Reprinted with permission from Online Opinion
If we are fortunate, Malcolm Turnbull will be the next Liberal Prime Minister of Australia.
Fear not, dear reader. I shall not subject you to some vomitous hagiography in the style of courtiers such as a David Flint or Alan Jones. In any case, since the Honourable Member for Wentworth has thus far declined to “friend” me on Facebook, such blandishments seem doomed to go unrequited.
I come not to praise Caesar but to examine him, and to consider what lessons we can draw from a life lived so publicly. These lessons I think will explain why Australia would benefit from a turn with Turnbull, PM.
In so doing, I am mindful of the trap of hero-worship - that tendency to project onto public figures personal qualities that we would wish to see in an ideal leader, but which in fact are absent. Thus do many of John Howard’s admirers mistake cunning for strength, pragmatism for wisdom, and management for leadership. I hope in these meditations to remain clear-sighted enough to see only what is there, and not what I wish there to be. In any case, I have faith dear reader that you will correct me where I fail.
The first and most important lesson is that in public life boldness is sometimes punished, but timidity is never rewarded. Thus from spectacular successes such as Spycatcher, to spectacular failures such as the Republic referendum, we see in Turnbull a character who risks big to win big, and sometimes to lose big - but never recklessly. We saw the same quality in Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. We see the same quality now in Kevin Rudd and John Howard, hence why they are in the frame for Prime Ministership, and why the timid Peter Costello and the reckless Mark Latham are not.
We can also draw many lessons from the criticisms that Turnbull routinely provokes from his detractors. The most common, and the laziest, is an undisguised envy on the part of many for his conspicuous wealth. I am sure such critics will also demur from voting for Kevin Rudd on the same grounds. But envy is not a sound basis on which to disqualify putative leaders in any forum - if it were, then we should immediately begin means-testing eligibility for public office.
Another more substantial criticism is the “turncoat Turnbull” factor, from which I believe we can draw some powerful lessons. These relate as much to Turnbull becoming a Cabinet Minister in the government of his anti-Republican adversary, as they do to his business dealings and friendships with Labor luminaries such as Neville Wran and Nick Whitlam.
Turnbull exhibited remarkable candour and no small measure of bitterness in his denunciation of Howard in the final pages of his 1999 memoir Fighting for the Republic. His notorious remark about “the Prime Minister who broke the nation’s heart” is in fact the tamest in the denouement of the book - a knockout series of personal reflections on the Prime Minister’s character flaws in language as colourful and rancourous as any Howard-hating blogger.
However, I believe Turnbull’s “flexibility” is another manifestation of the boldness that one needs to succeed in public life. Just as with Peter Garrett’s intemperate rhetoric against the Labor Party during the 1980s, here they are as faithful servants of their former sparring-partners. Clearly, they both have as much front as a row of terraces.
It seems to me that critics of “turncoat Turnbull” have mistaken the absence of ideological purity for a lack of principle. The two are not merely unrelated, they are in fact polar opposites.
By adhering to dogmatic positions, puritans usually end up with 100 per cent of nothing. Yet puritans also cope well psychologically with such defeats, as their ideology becomes for them a grim gruel which sustains them in their solitude, consoling themselves that they remain forever lefter-than-thou, or greener-than-thou, or feminister-than-thou. If a spurious consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, then such critics harbour a mental army of miniature orcs. Meanwhile, those few ideological puritans who are fortunate enough to achieve their goals often demonstrate a lethal lack of principle, as we witness in a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or a Chairman Mao.
But whereas ideological purity deforms character, principle builds character. I believe that in Turnbull (and Garrett) we see principle, not ideology, at work - and that it has forged two fine public characters.
Another related criticism is the “sell-out” factor. Such critics remind me of teenagers who, having discovered an underground band they love, then grow to hate the band if it achieves chart success. It seems to me that a supporter who wants their band to remain forever an underground phenomenon is exactly the kind of supporter one doesn’t need. Anybody who resents the stadium success of their favourite band is no true fan, but rather a mean-spirited “cliquerâ€? who merely wants to indulge their vanity by hanging out backstage with the group.
Thus the criticisms of Turnbull derive from a frustrated nexus of righteous envy, puritan impotence, and teenage resentment of the independent act that got too successful. In rejecting those criticisms, we can instead seek to cultivate an outward-looking public attitude, a receptiveness to opportunity, and a willingness to fight on the battlefield instead of shaking our fist at the landscape. These are qualities that I believe Australians would find in a Prime Minister Turnbull.
