You said:

This is the end of The Party that Ratty Made.

It is important to recall how Ratty made his party — by means of back-stabbing and faction-driven branch-stacking. Standing on a pile of political corpses…

Your quote summarizes an argument in the paper “‘You lucky, lucky bastard!’. The Extent Of John Howard’s Political Genius.’ by Wayne Errington and Peter van Onselen. It was presented at the John Howard Decade Conference at ANU in March 2006. An extract appears on-line under the far less spicy title of ‘Howard The Ideologue’.

Errington and van Onselen wrote:

While [Howard's championing of the ideological right] doesn’t seem to have done much harm in terms of the harmony and discipline of the party in government, a less successful federal Liberal Party may reap the whirlwind of the divisive practices of the Howard years.

And further:

The extent of damage caused by Howard’s factional warfare will only be known well after he has retired, and will likely cause some reassessment of his political skills

Surveying the Liberal Party in advanced factional rabble mode must be causing Errington and van Onselen to emit quite a glow of professional satisfaction as their predictions settle nicely into history, and Howard himself must be getting severe indigestion as he quaffs the case of complimentary Claret from the American Enterprise Institute and wonders how to blame somebody else (that Minchin perhaps) for the ruin now unfolding.

I blogged it here

Really? I’d love to see that. Hell — it might even vote for them in such circumstances

The ETS boondoggle is as anathematic to the party of economic rationalism as WorkChoices was to the party of unionism. You might think either is a good idea, but you’re probably in the wrong party if you do.

The blogosphere is full of commenters saying more or less precisely this.

Yet it appears that either a large minority or a small minority of Liberal Party parliamentarians disagree with this. These parliamentarians are political operators whose primary function is to survive the hurly burly of party politics with its faction fights, its pre-selection struggles, its political knifings and its ultimate purpose of getting 50% plus one vote of the TPP ticked in their column on the ballot paper.

Why do the rightist commenters on the blogosphere think they know more about these games than the professional practitioners of it whom they so roundly criticise?

And on a related theme, it is clear that Liberal senators are disproportionately represented among the deniers and the anti-Turnbullites. Could it be that these rebels, either coming from smaller states and/or not immediately answerable to the voters of a specific electorate, do not feel the heat of popular support for some sort of genuine action on AGW? Thus these anti-Turnbullite rebels feel they can oppose with impunity.

Whereas, members of the H of R are overwhelmingly from the suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne — educated, middle-class electorates. It is the disposition of these electorates that determines which party wins government. (Have the Right already forgotten what happened to their little hero John Howard in leafy Bennelong?

The Right appears to be prepared to alienate these folks living in the leafy suburbs of our two greatest cities in a quixotic quest for ideological purity.

That’s true about Victorian ALP. My point was merely that
i) internecine warfare
ii) consequent electoral failure, and
iii) die-hard, tiny minority hijackings of major parties
are none of them the exclusive preserve or playground of right wing dingbats. Some posters seemed to be suggesting it’s only the far right that’s populated by the loopy.

Never was, never will be.

BTW (others), to say that Viscount Turnbull “declared nuclear war on his Party opponents” is a little unfair, considering that his Senate leader Sen. Minchin tossed a grenade publicly by saying that even if a compromise were reached, the Libs might not vote for an amended ETS.

They may not, ultimately, but that was disloyalty and bastardry of the highest order, Senator. Has any previous Liberal Senate leader acted in similar fashion?

Trying to win an election on a “climate change doesn’t exist” policy is about as likely to work as Labor getting to the next election with a policy of “the socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange.”

BTW, this will be Labor’s policy at the next election. It’s exactly what the ETS is.

But, honestly, why on earth would anyone actually want the Liberal leadership at the moment? Surely any prospective leaders are far better waiting the year or so until the next election and then taking up the reigns when they actually have some sort of chance of winning.

Trying to win an election on a “climate change doesn’t exist” policy is about as likely to work as Labor getting to the next election with a policy of “the socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange.”

OTOH, trashing your party in some inane hijack attempt to capture green voters who will never vote for you anyway is as likely to work as well as, well, Turnbull predictably has. This, after all, is a man who couldn’t be trusted to change a light bulb.

The ETS boondoggle is as anathematic to the party of economic rationalism as WorkChoices was to the party of unionism. You might think either is a good idea, but you’re probably in the wrong party if you do.

Can’t help thinking that Mirabella and Abetz aren’t much loss from the front bench. Abbott’s and Minchin’s experience might have been useful, or was it merely stopping the Opposition from realising that they were in opposition? Is Parry easily replaced as Whip? The Deputy Opposition Whip is a denialist, so might not inherit the job. Tony Smith — well, with a name like that he’s probably pretty interchangeable with one of the other youngsters.

I wonder has Turnbull been lying awake at night thinking of his dream team…

The anti-ETS forces blame Turnbull for winning half of the frontbench over to his way of thinking vis-à-vis the communist plot to de-industrialise Australia.

A sound leader would not support the plot against America Australia.

(The leadership spill was a secret ballot, presumably the denialists who resigned today all voted for a spill the other day.)

I think the time may have come for a bit of mischief making.

I think maybe posing as capital c-conservatives and writing to pro-CPRS senators may put the final nail in this rotten deal and send the conservative forces into the wilderness at the same time.

What’s not to like about that?

Time for a visit to the Andrew Bolt/Piers Akerman blogs …

PS Feral Sparrowhawk

The Nationals didn’t get to vote in the spill motion — Liberals only.

This suggests to me that there must be some people who were pro the ETS who voted for the spill. WTF? Are they people who just thought the spill should happen, or are there people who are pro-ETS AND pro-Andrews?

Sorry if this has already been discussed, I missed a fair bit of this.

If they pass the ETS, 45% of their voters (Libs) will disagree with the party’s actions, while if they prevent the legislation from passing, 37% of their voters will disagree with their actions

(Together with ALP/Green voters..there is still a majority across the electorate in favour of the legislation, so no probs for the Govt. 50/31 at the mo, and the rest don’t understand/care.)

But it’s a big Lib minority if you count the don’t knows/care with the approves w/ the approves, who are agin it, and that’s what Lucius Minchin and Co. are using as their credibility shield, because they don’t have any other…business…science.. blah, nil. But where were these 45% going to go anyway…nowhere, and this is either the insanity or more likely the cynicism of holding up their rusted-on’s as representative of anything else but their own base.

And why Turnbull’s position is the smarter position electorally if it.wasn’t for the minority as Mark keeps pointing out – the minority of their partyroom on both the bill and the leadership spill, chucking the biggest dummy spit evah. What bit of losing a vote don’t they get?

That said, I’d be surprised if Malcolm gets a bounce in the polls. So much shit flying, some of it going to stick to him surely, which is a shame if he’s not rewarded by the wider electorate for sticking it to the Trogs, but it’s not a ride where everyone gets a go.

In respect of the email deluge….apparently the Parrot/2GB and Steve Price/2UE etc were all rabid today and demanding everyone email their Libs MP’s…the demographics of their audience probably mirrors the 45% almost exactly. So nothing to see there. However, they certainly all have their ducks lined up in terms of being on-message – it’s just a tax, Rudd just wants to big note himself and so on.

e) Depending on the quality of the ALP candidate and Green preferences, I’d put money on a Abbott-led Opposition losing the slightly cursed jewel of Wentworth in a by-election, (finally). Which would be some sweet revenge for Turnbull if it panned out that way.