… with a bit of help from their friends in the press gallery.
It’s interesting how the script that Brendan Nelson would face a stern leadership test with his budget reply has turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy - due apparently to the desire of Malcolm Turnbull, Peter Costello, Alexander Downer and other unnamed frontbenchers and former frontbenchers to get themselves on record putting some distance between themselves and the silly 5c a litre fuel excise promise. There is, of course, counter leaking - presumably from Nelson’s office - claiming Turnbull was behind the fuel excise cut - all played out in different columns in The Australian, which is indeed starting to read like the Opposition Organ, but not in a good way.
The Libs don’t seem to have any capacity for a disciplined approach to opposition. Despite the claims from Nick Minchin and others that Nelson would bring a “consultative” style to the leadership - in contrast to Howard’s - it appears clear that in the absence of the prize of government they’re incapable of turning their fire on Labor as opposed to scattering it among themselves. Just as some of the shine had rubbed off Swan’s budget, they’ve handed the government two devastating lines of attack - the disunity angle and the fact that they themselves know that their centrepiece budget reply “measure” is a piece of populist garbage and that they were concerned it would tear up their mythical but much cherished “economic management” brand.
Nelson sacking Turnbull would be an absolute disaster for them, for reasons that ought to be obvious. On the other hand, Nelson keeping Turnbull would be an absolute disaster for them, for reasons that ought to be obvious.
A lot of this can be traced back to their continuing failure to adapt to opposition. They need to make the government the story, not contend - in undignified and risible ways - with each other for their 15 minutes of fame in the public eye. Turnbull’s under-reported attempt at a censure on the budget after Question Time last week is a more revelatory moment than has been written up - it shows his own lack of discipline and overweening egotism in trying to shove himself into the spotlight on a day that should have been Nelson’s. Even from the point of view of a leadership contender, it’s a thousand types of dumb.
Elsewhere: More at GrodsCorp and Trevor Cook.
Cross-posted at PollieGraph.
Hey, Mark, I’ve been reading all this stuff about the Liberal Party brawl,on Google news, I must say, with some delight.Glad you’ve done a post on it.
One is left somewhat flabbergasted that Nelson could be so stupid, given his tenuous hold on the leadership and with Malcolm being ready to pounce and all that.But when it boils down to it its really a debate about preserving the Howard legacy or going for broke as a bunch of rabid populists. Howard managed to combine the wortst aspects of populism (the only thing missing was anri-Semitism and an all out bashing of the banks) with a charade of economic responsibility, now exposed as actually being, to use a phrase from a recent press report, pirates partying in a Christmas cave. Hence the inflation genie having so much fun with all us Aladdins.
Re the Rudd budget. I have no problems with the change in private health. As some-one commented on another thread on LP, its private. If the products are good enough people won’t dump them. So far as rhe failure to increase pensions, this is getting such a run politically, whatever we may think of the tights and wrongs of it, that I predict Rudd will act quickly to quell the rumblings. I only hope disabled pensioners aren’t left out in the cold. Scrapping the subsidy on solar panels might have been good economics, but it was bad politics. Rudd has enough problems with his environmental credentials re alternative energy with his pursuit of the fantasy of clean coal. Even if the latter does happen, it will take 20 years which is far too long to be able to help with the stopping of global warming.
As for the Libs blocking alcopops etc in the sanate, that’s madness. I venture to say nobody, whatever side of politics they’re on, wants some kind of pale re-run of the 1975 constitutional crisis. And the Libs will certainly pay if Rudd calls a double dissolution. People who benefit from being able to drop out of private health will vote ALP, and everyone will think bringing government to a stop over colured alcoholic drinks is both ridiculous and irresponsible.The Greens will gain control of the Senate, Feilding and Xenophon will be out and the Democrats will be back. Labor may not have control of the Senate, but they will be operating with political parties they can work with, even if they do have to go a bit more to the left, which I don’t think would be a bad thing. Bring it on!
It is interesting to speculate what might happen with a double dissolution, Paul. I’m still inclined to think it’s not a very big chance, but I also think that it might be what the Libs need to convince themselves their absence from government isn’t just some strange quirk of the electoral gods!
The fuel excise cut was bad policy and even worse politics. Even the most gullible conservative would expect the retailers to put short shrift to any cut in government taxation on fuel.
Big Mal definitely has a “discipline” problem. Equally, the good Dr has a “crazy fucking idea thought up on the run” problem. Seriously, policies like this remind me of the first round of policy suggestions put out by One Nation in the late 90s. Un-costed, populist shit designed to keep the base happy with ethereal promises.
The even bigger problem Nelson is faced with is trying to explain to the electorate HOW he would cost the promise and where he would find the money. The far more promising issue that Nelson should have grasped was the issue of the pension - particularly for single seniors. The Liberal party should own this demographic, but while they are (conspicuously!) dismayed by the lack of attention given to seniors in the budget, they have no real policy solution in the offering!