And yet, just as some commentators have wondered idly this year whether Australians would vote for a Prime Minister named Kevin, we should also ask whether Australians will vote, a second time, for one named Malcolm?
For there is always the intensely subjective and visceral matter of personal chemistry. Simply put, Malcolm Turnbull gets on a lot of people’s nerves. Fairly or unfairly, many write him off as too abrasive, arrogant or infuriating to ever succeed at winning votes. Others consider him charming and gracious. As with most people, he probably exhibits each of these qualities at different times in different settings.
While I cannot dispute people’s individual reactions, I can only ask critics to consider the oft-quoted maxim that politics is show-business for ugly people. When you consider the rogues’ gallery of political figures that have adorned public life in recent decades - the dotty, the febrile, the inebriated, the cadaverous, the slack-jawed, the shrill, the braying and baleful, and the just plain distasteful (and I’m talking about the successful ones) - it seems to me unlikely that Turnbull could turn away any more votes than could any other politician selected at random.
Of course, many would rate the chances of Turnbull winning the Prime Ministership from his present position as being about as likely as Howard’s in the days of Mr 18 per cent. But as Mr 18 per cent found out, the times could yet suit him. In the likely event of a 2007 electoral rout, let us hope the Liberal Party disowns its holier-than-thou puritans and reaches for a more enlightened leadership.
Then again, perhaps the Honourable Member should have joined the ALP when he had the chance.
thank you Mercurius:
you are eloquent on the matter of some “holier-than-thou” folk who lurk at every corner - in the MSM, in academe, in unions, in political parties, amongst the general public, in parliaments, in blogworld, … not just in the pulpits of the land.
I think Tom Uren once spoke out against “the impotence of the politically pure” - there was a man from that old School of Hard Knocks, who fought the good fight for a decent Australia, from a left standpoint, but not exhibiting an ideologically-blind “hatred runs in my veins” attitude and praxis. At least not in public.
Leadership is elusive. Tyrants and aspiring tyrants are numerous. How to weed them out, before they reach positions of power? And if we look to the lower ranks: lower-than-tyrant-but-bloody-unpleasant with such warped views and emotions you wouldn’t want them in a Cabinet room, well….. how to spot them and spurn them?
PS:
sad to say, and I expect opprobrium from many quarters to be heaped, but I feel that Australian voters did the nation a favour by rejecting Latham Labor so resoundingly in 2004, because (sad to say), my guess is Mark Latham would have been more disastrous as PM than John Howard has been.
“this is the hardest column I’ve ever had to write”
Seriously, I think Latham’s character flaws were sufficiently worrisome to justify any wariness voters may have had. Of course I don’t know WHY so many voters rejected the ALP in 2004. But before you descend on me from a great height, do YOU know? Really, truly? Can you PROVE it?
I’m pretty sure it was actually Gough Whitlam who said “Certainly, the impotent are pure.”
On the question of Latham and 2004, if one consults the Australian Election Study 2004 one finds that the voters in 2004 were generally comfortable with the way the government was running things, thought it was better than Labor on every issue except education, health and the environment, and didn’t prefer Labor on those issues as strongly as they did when Labor was winning elections. That said, I would agree that Latham’s personality and methods are not what one would normally associate with an effective, stabilising and unifying chair and team leader of Cabinet and the Federal Caucus.
[It is nonetheless a curious thing, and says something about the commentariat, that the policies for which Latham Labor has been retrospectively criticised were its most prominent policies in each of the three policy areas on which voters preferred it to the Coalition.]
Bah Turnbull. He’s Peacock without the charm or the tan.
His management skills are non-existant and he’s got a glass jaw. He has no idea what motivates people to live average lives in average suburbs raising their average kids.
Mind you, neither did Malcolm Fraser.
I think your column was well-written Mercurius, but apart from occasionally intemperate language I don’t think you’ve taken off the rose-coloured glasses and assessed where he needs to strengthen himself for the fight ahead.
My understanding of Turnbull as a working proposition though would invalidate the gain of his psychological preparedness to help construct working compromise by his apparent monstrous egotism which makes a very very difficult soul to work with.
Compromise for expediency’s sake & one’s personal agenda is not the same as compromise required for nation-building.
