In my piece for The Drum the other day on how there is a sense in which we are still living in the Howard Era, I made this comment about Tony Abbott:
Tony Abbott promises a Howard restoration, flanked by spectral shadows – Bronwyn Bishop, Kevin Andrews and Philip Ruddock.
Abbott’s program, as has been repeatedly noted over the last little while, seems to consist solely of a desire to have as many elections as it takes to undo everything the ALP in office has done since 2007. It’s as if he wants to stand at the window of the Lodge with bell, book and candle and exorcise the spectre of Howard’s defeat, and damn the historical memory of Labor’s ascension.
Tony Abbott’s project is in fact oriented to the past rather than the future, and it seeks to reinstate the past by projectively erasing the present.
It’s in this sense that his dream is impossible, and that may well be his downfall.
It’s out of kilter with reality in more than one way. I alluded to the first in my piece, noting that the Abbott/Howard dream of compulsory Anglo suburban patriarchalism no longer reflects anything but a vanished and defensive norm, though it’s a norm which retains power to manifest itself in a retrogressive racial and social protectionism. The other sense in which Abbott’s project is incapable of realisation is in his failure to understand that it will prove impossible to turn back the clock. The Repealathon will never take place.
I also said this, in comments on the LP discussion of my Drum article:
Governments have to govern for minorities as well as majorities, which is something Tony Abbott does not understand. The notion that everyone will jump for joy, or simply acquiesce, if he tries to undo everything done by the current Labor government is an absurdity, and one which will be his undoing, if indeed he ever becomes PM.
It’s been customary to gesture to Kim Beazley’s futile promise of the repeal of the GST in 2001 in discussion of Abbott’s Repealism. But the more relevant analogy is with John Howard’s learning to live with Medicare, and indeed much of the legacy of the Hawke and Keating governments. Despite the fact that, in many instances, he undid much of it by stealth, he was intelligent and perceptive enough as a politician to realise that settled policy needed not to be overtly disturbed.
There is, of course, the fact that Medicare was extremely popular, while the carbon price is not. The NBN is, and the pokies pre-commitment pledge is probably a matter of indifference to most voters. It’s here, of course, that the hope of its architects that it will be seen in perspective after its introduction is salient. But, over and above that, the belief on which Tony Abbott is acting, that opposition is deep as well as broad, is a misprision. Ravings about ‘tyranny’, megaphoned through the media, are not identical with the views of most voters.
The Coalition would do well to reflect, here, on Tony Abbott’s own profoundly mediocre polling.
Finally, there are the many absurdities and inconsistencies in the ‘blood pledge’, ranging from the ludicrous nature of ‘savings’ which would be necessary in budgetary terms to the dangers of trying to govern from opposition (which is the actual effect of Abbott’s warnings to business), among others that can be cited. An Abbott government with no other program than reaction, and a petulant demand for an early double dissolution, is and will be deeply unappealing. Nor is it at all unlikely that Coalitionistas enamoured of a return to the ministerial benches would be prepared to chance throwing such comfortable accommodations away in pursuit of the ‘blood pledge’.
In truth, though, the media cycle, here spiralling into the future and making the topic of the present something that may never occur, may have done Tony Abbott no favours. And the likelihood is not at all insignificant that all this frenzied and febrile discussion may prove to have been moot, as a Labor leadership change would fundamentally alter all political calculations.
Cross-posted at Sed Probate Spiritus.
Couldn’t agree more, Mark – on everything. Abbott’s strategy – as effective as it has been – only works from opposition, not mention, however jejune I might get about Labor’s front bench, the “talent” backing him up in the shadow ministry is shocking. People happy to pay Wayne Swan out as a finance illiterate are inviting a world of trouble with his successors Hockey and Robb.
The idea of the NBN is popular, the reality isn’t. Great if you’re in the 1% of the country that’s getting it. Bad luck if the NBN is blocking any chance of an upgrade from ADSL (or even to ADSL!) in your area for the next decade.
We need to go back to the initial enthusiasm of the electorate to Mark Latham. This initial enthusiasm for Mark with his new ideas reflected the desire of the electorate for something more exciting than the grey sludge that Howardism had become. Grey sludge in the sense that Howard was all about letting the country run down slowly because what the government was willing to do was driven by the imperative of reducing the taxes of the rich rather the imperative of doing the things required to give the country a good, fair future.
After a while the electorate decided that Mark was going to be just a bit too exciting but the writing was on the wall for Howardism and it is hardly surprising how much support Rudd got when he began articulating his new vision. Gillard’s real problem was that she started out returning to the grey sludge by moving back towards the Howard position on policies ranging from immigration to climate change.
