Props to Paul Burns for cooking up the latest apt nickname for Peter Costello – it says it all, really. If the Liberal Party thought they’d recovered from the political morass they sunk themselves into with the stimulus package naysaying, they’d be quite wrong. Most voters won’t be reading every single one of the five hundred or so articles about Costello’s continuing ambitions/frontbench refusal/refusal to comment in every single paper. But the Liberals have succeeded in conveying the message that they are opposed to doing anything much right now about the economic situation and that they’re much more interested in themselves. Good one.
Just how dire the gap between Liberal obsessions and public opinion is can be discerned from a perusal of Possum’s close reading of the figures in the latest Essential Research poll.
All this raises the question of Joe Hockey’s suitability for the Shadow Treasury. He’s been touted by Malcolm Turnbull as a “great communicator”. Opinions might reasonably differ on that. But if we accept the claim for the sake of argument, what exactly will be communicating?
It hasn’t escaped notice that Hockey’s elevation (and Christopher Pyne’s promotion) leaves a gaggle of “moderates” at the top of the opposition tree. Perhaps there’s a need to pacify the Liberal right by reciting endless mantras about the virtues of free markets (although again, whether the Howard government incarnated such virtues is surely dubious). The problem here is that “free markets” are, in the public mind, the cause of our current woes and pledging one’s faith in their wonderfulness is also coming across as code for… doing nothing. And waiting for the economy to tank.
I’ve always argued that to claim that Malcolm Turnbull has an “economic strategy” is to stretch words beyond the limit of their meanings. Hockey, or someone or other, must have been sending a few signals out to the press aside from the official line about markets. It was suggested in the Fin yesterday that Hockey would be criticising the substance of anti-recessionary measures rather than the need for them, and contrasting the Rudd government’s performance with the Golden Age of the Howard government.
Here, there’s also a problem. The public like what’s being done. If the opposition go down this route, they risk incarnating another political cliche – The Carping Opposition. And talking about the past – and themselves – well, you join the dots.
As always with the Liberal Party post November 2007, the real issue isn’t the messenger. It’s the message.
Yeah, they’re floundering without public service support. Its harder – you actually have to understand shit yourself. No nice little briefings from Treasury or Dept Heads to disguise your cluelessness.
Welcome to opposition.
I call Costello “The Incredible Sulk”.
more like “Yesterday’s Zero” – with apologies to John Paul Young
Mark, it was that guy Brissenden in last night’s ABC news. But I’m delighted to take the credit for bringing it to the attention of LP.
Seems they are really devouring themselves now. Costello is now labelled a perpetual threat to whoever is the Liberal leader. As for Pyne last night – “this rotten government” – for a moment I thought he was talking about Howard. He could hardly contain himself from doing a dummy spit. “Peter and I are very close”. I nearly threw up.Honestly, these guys have well and truly lost it.
Yes, Power is like a good suit: it conceals all sorts of problems. This guys look pretty ugly nude.
My last comment was a bit rushed, because I was cooking lunch and rushing back and forth between the computer in one room and the stove in the kitchen. I don’t know how much of what follows is like teaching you all to suck eggs, because you probably all realise it anyway, but here goes:
1. Malcolm decides to block Rudd’s stimulus package, probably at the urging of the Howardistas and ends up with lots of political egg over his face.
2. He therefore decides to take the Howardistas on by a)trying to paint Costello into a corner over leadership aspirations, but Costello is too smart for him.
3. He tries to get Costello to take the blame for dumping Bishop, but again, Costello, being too smart for him, refuses. (Remember The Overshadow was manipulated by Ratty for years, so nowadays he sees a trap coming a mile off.)
4. Malcolm tries to stack his frontbench with moderates, yet again upsetting the Howardistas. These so-called moderates backed things like Workchoices, the Pacific Solution and so on and so on. There’s no need to enumerate the evils of the Howard years. We all know them. But if Malcolm’s moderates are moderates, I’m a RWDB. All the true moderates have left or are leaving the Party – or Parliament.
5. In arcane ways that are a bit beyond me Malcolm attempts to get rid of the Howardistas in the party structure, further enraging them. They leak to the media like a sieve. So does the Overshadow, or his supporters.