But should the coalition lose, Costello has as much chance of gaining the leadership as the aforementioned Mr Peacock. So perhaps then all hail Malcolm the Second…
Yeah, around 100%. Like Peacock, he just won’t become PM.
Turnbull has a few problems yet to overcome before he becomes the next Liberal Prime Minister. First, he has to win Wentworth again. He may, or he may not. From faraway Armidale its hard to judge whether the depth of anti-pulp mill feeling will garner enough votes to lose him his seat.
Secondly, he has to bump off Peter Costello. I suspect if the Libs lose the election, Costello, rather than facing at least six years in opposition, will resign. So that won’t be too much of a problem.
Thirdly, he’s only been in Parliament a few months, so to speak, and already he’s upset a lot of Libs a great deal for his part in trying to get the silly old fart to step down before the election.So he has enemies in Parlt. already. Furthermore, I doubt he’s the favourite on the month with the Uglies in the NSW Right of that ‘once great party’and we’ve all seen how ruthless they were with people who disagreed with them, eg Brogden, poor sod -
Fifthly, there are other people in the Federal Libs who have their ruthless eyes on a future PMship, say, Abbot, Nelson for starters.
Only one thing and one thing alone will win Malcolm II the leadership of the Liberal party. If the Libs think he will definitely, definitely defeat Labor (assuming the ALP wins government this time round.)
Nice post Mercurius. I’ve always liked Turnbull, and as much as I want to see this particular Govt erased from our collective memories it would be a shame to see him also gone. Still were he to hold his seat and the coalition trashed he would be a good man for them to rebuild with as leader and maybe along the way they will regain the title as Liberal.
Excellent post Mercurius.
When Howard loses this election, the Liberal Party is confidently expected by most pundits to implode in self-destructive internecine warfare. Turnbull is in the lucky position of not having any real debts to pay, and can come up the inside straight as leader, assuming there is anything left to lead. Would not put it past him to start a new liberal party out of the ashes of Howard’s defeat.
Coupla more comments on the Turnbull factor:
Pity he joined the wrong party, but maybe a creative bridge builder. He is a risk taker and a big picture man, like Keating. He is a bootstrapper, not a silver spoon, that takes guts and determination. He is a good public speaker and has natural charm, those who cannot see it are charmless themselves. He seems to know when he is wrong, and is capable of change. He needs a safer seat.
Turnbull stands for nothing but himself, and for whomever pays him the most money. If he were to become PM, he would be the most dangerous thing for our country, possibly even worse than Howard. He would be totally in the hands of big business. Because Turnbull is smarter than Howard, and since he holds the same extreme right-wing (read: corporatist) values as Howard, Turnbull would be more effective at carrying out the right-wing agenda.
Howard is going to lose this election, mostly thanks to Workchoices. It will take PM Rudd a few years to unwind the effects of Workchoices, but if somehow Turnbull got to be PM, he would have no problem reinstituting Workchoices, but where Howard failed, Turnbull would succeed, making the crushing of the workers and unions a permanent thing.
“He is a good public speaker and has natural charm, those who cannot see it are
”
Thanks. I’ll live with the charmless tag as on the occassions I have met Mr Turnbull I have detected no charm only extreme rudeness and arrogance.
I could never trust a man who hates cats.
The 2010 election will be Julia v Julie.
I live in Wentworth and have met Turnbull a few times (he puts himself around). He is a good speaker who does have the capacity to charm the politically non-aligned.
Imagine Kevin vs Malcolm - battle of the clones!
Even if every word of “All hail Malcolm the Second” were true, I would not favour him retaining his seat.
This is the man who favours top-down decision making.
As demonstrated by his failed pre-election attempt to bulldoze Clarence Valley communities into accepting the interbasin transfer of vital freshwater flows from the Clarence River system.
Should the Howard Government be returned, I’m sure that Malcolm Bligh Turnbull will try again.
And why did Malcolm Turnbull favor a Republic?
As exemplified by his role in the republic debate.
He also isn’t very good at delegating. As exemplified by him holding up over 500 standard briefs for nearly 6 months when he became Environment Minister. I presume because he’s a control-freak banker -lawyer type, he couldn’t possibly trust the advice and expertise of his department. Someone obviously pulled him into line a bit, but he still sits on things unnecessarily. Not going to work very well if he’s PM.