And there’s a reason for that, Antonio - the fuel excise thing is a direct steal from Family First! Nelson’s obviously trying to trade favours with Fielding for a vote against alcopops (which would normally not be a Fielding thing)… that’s how ridiculous this all is. He doesn’t need to block anything in the Senate. Delivering a budget reply that made sense and was coherent might have done the trick - if (as appears likely) this whole exercise has been about trying to move his own poll numbers up.
Paul Burns, inter alia “rhe failure to increase pensions, this is getting such a run politically, whatever we may think of the tights and wrongs of it”
Paul !!! Please assure us (in Victoria) especially that Senator Fielding and 180 angry pensioners, are NOT planning to appear ouside Flinders Street Station wearing just:
*tights*
it was worrying enough when they took their tops off.
Ambigulous @ 5,
Well, its a thought.I wonder if Senator Fielding reads LP?
No, it was a typo.
The Liberals will have to get rid of Nelson very soon and distance themselves from the foolish policies he has endorsed in his Budget reply speech (opposition to alcopops tax increase, petrol tax reduction etc.) Otherwise, they’re going to damage their standing in the electorate beyond repair (at least for many years to come).
By the way, there does seem to be some discussion that wine-based RTDs will start proliferating like flies at a dairy farm.
But that’s easily fixed. Whack the same tax on wine.
Malcolm’s pet issues are tax reform and climate change. The guy is pretty well informed and has made some pretty good speeches on these issues recently. He’s certainly talking more sense than anyone else in Federal Parliament.
Whether you agree with everything Malcolm has to say or not, the quality of political debate would be much improved in this country if he was leading the Libs. He might crash and burn because of “personality issues”. He might crash and burn on the back of some overly ambitious Fightback! for the 21st Century type policy. If I were to lay odds I don’t think he’d last more than a couple of years, but my God it would more interesting than endless debate about friggin’ alcopops!
Viscount Turnbull, answer the Nation’s call!
Advance to the bridge forthwith, wrest control from Admiral Nelson, send him to weep in the brig. Have him awoken every morning at 3am, thence to a gutter; dress up Ship’s Lad Dolly as a King’s Cross wench to sit awhile with the Admiral lest he feel lonely.
Viscount, set a full sail and make good your passage out of the Sargasso, where the Admiral mistook becalmed for pleasant meanderings. Check compasses and signalling flags.
Send Midshipman Costello below decks to scrape off barnacles: we mean on the outside of the hull, underwater forsooth. ‘Twill not concern the sharks as he himself mightily resembled an barnacle these last 6 months.
Set ChoirMasterAcolyte Abbott off at a Monastery on the Azores, there to further his private study of the Spanish Cleansing [”Inquisition” hablan los infideles en Inglaterra]. Tell him he may Return after he has Racked Up a goodly score.
There is the delicate matter of First Mate Julie; perhaps she may be put into service to Hypnotise the Ship’s Cat by enduringly staring harshly? Certainly this would reassure some of the Men, who betimes have express’t discomfort. Should First Mate Julie tire of the Task, she might hypnotise a few of the Ship Rats, the Cat having been rendered Inoperative pro tem.
Although it may be your ardent desire to make haste to Terra Australis, there are many ports you must visit first. These include Boston, Portsmouth, Rio de Janiero, Kyoto in the East, Batavia in the East Indies, Wellington in Tasman’s Land, Port Arthur where several of your former staff were incarcerated; and would you mind collecting Shackleton from the Icy South too? There’s a good lad.
With all that under your belt you may arrive by 2012 off Sydney Cove. We have plans afoot for you which cannot be delayed much past 2012. Make haste, good Viscount!
Isn’t the govt going to do an overhaul of welfare ah la tax, but including the GST and alcopops this year? I’m sure I read it somewhere just after the budget came out. Apparently, that’s why there wasn’t anything in the budget for pensioners. Set me sraight if I’m wrong.
carbonsink, I don’t agree with you about Turnbull. I think he’s all style and not much substance-a complete show pony. Very disappointing, IMO. Even if he was reasonably good, there’s bugger-all talent the Lib lineup.
For all the trumpeting and a#@e-licking by the punditry over the last 11.5 years, they always seemed a pretty talentless rabble to me, well overshadowed and cowed by the Rodent.
And I think my opinion has been confirmed since the election. If there had been all that depth and talent, they should have been spoiled for choice when it came to electing a new leader, but instead the best they can summon up is Brenda!!! I rest my case. They are in the wilderness until they manage to attract some talent.
Robert, would you believe that a lemon ruski (which to all intents and purposes IS an alcopop) is actually wine-based, despite the mistaken impression one might get that it’s vodka-based. Do you think West Coast Cooler is gonna make a comeback!?
