t see that he is really PM material.) Nelson, I think, is widely perceived as a bit of a self promoting goose who has already caused problems by careless statements during his time as Defence minister. Again, I just can’t imagine that he or his colleagues are going to see him as PM material, ever.
In truth, I think that the public will correctly guess that Turnbull might try to oust Costello in the next PM stakes, and so what? It would hardly be a matter of “complete chaos,” as they would be in portfolios where they are not in each other’s pockets day to day in the lead up to any leadership vote.
I don’t say the week has been good for the government, but talk back reaction I heard in Brisbane today was not so bad for Howard being up front, regardless of whether he was forced to adopt this tack or not. I also honestly don’t think people really care whether Peter has never been around to the Howard’s for dinner. They obviously can work together without crippling animosity. They leave the “overwhelming hatred for colleagues” aspects of politics to the Labor side, I think.
No, they can’t work together without crippling animosity, the past week has shown that convincingly. There was the meeting in Sydney a week ago where Howard had Downer canvassing views he later rejected. Costello’s budget’s over the past few years have been so ordinary that it has lost the Government it’s prized economic credentials.
The Murray Darling water scam of Howard’s was not even discussed with Treasury. The Mersey Hospital debacle was another Howard on the run proposal that helped gain this Government the reputation of spending whatever it takes to try to paper over the cracks of Liberal Party infighting and puts upward pressure on interest rates.
Costello’s big spending tax cuts for the high income earners was a major factor in interest rates rising over the past year, so I think it is more wishful thinking that the Costello faction and the Howard faction work together. They don’t – Crippling animosity is a good description of what we are witnessing.
In politics disunity is death. If they can’t control two pig headed firmly adversary factions then they can not run the country. The polls and poll betting is telling us exactly the opposite of what your claim is. The animosity runs so deep that the polls are more likely to get worse than better.
Nice to see you riffing off the Liberal Party talking points steve. The difference between the ALP team and the chaotic mess that is the Liberal Party is unfullfilled ambition.
If Rudd wins the election, he won’t be in any way worried about a knife in the back from Gillard, Swan, Tanner, or ant of the other heavies in the ALP cabinet. No-one would take a shot at the guy that led them out of the wilderness. Sure, maybe after the following election Gillard or someone else might challenge him but it won’t be happening in the next three years.
On the other hand if Howard wins we will get more of the same sort of rubbish that we’ve witnessed over the last three years. Endless speculation about when he will retire and who will take over. I reckon that within a week of him winning there would be at least one op-ed asking when he will step down.
You rightly point out that Nelson, Downer, and Abbott could be aweful leaders and the public aren’t exactly fans. But I doubt that their mates in the Liberal Party think the same and that is going to be what matters.
Sorry, my comment was directed to “steve from brisbane”, not “steve”.
Queenslanders have the experience of knowing how to drag conservative governments, stuck on like barnacles out of office. Are you new to Queensland or just new to politics, steve from Brisbane.
Costello recently lectured us that running the economy is like a driving a finely tuned racing car in that it required total concentration. It’s obviously had the leadership challenge auto pilot option installed.
Speaking of Hyperbole, check this out from THe West about how WA will Save Howard from a Ruddslide.
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=54&ContentID=40397
Mick, had to laugh when I heard all the ‘Team’ talk from Howard and co. on ‘PM’ tonight. The taking points may well have to be rewritten when given a trial and failure is the result. We’ve seen these weasel words tried by conservative governments at state level with no success time and time again.
No wonder the Liberal factions reacted with disorganised chaos this week, Frank, because the voter swings are massive and growing whether the local rag believes it or not.
The issue of Howard losing his seat is technically covered by section 64 of the Constitution – the 3 month grace period.
But politically it’s unprecedented. Gorton had a smooth ride because he was the anointed leader of the Liberals – indeed made King by the Country Party, who dramatically had veto’d McMahon. Gorton had a few weeks out of Parliament (to resign Senate to nominate for Holt’s seat). But he never had to be Prime Minister without a seat, let alone a firm party endorsement.
Howard, if the Coalition snuck back into office – or, better still, thought they could rule with an independent’s support – would face a swirlwind of forces:
* rejected in his seat
* Costello-ites demanding instant renewal
* Howard-ites saying ‘he’s won it for us’, ‘the electorate still love him’
* the G-G having to renew a commission for someone, without it being clear how long it would take to force a by-election, and with no clear majority for anyone until Parliament met
* the National Country Party again being king-maker.