I’ve heard a lot of people saying he’s smart and much more genuinely Liberal than Howard (eg gets climate change), but has to toe the Howard line. Which all sounds nice, except I’m so very sick and tired of being offered potential “leaders” who apparently are just so capable and charismatic the best they can do is cringe and compromise and mouth empty words.
And that is rapidly going to ‘me too’ Labor as well.
Su, I followed your link but, aside from the broad assertion of cat disposal, there are no details. Such a grave allegation of a depraved and disordered mind as evidenced by the heinous act of moggicide needs to be supported by more than a passing reference in a book by Conrad Black, excellent though his prose style may be.
What more can you tell us so we can make up our minds on whether Malcolm Turnbull has thoroughly disqualified himself from the company of decent and right-thinking people, let alone any aspirations he may have for leadership of our Great South Land?
I can give you nothing GregM. (that was not my blog btw in case you thought it was). Andrew E says he has a glass jaw and Black calls his rages ‘fugues’, perhaps after Howard and Rudd we could all do with the excitement. Just lock up your cats as a precautionary measure is all.
In the event of a Labor win at this election, the next leader of the Liberal party (whoever it is) will never be Prime Minister. Beazley once said that a second term for Australian governments are ‘a walk up start’. he was right. In the event that Rudd wins, the Liberals are in opposition for at least six years and probably longer than that.
So here is a scenario for 2015: Turnbull against Garrett? Could be an election worth waiting for!
Which seat will Malcolm Turnbull hold? Assuming a Liberal loss of government and his loss of Wentworth, would he be shoehorned into Higgins after Peter Co$stello spits the dummy and resigns? Could he bear the thought of living in Melbourne? Deary me.
Because he is pandering to his fellow Catholics who don’t like having the Queen as their head of state.
Better send a flash to Vatican Centre. Our agent’s blown.
Turnbull is probably one of the few MPs to have lived in his electorate for most of his life. I can’t imagine where else he could move to as he’s surrounded by Labor seats.
(Actually, it would be interesting to find out how many MPs did originate in or near the seat they represent.)
Once upon a time I would have considered Turnbull for PM, but then I met the man.
I have real problems with an MP who gets up at a P&C meeting and lets everyone know that the only reason why people send their children to public schols is because they would rather buy a new house or car than pay for the kids to go private. At that moment, he lost me - and pretty much everyone else at the meeting.
Lumping the President of Iran in with Mao Zedung? You have got to be smoking something too strong for you Mercurius. The Iranian guy might be obnoxious but he is not a Mao - even if throwing in his name gives a lofty hint of topicality.
Turnbull made his money by his ability to master the international corporate financial system. Now something that people who run banks do not like to hear is that they are not capitalists and not entrepreneurs, simply because they are not risking anything of their own. They are just employees who tell each other delightful “just-so” stories which allow them award themselves massive shares of profits in good conscience.
This sort of self-absorbed rent-seeking is not the (somewhat) selfless sort of behaviour that one needs in a political leader. Turnbull can be rich all he likes, but I really don’t think that he has got very much to offer Australia as a primeminister: how can somebody worth $130 M ever have any understanding of what a single-parent on $300 pw has to go through?
Besides which, his stupid high-handedness on the republic referendum choices left me with no choice but to vote against the bloody thing. That still rankles.
It’s a bit hard to remember but I think I voted “no” on the Republic too because of the alleged “choice” we were offered and the truly awful campaign Turnbull ran. Though I had no great pleasure in doing so. I did in voting against the horrendous preamble…
Indeed Mark.
This is pretty much Turnbull’s track record. Great in the air-conditioned sandbox of the corporate world with it’s recreation of the medieval hierarchical society and all its divine right of kings (or CEOs) junk.
When people not only don’t have to do what he says, but can ignore him with impunity, he is not so hot.
I think there will be a lot of proving done by Malcolm T before the grumpy old men of the Liberal Party agree to making him leader.
Dammit, “its” not “it’s” — I should know better. Now Apostrophe Man will come in the night and snip off my thumbs.
You gotta watch them.
Oops! I can anticipate some digit lopping from Tense Agreement Woman!
Curing Malcolm Turnbull - my latest makeover…
Turnbull is a dilettante. He’ll walk before Costello.
Mercurius! I see you brought your cheer squad with you this time!