“Do you think West Coast Cooler is gonna make a comeback!?”
No, I’m lead to believe the flavoured apple ciders are going to be our next big thing.
http://www.wildewood.co.uk/goth/cocktails.php for some weird mixes and
this from the Independent about the slightly old trend.http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/features/the-big-apple-cider-is-suddenly-cool-423645.html
I’m not convinced about his substance either, but I don’t see much harm in letting him have a go. If he crashes and burns they can always turn to Julie. If he succeeds he’ll put some pressure on the government to come up with good policy.
Frankly, Swan’s effort was pretty bloody awful for a first term first budget. If the government can’t take a few risks when they’re ahead 60-40 in the polls, when will they?
Where was the vision? Where were the big reforms? Where were the big initiatives? All we got was a bit of means testing and a tax on alcopops. If you read the news this past weekend you’d be forgiven for thinking the biggest single issue facing Australia was teenagers getting p*ssed on lolly water.
Climate change? Peak oil? Ballooning trade deficit? Ravaged manufacturing sector? The slow death of Murray-Darling? Nope, not important, not as important as “alcopops” anyway.
Nah, wouldn’t happen Robert. A) I hesitate to remind anyone of this, but remember… west coast coolers? The problem with wine-based is they’re not alcoholic enough - have to be almost all wine.
But, more impoortantly, the way the alcohol taxes are structured make it more difficult if not impossible with wine. You could do it with fortifieds, hypothetically, but can you imagine trying to make a port-based mixer that tasted good? It would be tough…
You don’t need to add anything to Port to make it taste good; except maybe a cigar and the blood of the working class.
Mark - do you think the Opposition Organ’s ongoing gruesome focus on the Coalition is because their reporters are literally incapable of getting “insider” Labor contacts, and that Rudd & Swann just ignore them? Notice how many Oz articles refer to ‘Liberal Insiders’ - they’re obviously thick as thieves, but how rarely they get any of the same kind of juice from Labor?
I think they’ve totally dropped the ball on investigative reporting on government. I mean, does it actually matter who said what to whom in the Liberal party any longer, apart from freak-show yucks and entertainment value? Surely it’s more important to be scrutinising government? They’re not even the Opposition Organ - they’re really just “dicks”.
Mark, I don’t imagine you expected the Coalition (sic) to slip into Opposition quickly and easily; surely you would agree they’re probably still in shock, to some extent? Due, in no small way I’d contend, to the ridiculous levels of self-belief that had grown in the place where listening to the public should have been.
What the LNP is experience now is a combination of horrors. Loss of ‘the prize’ as mentioned is enough to throw all but the most principled trouper off - but that could be headed off with strong leadership. Another strong leader immediately following is not possible, however - and this is the killer for them - because the LNP is also suffering the fate of all groups when a strong leader vacates. It happens down to the smallest groups, right to the top.
When in the presence of a strong leader - as in group leader - criticisms, fears, concerns, and all other nigglies have a lid put on them. These exist, of course, but their expression is thwarted, given over instead to the lines of belief holding the group together. It’s not just built on the prize, it’s built on the process as well.
Remove that leader, and the group is stripped of that glue, the lid flies off, and within just moments the criticisms, fears, concerns and nigglies start to grow.
What we’d be getting through media at present about the state of the LNP would be very subdued. What would really be going on would be a cesspitting of long-suppressed filth now able to be given life all swirling and sucking through the system.
There is no way a new ’strong leader’ can take hold in that situation. If there were such a way, that strength of leadership would have found expression much earlier, to head this very shite off.
Turnbull is no strong party group leader. At least not yet, and doubtfully ever so. He’s not liked in too many parts, and a boardroom leadership skill does not translate to a political party effectiveness, or even appropriateness. Instead, Turnbull is now doing only the very same thing as the rest of them, except he’s doing it with more forthrightness and more publicly: he’s undermining, niggling, cutting away, as those unlidded negatives all grow life.
This really does highlight how disadvantageous it is to have a two-major system. It’s utterly impossible for the stripped party to regain immediately so as to perform for the nation. The natural process for that negativity to burn itself out, and for a common positive to take hold, can take a heck of a long time. Meanwhile, the political spoils spill over to the other party, who surprise surprise, get spoiled by it - but only after considerable damage has been done due to lack of effective opposition or tabled alternative, and for many years.
I hear what you’re saying and this is not to criticise it, but to fill out some thoughts on it - your words that “They need to make the government the story, not contend - in undignified and risible ways - with each other for their 15 minutes of fame in the public eye” shows the horror manifesting, and again I’d say it’s not possible for them to do this. That uncapping of negativity and having it wash through, as a natural process, takes a long time - and my point is our system is deficient in not allowing the suffering party time to piss off back into the sheds somewhere and go through it all, effectively, without the expectation or indeed silly pressure that they should perform some other immediate, positive and focused function for the nation. (Hello to a pathetic media).