6. Malcolm among other things, being the intelligent man he is, refuses to back the Howardista climate change deniers in the Party. They get further enraged.
7. Meanwhile everybody gets a bit pissed off the Overshadow only wants to be the Overshadow and not the Third-Best Great Leader any more. (First-best being Ming the Terrible, second-best, Ratty.)
8. Lastly, it comes out Malcolm has only just taken millions of dollars out of investments in one of the vulture investors that caused the US subprime crisis, thus proving he is the rapacious capitalist Rudd has made him out to be.
And these guys wonder what they’re doing wrong?
It’s amusing to hear Joe Hockey described as a good communicator. Is this the same Joe Hockey who was communicating the benefits of Workchoices for about the last year of the Howard Government?
The revelation today that big Mal is partially supported by his promise to bankroll the next election campaign explains a lot.
You can spin it however you like, but Costello can’t/wont do the same.
It might even be in the long term interests of both of them for things to go downhill before they go back up again – a battle of the stayers, if you like.
That’s the only explanation I’ve come up with so far for the stimulus debacle – it’s big Mal demonstrating who is calling the shots, and also finding out who is really loyal. Fair enough in some ways – he does need to clean up his own patch before really taking Rudd on; if it costs in the short term the so be it.
Today’s revelation about money certainly muddies things for all concerned, but it’s hardly surprising – the guy is labelled as a merchant banker when he’s really a lawyer, or does that say more the links between merchant banking and the law; I’m not sure?
One and the same, JohnL.
Proves the point really. He communicated it so well that unprecedented numbers of the population were able to see what a crock it was
.
Mutant Cane Toads may have invaded the coalition parties…watch Hockey’s tongue people, I’m telling you WATCH HOCKEY’S TONGUE!
I think we’d all accept that the Federal Opposition has no power to force any issue at this point. Someone getting around Ingham in a tinny does not claim to be mastering the flood, let alone turning it back; and so it is with being in Opposition.
One of two things happens from here:
a) the stimulus works, Australia suffers little if any economic harm and comes roaring back, paying off debt like a beauty.
Result for Libs: Turnbull and his people look stupid, reputation for sound economic management goes down toilet, voters as grateful to incumbents as you might expect.
Costello unable to articulate anything beyond “In my day …”, but everyone else has moved on. Calls for infrastructure (roads etc.), is laughed at as i) Rudd is doing this anyway, and ii) he couldabeen Mr Infrastructure but he had his chance.
b) the stimulus fails, Australia in economic freefall, weighed down with extra debt.
Result for Libs: Turnbull has little to say beyond “told ya so”. I had hoped he’d develop a Grand Plan, but that appears unlikely.
Costello unable to articulate anything beyond “In my day …”, hoping vainly that this might give him credibility in getting the country out of the mess. Hints at Grand Plan but such journos as remain call him on it. Jeff Kennett laughs at Costello for being in exactly the position he was in during ‘91-92, without the balls to do anything about it. Calls for infrastructure (roads etc.), is laughed at because i) nobody has any money for such extravagance, and ii) he couldabeen Mr Infrastructure but he had his chance.
onimod, Malcolm Fraser was grande Mal. The current Mal is petit Mal. (Even though I loathed Fraser at the time, I have to concede that he had, and still has, a gravitas that the Merchant Banker completely lacks.)
Where is all this “new”stuff about Turnbull’s investments and his bankrolling the next election campaign?
And, today’s news for the Libs’ political-egg-on-your-face file (In case you haven’t already found it): Private health funds defy exodus fears “Private health funds have recorded their highest membership rates in seven years.”
On current Oppo form, Andrew E, I’d be inclined to have a bit on your option (a).
I’m trying to think of an Opposition that floundered this badly. About as close as I can get is Arthur Calwell in the “Cocky” period when cartoonists portrayed him with most of his tail feathers plucked for a feather duster. For a new Opposition, the Libs post-Whitlam, before Grande Mal; although I don’t remember them being this bad.
Oh Dear! Doesn’t look like Number Two has started out too well
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5329336/australians-richer-says-hockey/
The problem here is that “free markets” are, in the public mind, the cause of our current woes and pledging one’s faith in their wonderfulness is also coming across as code for… doing nothing. And waiting for the economy to tank.