I believe Howard said today that “Costello was his natural successor but not necessarily the next liberal leader”.
A survey of NSW MPs say no way to Costello.
So, there is no way the future leadership of the Liberal Party is settled.
Ten or more years out of office might focus everybody’s atention.
Growler, It might sharpen up their brawling skills in the short term and make the general public glad that they saw through their phony kiss and make up rhetoric.
By the look of that they might be in big trouble in an election campaign if they can’t work out who would be PM if they won.
BTW, why complain that JWH said the succession was a matter for the Liberal party room? It’s their practice, is it not? No “anointing” by the departing leader….
Seems those querying it would prefer the leadership to be in the gift of the departing Dear Leader, a la North Korea. Or Qld, or Vic under ALP rule.
I hope this election sees the demise of some of the ALP family dynasties (in Federal seats). They smell of ‘republican’ royalism: handing a seat on to one’s offspring. And yet such howls of derision for royal succession are heard from the same mouths.
Master Crean was one pertinent example, Master Beazley another. Wasn’t the Son of Gough also an MP for a time?
cheerio
Because everybody knows there is no succession plan, it is a factional fight to the death of the Government.
If anyone thinks this leadership matter is resolved, just wait for the next Newspoll with an ALP TPP with a 6 in front.
Its all over now baby blue.
Not for the delusional who have watched eleven years of Howard faction versus Costello faction including last year when Costello claimed he was promised the leadership and Howard reniged. Still they wouldn’t know faction infighting if it flared up under their noses.
What’s with talk of “succession planning” all of a sudden? Makes sense for a family farm, a family business, a huge multinational (eh Rupert?) but isn’t it healthier in a political party to mentor likely future leaders without a quasi-religious/royal “annointing” of the Chosen One?
The Kirribilli “Agreement” was a stinking heap of ordure IMHO.
During the 1970’s Bob Hawke was thought of (by the public) as a future PM before he entered Parlt. Sheer talent, public trust, energy, brains etc. But in the end he had to WREST the leadership by relentless pressure, and factional manoeuvering.
Master Hayden wasn’t well pleased.
It matters practically when the Government is distracted from governing by its’ own internal brawling. A certain amount of tension and intrigue is the norm, but it looks like the Libs are ponying up for a bloodbath or the sort that only an opposition can get away with.
So it might be best for them to loose the coming election so they can replay the 1980’s in a position where the only harm they can do is to themsleves.
Ambigulous, Howard probably doesn’t want Costello to succeed him. And it matters because he is going to the election with some sort of duumvirate – notice Costello blathering on about all the “plans for Australia he has”. If people know they won’t get Howard for three years, they want to know who they’ll get.
On the Ministerial re-election thing, that was the case in the Queensland Parliament in colonial times, and probably in other Parliaments in the colonies. Also occasionally the practice of running for several seats in the hope you’d win one of them. Maybe JHo could revive the latter.
Don’t forget the total cynicism as well of trying to counter Howard’s negatives of being seen as too old, self-interested and having no future plans/ideas. Now they wheel Costello out and say “Look! Fresh! Ideas! Plans!”. If in fact people in the Liberal Party know that he won’t be anointed for the job and heaps of lunatics who are probably even more unpopular will be dancing on and picking at Howard’s carcass from day one (which is indeed most probable in the event of their re-election), then it’s just a bald faced lie.
Kim, with great respect, Howard has never wanted Costello to succeed him and that is one of the prime driving forces for him hanging on.
The only similar historical reference I can refer to is in the famous political documentary series “Yes Prime Minister” where Jim Hacker became Prime Minister.
Who is the Minister for Admin Services in this Government?
Eric Abetz, I think. Very nasty piece of work.
But that’s my point, GG. The whole “Costello will succeed me except I’m choosing my weasel words very carefully” thing is still a bare faced Howard lie. The title of the post is spot on about Howard’s motives. In a way, except that $weetie is the last person he wants to be PM, he wouldn’t care one iota if they tear each other to shreds. Wouldn’t put it past him either to claim that “uncertainty about the succession” or $weetie’s performance in the campaign justifies him staying on forever. If re-elected.
The tale being told to the Australian public at the moment is a lie.
Howards’ bio made it clear that he thinks Costello is politically inept.