“This sort of self-absorbed rent-seeking…” And that’s why Turnbull would be an appropriate leader for the modern day Liberal Party (unless you believe in all that Howard Battlers schtick). Let’s have the real Liberal Party philosophy out in the open so voters have a clear choice. The Liberal Party is not the party of liberalism, it is the natural home of capitalist bosses like Malcolm, Minister for Macquarie Bank.
We need an effective Opposition Leader for Parliament to work as it should, and especially if Kevin Rudd is to be Prime Minister, given his Dr Death tendencies recently displayed in the McClelland ruckus. The other contenders in the Liberal Party have used up all their political capital and the electorate regards most of them as a standing joke. A relative clean-skin like Turnbull would be able to take the fight up to Rudd without everyone falling around laughing. He might even charm a few people.
However, I doubt Turnbull would ever make it to Prime Minister in the longer run. His “self-absorbed rent-seeking” is not going to take him that far. In the meantime it might be useful to watch an open battle between the forces of Capital and the forces of Labor on the Parliamentary floor, instead of through television advertising and pork-barreling and the rest of the noisy nonsense that we are sold as political debate.
Silkworm’s identity can be revealed. She is my mother! At least, I have vivid adolescent memories of my mother insisting that Australian republicanism was a conspiracy by Catholic immigrants to replace the Queen with the Pope as Australia’s Head of State.
Sincere thanks to everybody who responded on topic. The feedback is very valuable and I appreciate even the (on-topic) barbs.
Some of the denunciations of Turnbull highlighted issues he will need to address, others confirmed the article’s observations about envy, dogmatism and puritannical attitudes.
And then there was Nana Levu. I seem to have attracted my very own online flea:
I don’t have a cheer squad, I just login as a bunch of different people and type “Nice work Mercurius!”, “Great article Mercurius!”
Sometimes, to make it interesting, I then login as a bunch of other people and type “Rubbish Mercurius!” “You’re a complete twit Mercurius!”
At least Nana Levu avoided the anti-Semitic remarks s/he made about my surname last week, which the good folk at LP decided were best removed. It was something along the lines of a person named “Goldstein” having “mean lips”. Charming and witty.
Nana, this is the first and last time I will give you the satisfaction of a response to your provocative needling. Don’t reply to my posts in future unless you have something worthwhile to say in joined-up sentences. Anything else will get lost in the spaminator.
Now run along, I’m sure you have some important irritating to do elsewhere.
Having discerned a similarity in the linguistic style of the poster and the respondees I suspect some members of the cheer squad and the poster are the same.
In my case at least, you are wrong Nana. I am not now nor have I ever been, Mercurius. I know him not. He is not my relative, friend or acquaintance. He is a poster on LP, to me. I liked his post, and said so. Elementary.
As far as I recall no-one on LP has ever posted using my nickname. Why would they? I’m a dill & drongo.
cheerio
Discerned? More like imagined. Troll.
(Sorry, couldn’t resist. Must. Stop. Feeding. The. Troll.)
Phil, we have a super-sleuth among us.
I look forward to hearing about how I managed to type responses to my article between 9-10am yesterday while walking to uni, between 10am-12pm yesterday while in a lecture with 100 other people, then while walking to and attending meetings from 2pm-4:30pm with prospective tutorial students, and while at home with my wife from 5:00pm onwards.
That leaves only the comments from 12pm-2pm yesterday, none of which could be described as a cheer squad.
However, having discerned a similarity in the linguistic style of the troll and the poster, I suspect that Nana Levu and I are the same.
etc.
Mercurius - posting the equivalent of “neener, neener, neener, you’re just jealous.” dost not counteth as a response.
As more than a few people have noted in the thread, you might like to call us puritanical and charmless because we fail to see the solar effulgence emerging from the nethers of MT, but we will remain unmoved by slick Mal
I am! Wait…
Ohe, Nana Levu, you one lamu vutu, truseup.
I am Spartacus.
Well, with a few minor exceptions, what a delightful thread. Much of it beautifully written, much of it well reasoned, much of it slyly humorous. Can’t ask for much more, really.
I don’t yet have a strong view on Malcolm II’s character qualities, but there seems little doubt we’d be foolish to underestimate either his determination or ability. I’d imagine as long as he is still enjoying the game and sees himself as in with a reasonable chance, he’ll persist. This political period certainly doesn’t strike me as a casual foray.