.
Well naturally there’s the inevitable argument viz the veracity of that statement. This will of course go on and on until the next Big Crash. Given the tangle between public policy and private activity I’m sure either side can mount a fine argument. Perception-wise, however, the free market mantra is a stinker right now. People were already tired of it and the Libs won’t get back in until they realize they need a better song to sing.
.
There will be a time tho’ when the Social Democrat’s Song becomes a little tiring. Just sayin’.
.
Just after the shit hit Costello had an article in, I think, The Age waxing lyrical about the soundness of our banking system because it was, um, well regulated. Given the number of people I know with two mortgages and a wallet stuffed with maxed out credit cards I suspect it may be that the tipping point hasn’t been reached yet. If it’s there in our future it will shatter us when the Finance Tsunami washes in.
To be fair Polly – you should actually read his direct quote.
What Hockey said was that despite the GFC Australians are richer than they were 15-20 years ago. Which is undoubtedly true unless you want to disagree with the ABS measure of household wealth. He was attempting to put things in a bit of perspective and was not saying that they were wealthier than they were a couple of years ago.
It was Swan that sensed a political opportunity and tried to make the quote look like Hockey was denying the impact of the GFC and was out of touch.
It is classic spin from Swan and if the situation was reversed you would all be up in arms about it.
Like nearly everyone on this blog, I think the opposition have handled the response to the GFC very badly and are rightly losing political support.
But I don’t think the blog is the right forum for repeating either party’s political spin.
Patricia WA,
Was in the Sydney Sun-Herald on Sunday. Was sent to me via text in e-mail, so I can’t link it.
The stuff about him bankrolling the election was in one of the articles on Google News yesterday or this morning I think, but I can’t remember which one.
“It is classic spin from Swan and if the situation was reversed you would all be up in arms about it.”
I wouldn’t be. You can’t expect any politician not to take advantage of an opportunity like that. It would be like expecting a dog not to lick its own testicles.
Found something on Turnbull bankrolling Libs for the next election.
“Party sources” said blah, blah via gossiping Christian Kerr.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25072336-601,00.html
I’d love to know about the other stuff.
LO, what you fail to comprehend is whatever jovial Joe said about the wealth of Australians 15-20 years ago is totally irrelevant to current economic circumstances, as anyone with half a brain would realise.
Just as well you’re a Labor outsider.
Other stuff.The article is by John Gordon, Sun herald, february 8. If someone can find a link?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/revealed-malcolm-in-middle-of-us-donation-controversy/2009/02/07/1233423564286.html
Got it!
Actually – it not at all irrelevent Adrian – Hockey was saying that we shouldn’t forget that wealth has been on an upward trend and that the focus of policy should be on what is necessary to provide the conditions for asset markets to recover and Australian wealth to continue growing. Japanese equity prices and residential house prices are lower today than they were two decades ago – so again it is a useful reminder of how far we are from such an awful position. And tone down the insults okay? Perspective and a little bit of optimism can be quite useful during a recession to help mitigate the impact of pessimistic sentiment on the decisions of households and firms. My point was just that both the government and the opposition will spin events and policies to suit their own politcal agendas, and we should be wary of that – regardless of whether it is the party we support that is doing it.
Overshadow? Underwhelmer more like.
So Malcolm is at least putting his money where his mouth is?
Thanks, Joe 2, I have now found the Herald Sun story, which is repeated in the SMH today. I imagine if it really had legs it would have travelled much further than this in ten days. Or is it too optimistic to hope that the ALP has decided to err on the side of the angels and not exploit this potentially damaging item?
I always find amusing the reference to Therese Rein’s, or the Rudd family’s “wealth” immediately the Turnbull millions are mentioned. Good on Therese for her success. However, in the decade or so of her business activity in the job creation business surely they haven’t been able to amass anything comparable to the fortune of Lucy and Malcolm? Not that it’s relevant to anything, I suppose, and I notice the Rudds simply ignore references to it. I guess protesting their comparatively lesser wealth would be counter-productive.