That is why there is going to be a bloodbath post-Howard. Costello thinks his patience should be rewarded with the leadership, but the Howard camp (Abbott et al) will do everything to prevent that happening.
Just hope they aren’t in Govt when this happens.
And he’s right!
I’m with Kim. Howard is saving his best performance and swansong as a dance to the death with Costello – last time it was with Latham. Its the cat and the rat.
Howard hates Costello and is luring him and taunting him – the whole “consult with ministers” thing was probably a ruse by Howard to draw Costello out and trap him or ruin him.
Well, he didn’t trap him, but he has made him appear weak and spineless yet again. Division is death, yet Howard now breaks his own mantra to set Costello up and erode his credibility, and will surely seal the electoral fate of the Coalition in doing so.
The rest of them are rabble, still stuck in the thrall of their Fuhrer, are powerless to stop it happening. Will Howard crack out some coolaid too?
Plus it will create a lovely matching bookend to the Howard Liberal leadership story.
Yep.
I can see Howard and the Howardian true believers spinning it in future years – the Liberal Party had no stable leadership til the Great Helmsman took control in 95. He would have won his last election against all odds had it not been for Costello dropping the ball and making a fool of himself during the campaign, and his attention was distracted for months before by all the Costello disloyalty. After he went, in sorrow rather than anger, they reverted to being the fissiparous rabble they were before he, the Bradman of politics, came to the crease.
In creating a ‘joint’ leadership the Govt have taken the edge off their remaining shock tactic of sacking Howard and bringing in Costello, a fresh start.
Now if the sack Howard because of continuing bad polls it would be meaningless as Costello is out their being a joint leader.
My apologies, Kim. It seems as if we are in violent agreement.
Cheers.
WOW!
The leader’s crisis of confidence had exposed the Government’s dependence on his naked ambition. Howard is now hoping that a new surge of confidence will inspire his party, and his new faith in himself has already buoyed the party
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/howards-mortal-fears-exposed/2007/09/13/1189276898096.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Howard’s succession plan is no succession plan at all. He basically carved out onother full term for himself before retiring from parliament. Obviously he sees that one more term will give him the time needed to concrete in his ideological crap, and then he doesn’t care who takes the driving seat.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22415287-5001021,00.html
Oh Dear
G’day, I’m writing to you today from Carlsbad, a coastal community in Southern California. I’m close to completing a west-directed trip around the world and one of my stops was in Berlin.
At the Jewish memorial site in Berlin, the tour guide who was teaching us the history of both Third Reich Germany and Cold War Germany used a quote from Mark Twain that’s new to me: “History doesn’t repeat itself; at best it sometimes rhymes.”
I love this quote because as much as some in the media may hope to distance Prime Minister John Howard’s present struggles from the cicumstances surrounding the defeat of then Prime Minister Paul Keating in 1996, this upcoming federal election may just be that occasional one when “The powers that be” will have next to no influence in determining the result.
Rather, the polls suggest that the general public has tired of media opinions putting semantics ahead of common sense. This is an idea I’ll try to expand upon when I return to Australia.
…From Justin
No! Wait! Cossie’s not the rabbit! Apparently it’s nurses! And pensioners!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22415509-601,00.html
If we let him hang around long enough I think each and every voter can expect a cheque for around $50,000 to arrive any day.
The GG is running a poll: Will John Howard’s suggestion he may not serve a full term influence your vote in the upcoming election?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22073824-5013404,00.html
Hilaraiously running at a 52% response for ‘I won’t vote coalition anyway’.
Comedy gold.
If I were an ALP spinmeister, I’d got a bit soft on the “A vote for Howard is a vote for Costello” line.
Costello is far from being the worst potential replacement for Howard.
The whole point about Howard’s constipated double-speak in the O’Brien interview is that he could not quite bring himself to endorse Costello. Clearly Howard wants someone else.
Therefore the ALP line should be:
“Who does Howard really want?”
This should be delivered over a montage of unflattering shots of the likes of Downer, Abbott and Kevin Andrews, the truly unacceptable faces of the Howard ascendancy.
“Who is the Minister for Admin Services in this Government?”
Growler, there is no Minister for Admin Services any more because there is no such department any more. Howard abolished the department with the stroke of a pen after an anti-government leak a few years ago. Around four hundred public servants drop kicked out the door in an unparalleled act of petty revenge. Admin Services functions were rolled into Finance.