So where does this leave Abbott? Behind the poll figures we see Abbott’s personal approval well below his disapproval. The electorate really doesn’t want him and may reject him if Gillard’s current makeover to a more activist approach helps the electorate change thgeir mind about her.
A piece based on alleging a “Abbott/Howard dream of compulsory Anglo suburban patriarchalism” (and I will do you a favour by not quoting the rest of that extraordinarily convoluted, 1984-speak sentence) really doesn’t require a response. It is self-immolating. Perhaps of course you are trying for another appearance in “Cut and Paste”, as the nearest these sorts of views will get to even 15 minutes of fame.
Patrickg I suggest you look up the meaning of “jejune”. Or, better, just stop using big words that you don’t understand. It actually makes you look even less intelligent than you are, not more.
And on the same lines, Mark, what’s this “misprision” stuff about Abbott? The word means concealment of a felony. I thought that the Left’s constant allegation against Abbott – as exemplified in the long whinge that constitutes this post – is that he inconveniently (as in, “negatively”) unconceals everything they don’t like. If you are looking to demonstrate your enormous vocabulary by using this word, how about applying it to, say, a party that supports Craig Thomson?
The thing to remember is that Abbott hasnt won over the electorate. Not by a long shot.
He’s just a place to park an anti-preference for Gillard.
I strongly suspect there’s an element of punishing the ALP for robbing voters of their peceived right to install PMs. A nice big slap for that move, every poll.
It doesnt mean theyll take a 3 year dose of the empty populist shell that is Abbott. No matter who’s PM in 2013, watch the numbers close hard on him.
Wozza, I’m not a moderator here, but I will say it anyway: if your cliched tirades and personal abuse are all you have to offer LP, I suggest you return to your all-too-brief boycott at the site. You add nothing to these conversations.
Indeed, Wozza, if you say that the post doesn’t require a response, don’t respond.
I would have no idea whether or not I might appear in ‘Cut and Paste’ as I have no desire to spend $1.70 a day to read The Australian, or to register for a paywall.
I also know the meaning of the word ‘misprision’, and can assure you I choose my words carefully. Sometimes, they’re to be read metaphorically.
I don’t think the repealathon would last beyond election day 2013.
Whether the electorate will collectively realize that or not is another question.
Ha! Misprision of policy! Plenty of concealment there…
Wozza, head over to wikipedia – there’s a few other definitions e.g. ‘misprision also refers to the “intent to cause a false impression,” for example, for the sale of fake drugs, such as oregano instead of marijuana.’
(BTW are others getting frequent database errors at LP the last few days?)
The thing to keep in mind is the rabidness of the media, who will cheer Abbott along in the repeal of the ETS, NBN, minerals tax, pokies reforms, etc. Any attempt by Labor and the Greens Party in the Senate to stop the repeal of these progressive measures will be hounded down by a full onslaught of the Murdoch media – and I’m not talking about The Oz, which no one reads, but the Herald Sun, Telegraph, etc, as well as television and radio shock-jocks. Not to mention the various powerful lobby groups that have realised they can force government to change policy at the threat of a million dollar campaign.
Abbott – if he is elected – will be forced by these extreme elements to stand by his election promises (and probably go much further in the areas of IR) in a way that Howard only dreamed.
But what past is it though, Mark?
The days of happy memory of John Howard? Or the glory days of Menzies?
Or is his project founded in a much grander vision of the past?
There is something messianic in his zeal which reminds me of the extermination of the Cathars. All good orthodox stuff.
Mark
) and it is a perfect example of the unforeseen consequences of “reform”.
The mistake that you make here is to think that the public expect the same sort of constant reform that you and most lefties seem to think is the reason for seeking and attaining office. The ordinary people just want good administration first and changes and reforms (of any type) a distant second. As much as you may not agree with the coalition’s asylum seeker policy the result of Rudd changing it has been a disaster for the ALP (and one that just keeps giving
To be frank I expect that Abbott will face some big hurdles to undoing Labor’s legacy but undo it he will because he knows that having gained office on the repudiation of Gillard’s broken promises there is no escaping the necessity of keeping his own commitments to the Australian people,
Mark, great post thanks. King Canute, trying to hold back the waves of change with his divine right to govern. He has already failed, one can feel that subtle shift in the air, with people finally getting sick of the constant no, no, no, stop, stop, stop. I also thought that Gillards’ retort to his pokies stand “Abbott saying no, what a surprise…..etc” was simple and effective….he’s unlikely to lead the Opposition to election, he’s simply too much of a risk for the power brokers to take?