Labor Outsider is correct to note that Hockey’s comments are true. However Swann’s spin is not all angular velocity. There is no law of physiks which states that Australia has not already seen its best economic days. The GFC, AGW and HOP well might all combine to see us enter a prolonged decline.
It’s been my poysonal belief for ten years that my generation experienced the absolute best of times. My kids will have it materially tougher. In that context I think the Libs are still in cognitive catchup.
Peter Costello, eh? Now there’s a blast from the past.
“I’m trying to think of an Opposition that floundered this badly.”
It shouldn’t be that hard. You do remember Simon Crean’s leadership, don’t you?
BBB
I advance you Billy Sneddon per the cartoons of the time:
“Or is it too optimistic to hope that the ALP has decided to err on the side of the angels and not exploit this potentially damaging item?”
Maybe not an “err on the side of the angels” but one, P/W, wisely left for the keeper. “Alert, Alert, don’t mention money making rorts”.
I imagine that such a donation would be illegal if were going the other way. American politicians, I thought, are not officially able to benefit from overseas donations.
It’s surely time we brought in a similar arrangement as I am not sure that the free trade agreement should extend as far as our politicians.
Apart from the sheer crass of Hockey’s emphasis on “wealth” meaning “monetary & material wealth”, he was factually wrong in a number of ways.
In comparative terms, Australia was wealthiest during the “Golden Era” of golden fleeces, gold metal and golden grain leading into the commodities crash of the late 1880s & Depression of the 18909s; a wealth we can still assess through public buildings, Victorian mansions and UK/European fine art and practical arts.
For decades, until late Menzies era, Australia led international “leagues tables” in a swathe of elements, including property ownership & home ownership; av wages & salaries, especially “blue collar”, & IR; good cheap natural foods, especially protein; & calcium; health & maternal welfare (QLD was international top in perinatal maternal & child welfare/ survival); social welfare, esp OAP. I can’t recall when we dropped out of international medal contention – during late 70s-80s commodity busts, I think. Internationally, we are now …?
If, however, “national” & “social capital” are included in wealth, then the richest era is one of our poorest materially – the 1890s, leading into WW I: the decade (& era) that created “Australia”; politically and in IR through Federation, the strengthened AWU & other unions, the ALP, the Harvester Judgment; and, largely through The Bulletin’s “Red Page”, and the Heidelberg School & its Sydney equivalent, a defining Golden Era of literature, art and the arts … leading into the ANZAC tradition (BTW, a number of Oz artists made it internationally & are represented in top London, Paris & Moscow galleries – seeing Grace Cossington Smith on the Pushkin’s walls with Vincent VG & other impressionists was a real thrill)
I could add more, especially to “national & social capital” (inc “Nation building”, but not change the overall pattern.
So how does the Howard Era, even the last 15-20 years (15 max, since 1989-93 were the pits of Pres. G Bush Snr’s recession), stack up against the above, given that they at least serve to show that even by objective, internationally comparative measures, Joe Hockey was wrong?
Andrew E at 12 – If your second option is a likely scenario, my own political bias apart, Rudd seems our best hope for maintaining social cohesion if there is a major depression. Everything one reads about his time in Queensland government administration suggests he would be able to conceive and marshal state and federal bureaucracies into massive and coordinated action to generate employment through infrastructure and renewal of social services. Thank heavens we have no “empire” as such to think of. The French are already feeling social unrest “outre-mer” in Guadaloupe and increasingly there is unease as unemployment grows on mainland France. Right wing Sarkozy is introducing stimulus packages aimed at both business and the disadvantaged and families with children returning to school. He seems a different and better man showing statesmanlike anti-protectionist rhetoric and a real concern for the less fortunate. I guess he doesn’t relish the thought of an electoral guillotining. Here in Australia Malcolm Turnbull has clearly thrown his chance to be a similar champion of the masses. He has the oratory at least to have been a right wing populist leader at a time of economic downturn and social unrest. Too bad about Howard’s legacy and now the “Overshadow”.
I gather the Overshadow has decided to cause real problems and NOT GO, but sit on the backbenches as a leader in waiting. Apparently Pyne was behind the undermining of Bishop in some way and Malcolm has rewarded it er, him, for it. This is futher encourging the Howardistas to become a faction of enrages. I can hear the tumbrils already.