The Special Minister of State (which used to include Admin Services) has always been responsible for electoral matters, and Howard has previously appointed ministers from state liberal party machines. They have included Senator Minchin (SA), Senator Abetz (Tas), very hard right operators whose real job it is to bias the electoral system in the liberals favour. So far they have succeeded, with the disgraceful amendments to the Electoral Act in 2006, which close the rolls early, attempted to disenfranchise prisoners, etc .
The current Special Minister of State is Gary Nairn, MP for the litmus seat of Eden-Monaro. Not hard to guess why he is there. Now known as the Minister for Port-Barrelling Marginals.
Katz, I would deliberately run a campaign … “A Vote For John Howard ISN’T a Vote For Costello” THEN run the unflattering shots … with knives out.
The ALP need to steer well clear of the ‘a vote for Howard is a vote for Costello’.
1. it’s never worked before
2. it won’t work this time
3. he’s not that bad
4. it’s not true – Howard would have anyone BUT Costello replace him should they be in the fortuitous position of having to deal with that problem while still in Govt.
6. it suggests there will be some kind of smooth process post-Howard. No, it will be bloodbath time – the remmants of the kinda small ‘l’ liberals versus the large ‘C’ conservatives allied with the religious right.
Ambigulous has a point about federal Labor’s flirtations with dynasties. There are still some traces of it via the Fergusons, Crean, McClelland and Ludwig (though these latter two show a bit more flair than their dads). But it is now out of the leadership front line.
I don’t think any of the Whitlam sons have ventured into public office, unless you count Nicholas Whitlam’s time on the NRMA board. The attempts to disqualify him (successful initially, but eventually reversed by court appeal) were, as he explained on radio once, instigated by ASIC on pretty flimsy evidence and not a million miles from Liberal influence in Canberra.
Michael; yes. If Labor tries the anti Costello line they are brain damaged. No votes there.
Don & Ambigulous; yes. Labor is an oligarchy. Just look at their preselection processes and who gets up. A few good candidates, but far too many hacks, celebrites and outright duds. Not that the Liberals and National are much better. Occasionally a maverick like Joyce gets under the radar and look what happens. Golly gosh, someone who says they will represent their State and actually voice an opinion (whether you like it or not).
Labor should go full on about:
* the disorganised rabble just can’t get their story straight
* the claytons handover and voting for Howard who has said he will cut and run
* no exit strategy for Iraq but an exit strategy for Howard
* no real action on climate change, just empty rhetoric and waiting for more reports
* ongoing human rights abuses – asylum seekers and now indigenous Australians
* ill considered federal intervention and pork barelling
* a pulp mill that will stink to high heaven and destroy more forests and Tasmania’ ecotourism.
* etc
Time to hammer Howard et al for the 11 years of shit sandwiches they have made us all eat.
Kim
I think that JWH has been cleverer than to tell a lie. Note that he has NOT promised that Costello will succeed him. He can’t promise it anyway – because it’s the party room’s decision, not his alone. I agree that he may well hate the idea of Mr $mirk being his successor as leader.
So I think when referring to a future party vote he’s merely stating the obvious. Then he is free to lobby like mad, when the time arrives, for the bloke he REALLY prefers. If JWH has any influence at that stage, more trubble at mill.
Good point Michael @ 11.07pm: this sort of crazy bloodletting normally occurs in frustrated Oppositions. It’s fascinating to see a bout of iron discipline break out in ALP ranks. Who’d have thought?
Kim: I didn’t mean that the ‘Liberal leadership issue’ isn’t important, just that the PM’s reference to a future party room VOTE (a hurdle Peter-Peter-Humble-Pie-Eater would need to leap) is a mere routine of party practice, not an evil plot, not out of the ordinary.
What’s unusual I think is that at this late stage the boys are all dashing out onto the tarmac to jump into the cockpits of kamikaze planes. And then aiming them at their own colleagues. Reminiscent of the tiny sectlets in “Life of Brian” warring….. but this is supposedly a “government” ???
I look forward to receiving my $50,000 cheque. Let’s see, $20 billion divided by 10 million (voters), hey that’s only $20,000 Peter…..??? Where’s the other $30,000 coming from?
ALP Ad
VOICE OVER: Mr Howard says he doesn’t Cut and Run.
Montage: Howard doing an Elmer Fudd NOT saying that Costello will replace him.