I’m not condoning the shite. But a mature nation would recognise the natural process undergone by a group stripped of a strong leader figure, and allow for it to work itself through.
We desperately need another major Australian political party to balance and protect our very vulnerable, unrealistic, unbalanced system.
Mercurius, you’re onto something there, I think. That would also explain the regular columns complaining about the government’s “media management”. Ie they’re off the drip feed and it’s too hard to find stuff out if someone doesn’t leak it to you?
I’m amazed that Malcolm Turnbull is even in consideration for leadership after his post-budget incompetence on the 7.30 report, his disloyalty over the petrol excise, his bizarre $10M funding for unscientific rain-making technology and his hamfisted efforts on the republic debate. And pompous to boot. Why this assumption from so many that he’s smart or has the makings of a future leader? I can’t see it.
Or maybe there’s so much self promotion going on that people are wrongly assuming that he couldn’t possibly be doing it all himself.
“Mark - do you think the Opposition Organ’s ongoing gruesome focus on the Coalition is because their reporters are literally incapable of getting “insider” Labor contacts, and that Rudd & Swann just ignore them?”
There was a lot of whingeing by Jon Faine and Barry Cassidy at election time as to labor “media management”. Rudd did not bother speak or appear. Why would he bother?
The tone on both shows was mostly hostile with the former commentatator constantly referring to Howards’ glorious capacity to work without notes. Barry Cassidy ,to his credit, has caught up a little with the new reality. I just wish there was a bit of a purge of Murdoch hacks on his show.
I agree, joe2, but I’m scratching my head a bit as to who they’d be replaced with! Are there any “insiders” worth the candle? Be interesting to see how Tony Jones’ Q&A show goes but I’m not sure I’m all that hopeful it’ll work.
Oh, yes, Mark. The Q&A will be fun. Might it be worth a post?
For sure, Paul. We could simultaneously ask our own questions and answer them ourselves perhaps? Or someone could impersonate Tony Abbott…
“I agree, joe2, but I’m scratching my head a bit as to who they’d be replaced with!”
Mark, yer there is that. As “the insiders” have now become “the outsiders”, we may need to wait some time before alliances are made between ambitious labor politicians and younger journos without a history of government sycophancy. In the meantime, Tim Dunlop would be good, though he now works for the evil empire. Jill Singer would be fine and Andrew Jaspin speaks well and is an editor. Why not a blogger like yourself?
New blood is sure as hell needed and much more should be spilled!
Rudd is giving Tony Jones a gift, but i get the impression the questions are all set up in advance. It will be up to the audience to take it out of their hands and make it interesting. I will certainly watch on Thursday the 22nd.
I’d prefer to be an outsider, joe2! And I never get up early on Sundays…
Mercurious @17, I think the gruesome ones still can’t accept that the government’s changed hands. Everyday they wake up hoping their nightmare has ended, but it’s groundhog day again. Christopher Pearson has calluses on his knees begging god to forgive him for any transgressions he may have committed and Albrechtson has developed a nasty tic. As for Pies Akerman…. Bwwaahahahahaha!
Part of the opportunity that a new government has is in the collapse of an old government. The inexperience of incoming ministers in knowing what is (not) possible is compensated for by the squabbling amongst the opposition, and the fact that any criticisms they may have are blunted by (a) infighting, and the possibility that a member of the opposition might disagree with the attacker; and/or (b) the fact that the opposition could have done/avoided the subject of the attack while in government, but didn’t.
That pressure to perform is part of the discipline that stops political parties wallowing in self-indulgence. Ayn Rand had it right about the power of capital strikes, and those with experience of major parties know how fearsome these are. Once the big donations start drying up, it creates an impetus of change that no points of order or extraordinary motions can match in terms of speed and force. Look at Queensland - the capital strike is coming to NSW and WA and it will be devastating for Liberals there, used to Uncle Ron Walker and his ilk coming through with sacks of cash. If you’ve ever stood on a headland and watched the rocksurfers dice with death, look to the Libs in those three states. Things are going to get interesting.
The conservatives are nearing exhaustion and the moderate liberals don’t know where to start, and the Greens just aren’t ready for primetime. You’ll find Sturt’s Inland Sea and Lasseter’s Reef before you find The Third Major Party.
The Pineapple Party of course!
It’s early days, but we may be looking at the same sort of pattern of long term incumbency that we’ve seen in most states - forever. If you go back over Qld and NSW or SA electoral history, with the exception of political crises or major expressions of voter alienation, alternation just doesn’t happen all that often. You could also argue that has become the case with federal politics - Labor for 13 years, Coalition for almost 12, Labor for ? … The 3 years of Whitlam and 7 years of Fraser are starting to look like an aberration.