I wonder what it would take to lure
AchillesTip out of his tent, Paul.Perhaps we can look forward to the prospect of a body being dragged some distance behind his chariot … But who’s?
The Liberals are imploding. Turnbull has just sacked Parliamentary Secretary Corey Bernardini, a South Australian Senator from the Right, for attacking Pyne.
Minchin, Abetz and the rest of the stormtroopers aren’t going to take this lying down. Hot damn! Strap yourselves in and pass the popcorn. This should be quite a show.
It seems logical that Pyne could be a central figure in the de-stabilising of Bishop as he was firmly in the Costello camp when they were in government. I wonder if he feels a stronger loyalty to Costello or Turnbull, his loyalty to Costello apparently keeping him down during Howard’s reign and he is clearly on the up with Turnbull as leader.
I can’t help but think that Turnbull might not just be leading the ‘moderate’ faction (as we are being told the ‘Sydney moderates’ now run the show), but be straddling two groups, the ‘moderates’ and the anti-Howard pro-Costello lot. Two groups that are not necessarily one and the same.
Oh, the shame! s/who’s/whose
DeeCee, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Are you really claiming that because Australian’s per-capita incomes were higher than other countries in the 19th century that we were wealthier than than now? Really? So only relative comparisons matter, not absolute comparisons? That would be like saying that if Australians’ life expectancy was 40 and all other countries were below that, we would be better off than if our life expectancy was 80 and there were a few countries at 85. Today, we are much better eduacted, even average income earners can afford things like international travel, we are healthier (life expectancy, child mortality rates, etc), society is more culturally diverse (the white australia policy is no more), etc, government provides a lot more protection to citizens through social welfare. I think you are looking at the past through rose coloured glasses. Both absolute and relative wealth matter.
And in PPP adjusted terms, per-capita incomes in Australia are in the top ten in the world (and this is looking like increasing over the next few years given the dramatic falls in output among other industrialised countries) – we actually slid down in the international tables in per-capita terms during the 20th century for a number of reasons, but in large part because of the Australian settlement built around high industrial tariffs and high wages behind that tariff wall. Our industries were horrendously uncompetititve in international markets and productivity growth was weaker than for most other industrialised countries. It wasn’t until the Hawke-Keating reforms that Australia began to improve its relative position in the world, and even then it took time to take effect.
So, unless the only thing that matters is our relative per-capita incomes and wealth, it is you that is wrong, not Hockey.
According to the IMF’s World Economic Outlook database, Australia was ranked 13th in per-capita income in 2008 in PPP terms.
That position is better than it looks because we are behind countries like Ireland and Iceland whose economies have collapsed over the past 12 months, and Luxembourg, which has a population of only 400,000 and is an oddly stuctured principality.
Our per-capita income was higher than Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the UK, New Zealand – but behind, the US, Sweden, Austria, Netherlands, Sinapore and Norway.
Australia’s ranking was more or less in continuous decline through the 20th century and bottomed out during the 1980s – curiously around the same time as the Hawke-Keating reforms.
The Harvester judgement you talk about, was part of the reason for the decline during the 20th century because the wages delivered were not associated with higher productivity than other countries, but tariff protection – it was simply unsustainable.
If you were to chart the Human Development Index over the course of the last 100 years, you would find a steady rise in absolute terms, but a decline in relative terms during the first 90 years of the twentieth century. So, again, unless all you think is relevant is relative comparisons, I would say that in absolute terms Australia is much wealthier than it has ever been, but in relative terms, was once more highly placed. In terms of the social capital arguments you made, I think those are debatable as it depends on what weight you place on the things we have now, that we didn’t then – in my view the much greater openness of Australian society now is worth quite a lot.
Could Minchin and Abetz reallistically kick up a storm about the sacking of a previously unknown shadow Parliamentary Secretary? They’d just look like fools and Malcolm would be sure to leak it. I don’t want popcorn. I’m gonna order a couple of pizzas, some chocolate fudge and two large Cokes!
The horrible thought has occured to me – what if Pyne had joined the Labor Party? – Oh, Gawd, pass me the spew bucket!
Stalking the Overshadow through the undergrowth, David Attenborough style.