As someone else noted earlier, his would be competitors from the current leadership ranks suffer from terminal overexposure of their various inadequacies and chicanery. Even of whatever good qualities they may have. Their political capital, such as it was, has been frittered away. This does give Turnbull quite an advantage. Barring the appearance of some entirely fresh and captivating face, I’d imagine he has to be seen as the favourite.
Ewwww. I never thought of looking there.
In future, let’s please avoid reference to ‘nethers’, being ‘unmoved’, and ’slick’ in the same sentence?
Lucky that Malcolm doesn’t like rich bullies…
I live in Wentworth and saw him on the bus a few months ago - he tried to attract as much attention as possible when getting off (hey, look at me!! Excuse me, that’s my umbrella under the seat two rows ahead…), probably the only bus he’s been on in his life
zebbidies spring, actually malcolm was a entrepreneur, not merely an employee of the 4 pillars or mac bank etc. he grew up in a single parent household in flats in the eastern suburbs, and worked his way through uni, as he says, in this month’s local low rent rag ‘The Beast” (feature on him)working as a labourer and usher, then as a freelance journalist, went to england & worked as a journo, came back, practiced law and ended up as Kerry Packer’s lawyer, then set up a law firm and then the investment bank, from which he made his mega-millions, but he also set up alot of companies - Ozemail, was a well known Turnbull company.
a self-made man whether you like him or not, (and aside from the odious policies he is now spruiking/supporting.)
as suz pointed out - he grew up in wentworth, and he says in the article “I’d rather live in a flat in Bondi, than a mansion out in the outer suburbs.” not that he’d ever have contemplate any such scenario, but like alot of born & bread eastern suburbs people, it rings true to me.
as to politics - he states in response to “Are you prepared to serve ten years in opposition if that’s what it takes get back in govt?” “I’m in politics for the long term subject to the people re-electing me and I’m 52, and touch wood, in good health…
not mentioned in the article, is that he is also quite the philanthropist, the kids hospital has a ‘turnbull wing’etc. at the end of the day, rich people don’t have to give away their money, so i spose this counts for something.
as to any choice between howard or costello or turnbull. i’d take turnbull…. but this little black duck won’t be helping him on his journey from point piper across the pond to kirribilli house ….. come whichever saturday in november, this wentworth voter will be putting the liberals last, as always.
Actually (at least according to Wiki) it was set up by Sean howard. Turnbull and Trevor Kennedy invested in 1994, 2 years before listing. So MT was an investor who also provided expertise in big financials. From which he picked up some 60mill. Howard was the entrepreneur. I certainly hope he is richer than Turnbull, but I doubt it - it never seems to work that way.
And he went (again according to Wiki) to Vaucluse Public School, continued his primary education at Sydney Grammar Prep, St Ives then went to Sydney Grammar School. When you say “single parent” I think you are implying single mum (actually his dad) surviving on a pension. It seems to be more like Prince Charles was a single parent after Di kicked it.
Again looking at his work history, it is working for others, or starting up investment banking companies which (as I said) make money by being able to master the intricacies of the modern financial system. Not exactly the man with his name on the van.
I don’t deny he is extremely bright and hard-working, but I truly do feel that he has no understanding of what it is like to be poor and friendless and not be blessed with talent, looks and a genius for people management.
Sean Howard was indeed a founder of Ozemail. I recall close to midnight late in 1991 or ‘92 calling the then-startup Ozemail company to get a 2400 baud modem working…the tech support was answered by…”Sean speaking” (!)
And fear not, Zebbidie, Sean did OK out of the deal. Your bitter assumptions are mistaken, prejudiced and inexplicable.
And if I’m not mistaken, I think you’ll find the education of young Malcolm was done on scholarship - you know, the ‘magnanimous’ private schools that say “we’ll let these people with no money study here for free because they’re brighter than our chinless wonders and they single-handedly improve our average grades,” or sumfink.
But don’t let me stand in the way of your righteous indignation. It’s most instructive.
And if a childhood of being poor, friendless, with little talent, looks or a genius for people management is what you seek in a PM, then I suggest you vote for the incumbent.