VOICE OVER: [Sound FX. Knives being sharpened.] But when Mr Howard does run, who will get cut?
Montage: Abbott, Downer, Andrews looking sinister. Costello looking worried.
VOICE OVER: When Mr Howard does run, guess who’s getting cut?
When Howard said he wouldn’t serve a full term surely he kissed the seat of Bennelong goodbye? I would think that a fair few wavering voters would vote for someone else if they knew voting for Howard meant a by-election in the not too distant future.
If that is the case, and the Bennelong polls start looking even worse, then this will feedback into the vote as a whole. If Howard is clearly going to lose his seat then why would wavering voters in other electorates choose to vote Liberal if the end result is a leaderless rabble?
(Never mind the constitutional details — Howard is not about to say “Don’t worry if I lose my seat I can be parachuted into another”. That really would be electoral suicide)
Howard could have really stuffed himself with the retirement schtick.
What I am looking forward to is the pre election television debate (if there is one). There will be Kevin Rudd in the red corner, Mr Televison (Ray Martin) in the middle, and in the blue corner, John, or Peter or perhaps both.
We are bound to have a few “Dad and Dave” moments while this comedy act continues.
Imagine if they were asked who would be Prime Minister for the next three years after the next election, what would the correct answer be?
Lame duck and goose cartoon.
Don Wigan @ 8.43am , on Labor “dynasties”?
Perhaps he rose without a trace, but I looked up a list and found an entry ~
Whitlam, Antony Philip (born7 Jan 1944), Grayndler, elected 13th December 1975, retired 10th November 1977.
I reckon that was the chap. Vaguely recall a comment when Gough was re-elected leader by a narrow margin after a poll drubbing, that his son’s vote helped save him.
Nepotism anyone? Jobs for the boys… jobs for the sons and daughters [that recently-resigned female NSW State MP sat in her father's old seat did she not?]
Yes, I know Mr Downer has parliamentary ancestry too, but that doesn’t excuse this sort of nonsense in other parties which claim to follow non-hereditary principles.
cheerio
Eh?
From the Curtin Uni Bachelor of Science (Nursing)
Oh I see. Mmmm tasty return to a traditional model. Looking forward to their Automotive Industry Policy Statement. Drum Brakes! Hydraulically Operated Clutch!
Tony Whitlam was MP 1975-77, unfortunately pushed out for Leo Macleay.
“— Howard is not about to say “Don’t worry if I lose my seat I can be parachuted into anotherâ€?. That really would be electoral suicide”
Not to mention
1) Who would be expected to give up their seat to satisfy Howard’s lust for power
2) Will they even HAVE any safe seats left to parachute him into (not looking good ATM)
3) No matter how safe the seat it is still quite possible there would be significant portion of the electorate PO’d by being forced to vote in a by-election to satisfy Howard’s lust for power
Bring On the Election. After 4 years of constant election I’m sick of it.
Morgan 59-41. Labor 51 on primaries.
I don’t know if this is an APEC moment or an after the deluge moment. Apparently there’s a comic or cartoon around about a rat-like creature that saves the world and has an sidekick that looks very much like JWH. An APEC staffer got Howard to sign her APEC photograph with name of this inept creature, the rat-like creature being GWB.
From memory Australians don’t usually re-elect PMs who beg ro be put back into office. Is it just me or is Howard looking more like Billy McMahon every day?
thanks Down and Out of Saigon
Remarkably consistent with other recent poll results. Still “minus 18 percent”.
Is it just me or is Howard looking more like Billy McMahon every day?
Looking at the latest 7:30 report shots I’m thinking P.W. Botha (from about the time he got done over by de Klerk).
Hi Frank,yeah the West is carrying a torch for the Libs both State and Federal,the reporters on Federal politics are pushing the Liberal barrow,one bloke I think is in love with Howard.
Gonna be dark days for them if the Govt goes,why is it the Perth is incapable of having an intelligent coverage of Nation Current Affairs on Perth Radio,cause neither of the two I have heard does a good job,drives me mad,I listen to the world today,its just hopeless
Pure gold Greenie.
Thanks for that info on Tony Whitlam Ambi and Geoff. Replaced by leaping Leo, eh? Well, proof that in some circs the dynasty might be a superior option to the factional hack.
re the Nurses Bribe, I don’t think the federal ANF will be as rash as the WA ANF Secretary was during the WA State Election by doing a deal with the Libs.
