http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/11/25/kevin-andrews-to-challenge-malcolm-turnbull/

Though the hilarious prospect of Kevin Andrews as leader does kind of make me hope he does win.

The Nats don’t have a vote for that, and Brandis was very pointed in emphasising that Turnbull had a larger majority among *Liberals*.

Those who want to chuck Turnbull out had the opportunity to do so last night, and didn’t take it? Why? Because he has a majority of the Liberal party behind him as leader. That will become clear when he defeats Andrews today.

Parliament rises for the year on Friday.

How, exactly, is he going to be toppled? By a strongly worded Wilson Tuckey email?

All this media stuff about the “killing fields of December” is all well and good, but they don’t decide the leadership on the basis of counting op/eds but by a vote of their parliamentary party.

I’ll repeat the point I made several times in the post. Turnbull now has the power to reward and punish, and the reporting of the lobbying before the meeting made it clear that his numbers people were concentrating dissidents’ minds about the long delayed reshuffled.

The Libs might of course be insane enough to topple him this afternoon, but if not, he’s got til February to re-establish his leadership, and has some weapons with which to do that.

The commentariat appear to be following the “doomed leader” script. What about the “strong leader stands up to dinosaurs in his own party and gains extra kudos” script? Or what about recognising that politics is more complex and unpredictable than a menu of ‘media narratives’ might suggest?

Of course he can’t, because Robb is already a backbencher, having taken a long leave of absence because of his depression.

He’s strapped on his explosive vest. Shouting “God is great!” he will enter the caucus room and smite the infidel.

Today Kevin Andrews will enter paradise as a holy martyr.

If so, how do you explain that a majority of the parliamentary party supports Turnbull?

These numbers are premised upon Malcolm Turnbull’s maths i.e. that the whole of the Shadow Cabinet supports the position, because they are obligated by Cabinet solidarity to do so.

There are some brave assumptions there about Tony Abbott, let alone Nick Minchin.

You could be right Mark, he might just call the show and kick some butt.

I didn’t say I predict he will, David, but that I think he should and it just might work for him.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/turnbull-calls-leadership-spill-20091125-jp30.html?autostart=1

1 pm today, Turnbull v Andrews.

“The announcement by the leader last night was about as dodgy as a Zimbabwean election organised by Robert Mugabe,” Mr Slipper told reporters in Canberra.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/liberal-mp-compares-turnbull-to-mugabe-20091125-jp7a.html

Why are supposed left-wingers attempting to provide counsel to the open party of the bosses?

All the parties are open parties of the bosses, as I’ve made clear on a number of occasions. Few doubt that though some pretend the ALP still has something to do with the independent mobilisation of the workers. What is more interesting is why an ostensible Cliffite would be adopting the Grantist line on parties of the class.

My commentary in relation to the Turnbull was not counsel. It was an observation about what he, oeprating entirely within his paradigm, might have done as an alternative to the course he followed. It was a kind of socio-political counterfactual. I would not have advocated support for him if he’d followed this course, though I’d have found him somewhat less apparently irrational. I very much doubt Turnbull reads this blog, and even if he did, think it even less likely that he’d seize upon my advice in order to fashion the tools to disempower the workers. he’d have to move the ALP aside first in order to do that.

But give some credit to Rudd as well. The little nerd has wedged the opposition to near death.

This is undoubtedly true, Sam.

Moreover, Rudd’s willingness to compromise on ETS has maximised divisions within the Liberal Party.

Undoubtedly, Rudd has provided plenty of ammunition. However, it was up to the two Liberal factions to decide whether and how they would go to war with each other.

The problem is that the Minchins of the world are better at internal Liberal Party politics than the Turnbulls. I wrote as much last week on my blog (Malcolm, it’s over, link on my web moniker). It’ll be hard to move the Minchins and B Bishops and Tuckeys on, and then replace them with deep policy thinkers who see the world in shades of grey rather than black and white.