Turnball’s first foray into politics was running in a preselection for the Labor candidacy in Mosman. When he lost the preselection, he switched to the Libs. I could never figure out why he ran for a Labor candidacy when he was a Young Lib in high school.
gads, zebbidies spring, i really dont want to defend turnbull except that according to him, his old man didn’t have money and they lived in rented flats for most of his upbringing.
re: the private education thang, it certainly corresponds with what Kate from Q said up the thread:
like howard and his anti-union hatred supposedly ingrained by his dad, (but discounted by his older brother) malcolm certainly has taken on the ‘private education is the most important thing you can pass onto to your kiddies’ schtick c/o of his old man.
like i said, i ain’t voting for the man, and didn’t last time, and wont be in 2010, if he is re-elected, which i expect he will be….
the margins they are quoting in wentworth are fcuked up from the king split lib vote in the 2004 election - but the reality is that the ALP only polled 26.3% primary vote in 2004. the greens polled 11.2% that’s umm. 37.5% - the ALP 2pp ended up being 44.5% and libs 55.5 (the combined king/turnbull primary vote was 59%.)
in 2001, King got 52% primary, ALP got 29.52%, greens 9.77% dems 6.15%..- the 2PP was 57.86% for King and the ALP got 42.14%.
taking into account the re-distribution of apparently 3%, that’s still nearly 5% to make up in liberal heartland….i’d be ecstatic to be proved wrong.
silkworm, from the same rag:
“we’ve been told that you actively sought Labor pre-selection in the past, is there any truth to the rumour?”
“it’s completely untrue. i’ve never been a member of the labor party. i think there is nothing wrong with being a member of the labor party. it’s just one of life’s mistakes that many people make. as it happens, i haven’t been a member of the labor party and i haven’t sought labor pre-selection”
I remember him running for Labor candidacy at the time. Now he says he never did. He’s lying.
gee silkworm, why would he open himself to being exposed as a liar on something which could be so easily shown to be true (or false)?
are you sure it was him?
Jeez Mercurius, are you deliberately trying to insult everybody who disagrees with you? Do you want to across as someone who wants to restore a bunyip aristocracy?
Going to private schools on scholarship puts you in a completely different social class, especially the people who you make friendship networks with. I simply see no evidence that MT is the sort of person who reaches out across classes.
I’ll know about the low income upbringing, but he seems to have done a bloody good job of forgetting where he comes from (apart from “My Humble Beginnings” stories).
I never want to be ruled by a member of those social groups who are brought up to view themselves as the natural ruling class. You can call me envious, I say I’m part of the great Australian tradition of egalitarianism and disrespect for those with too high an opinion of themselves.
Sorry Zebbidies, to whom have I directed an insult?
I have made a series of speculations about the psychological basis behind yours and others criticisms of MT’s wealth and success. These speculations relate to puritanism, envy, righteous indignation, prejudiced assumptions and projecting a lot of reverse-snobbery on one MT, MP.
I set out the reasoning for my speculations in detail in the article. Considering that you and others have been a little off-beam in some of your assumptions about MT such as being self-made and all, and you based some pretty strident criticisms on those wobbly assumptions, I think that lends some validity to my earlier speculations.
Take your phrase ‘forgetting where he comes from’. Classic reverse-snobbery. Mark Latham is a fantastic example of a person who hasn’t forgotten where he came from, just as John Howard is a fantastic example of a person who knows what it’s like to be ‘poor, friendless, with little talent, looks or a genius for people management’. These “virtues” you want in a leader have given us some very peculiar leaders.
I don’t think these insinuations qualify as insults, but I’m sorry if they make you uncomfortable. That’s often a sign that there’s some substance to the critique.
Fair enough. A shorter version of my article would simply state that I don’t think MT is one of those people, so you’ve got nothing to worry about in his case. I don’t think he’s a “bunyip aristocrat”. Obviously we disagree on this point. I don’t mean to insult you for disagreeing. The purpose of the article was to invite you to consider the basis of your disagreement.
Or, as I admitted in the article, I might be seeing things in Mr Turnbull that aren’t there. Some of the other commenters have pointed out some of those failings, but your comments only typify the exact kind of criticisms I had already addressed in the original article.
like howard and his anti-union hatred supposedly ingrained by his dad, (but discounted by his older brother) malcolm certainly has taken on the ‘private education is the most important thing you can pass onto to your kiddies’ schtick c/o of his old man.
What really annoys me about these politicians (Turnbull and Howard, but I bet there are others) is that they parade around the public schools in their electorates, telling stories about when they went to their local public school, trying to look like ordinary folks - but did they send their own kids to public schools? No way.