For those who don’t remember, here’s Robert Corr’s take
http://www.redrag.net/2005/01/28/nurses-liberal-pact/
On Labor Dynasties:
kelly hoare – who got the boot to make room for greg combet – was handed charlton by her dear old dad.
not sure if her dad got chucked out of the party, when he didnt support the nong newsreader Iemma dumped onto Newcastle at the last state election…they almost lost the seat, he had a point there.
but i expect locals (esp in this heavily unionised area) will be able to tell the difference between Greg Combet – top shelf candidate and potential Minister… and the dopey daughter who thought parliament was a good way to pay off her mortgage.
Looks like the War on the Northern Territory is being held to ransom by those big powerful overpaid Union bosses.
Since Team Liberal now has a man who cut his teeth on fighting union power in the $weets case, he might like to use his talents in tackling the most powerful union in Australia.
As treasurer, I’d expect him to unleash a torrent of taxpayer funded ads to help Australia be freed of this greedy union menace which has plagued our health system for so long.
He has been sitting on his hands for eleven years and there seems to be no action so far on this issue.
Probably like most of the bloggers on LP I follow politics assiduously. Now, I might be getting a bit old, but not that old. Still, after two days I’m starting to get a bit confused about who in the Liberal Party is actually leading the country. (I know nobody’s running it at the moment.) Howard or Costello? Now if I’m feeling slightly confused about our PM’a new status, with my obsession with politics, how are those punters out there who couldn’t care less about politics feeling?
A trivia question. In his first appearance as alternate PM, Costello was sod -turning. Where do all those silver spades go when the pollies finish with them, and are they real silver?
Back to dynasties for a sec over at The Poll Bludger there was a story that ALP pollsters are hopeful of taking the Minister for Horse Flu’s seat. They think he might be more vulnerable than Russell Broadbent.
The Poisoned Dwarf on the latest Leadership Stoush…..
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22424720-5005374,00.html
Now Howard has decided that if he hands over to Costello during the next term he will go to the backbench and remain the Member for bennelong. It all sounds reminiscent of Joh Bjelke Petersen who plucked the 8/8/88 out of the air as the date for his retirement but never quite made it that far.
What if he is returned and the Government is not returned? Will he still stay on as member for Bennelong? Will he fight to stay on as Opposition leader? What if I am a voter in Bennelong and I don’t support Howard but I do support the Liberals (e.g., I could be a Costello supporter)? How should I vote?
Brilliant!
The new word is that Howard will step down on Tuesday, but Joe Hockey was adamant that this report was rubbish.
Will we see John Howard and the Liberals re elected, John finishing his agenda over the next 18 months, then handing over seemlessly, graciously, to a humble, grateful Costello? Would John then quietly take a back bench possie;- an avuncular figure who gave advice when consulted, did not thrust himself forward and deferred to his former deputy as the natural sucessor and the future of the Liberal Party. Perhaps even standing again for another term. This, whilst enjoying additional quality time with his family, especially his dear lady wife, and navigating the myriad of fabric, tile and flooring decisions that a change of house provokes. I. DONT. THINK. SO.
Russell Broadbent’s an energetic local member and one of the ’small-L Liberal” group (Petrou Georgiou & Judy Moylan) whose opposition to a nasty JWH change mid-2006, was somewhat overshadowed in the press by (last year’s) Costello Dummy-Spit. Future biographers beware: you’ll need to label each Annual Dummy-Spit somehow, to distinguish them.
Peter McGauran is dynastic, that’s true. Someone told me his family owns a good portion of the arable land between Traralgon and Sale: shurely shome mishtake, barman? Peter’s seat was regarded as fairly safe, but is also in a region where fewer voters are ‘rusted on’ these days. Two State ALP members LOST their seats in Gippsland last November:
1. “Dapper little Brendan Jenkins”, Left wing, former City Councillor, union base. His seat of Morwell overlaps a bit with Peter McG’s federal seat.
2. Ian Maxfield, held Narracan, which overlaps somewhat with Russell Broadbent’s seat.
Looking back at the ABC State Election website, they had 1. listed as “marginal Labor”, margin 4.9%. It was won by Russell Northe (Nationals). They had 2. listed as “safe Labor”, margin 6.8%. The seat was won by Garry Blackwood (Liberal).
You just never can tell….. cheerio