IH:
[my emphasis]
Huh? Abbott will achieve repeal because he knows he must?
“The Triumph of the Will” redux!
This used to be a very popular right wing myth. It’s interesting to read that adherence to it was not entirely extirpated by events in der Führerbunker.
Iain, you’re missing part of Mark’s point. By 2013, pokies reform, the carbon tax, the NBN and so on will be the status quo.
I thought governments lost office, not oppositions won it. And this government deserves to lose it. Abbott hasn’t needed to show a positive alternative, and with the media and government that we’re saddled with, he wont have to either.
So yeah, it will be closer than the Oztards think, but if the hatred and disappointment energy can last another two years, the coalition will be in power, and Iain Hall is right, Abbott having made so much noise about repealing all of this, will have to do what he can, or he’ll be labelled a liar. I reject the idea that Mark floats that “oh it’ll be the status quo by then” as wishful thinking. Medicare, your one example, had been in since 1975/1984, it had become an institution.
Here’s Laura Tingle:
http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/labor_hopeless_abbott_hollow_man_iIzzHU5YM1A546LnB9PbAO
Abbott has constructed himself as a permanent opposition leader. The path of no return. hahahahahahaha.
How will Abbott raise campaign cash if he keeps running the line that he won’t compensate business when (sic) he repeals the carbon price legislation? Because he will have to stick to that promise since there will be “no escaping the necessity of keeping his own commitments to the Australian people”? (falls about laughing hysterically at pompous silliness of that quote)
Or is he lying (gasp, horror, surely not), will he be giving a big nudge nudge wink wink to business while saying either “we won’t really change anything, just go through the motions then blame the Greens for blocking us” or on the other hand will he say “if we can pull off repealing it we’ll over compensate you so you’ll make a profit on the deal, just don’t tell anyone now”
Ian, the simplest solution would be for sanity to reassert itself and the Libs ditch Abbott. Not sure who for.
It’s still two years to an election. If Gillard (or Rudd, or whoever) can claw back a bit, at least in striking distance, I think the Libs will look very very closely at whether Tones is their best option.
Eric Sykes @13
King Canute knew that he couldn’t hold back the tides. He put on a show to demonstrate to the masses that he wasn’t actually that powerful. At least he was honest about the limitations of his power.
I don’t believe it’s entirely off-topic to note that the average rate of increase in workforce participation by women generally, and mothers, was greater under Howard than it was under Keating. Counter-intuitive, but true!
I think that goes to what I was saying in my Drum piece, Paul. Social change and, indeed, workforce restructuring continues apace. It’s a conundrum for reactionaries and Repealists.
PN, counter-rhetorical but not counter-intuitive.
One of the functions of rhetoric is to veil the truth.
I agree with Robert Merkel, Abbott won’t repeal anything but he will introduce legislation into the Reps but will be frustrated – surprise surprise – by an obstructionist senate and he’ll give it all up; he will not go for a double dissolution I’ll wager, indeed I’d even pre-commit $500 on that.
So far Abbott has successfully avoided any in depth media scrutiny and has been kept away from probing analysis by competent journalists but ultimately he will have to front up; as Laura Tngle has noted this is about leadership of the country not action man theatrics.
Repealists? What?
Howard wanted to return us to the 1950s. Abbott wants to return us to the 1850s.
GregM @11, your last par suggests that Mr. Rabbit has lethal intentions towards Joe Hockey, Brendan Nelson and Christopher Pyne. Personally I find that he reminds me of the requetes in the Spanish Civil War, or one of the characters from The Da Vinci Code.
@26 – It’s pretty obvious from the context.
I’m sure Army Detachment Steiner will save the day for Gillard.
Don’t point at me, Katz Godwined the thread a while back.
@29 (how delightfully impersonal) – not really, the only person suggesting repeal is Tony Abbott, it’s not like there’s a movement of people on board with him.
Mods: Delete previous with the word “left|st” (sub i) trapped in sp@m bin
I suspect that Abbott has painted himself into a corner here. While the idea of repealing carbon pricing has visceral appeal to the nutbag fringe (especially when called “a carbon tax”) the idea of repealing poker machine legislation seems a lot more problematic as large numbers of rightwingers are bothered by gambling on “moral” grounds. Bjelke-Peterson — no left|st — wouldn’t have them and as most know, in WA they exist only in casinos. AIUI, Family First isn’t that keen either. I’m not sure what the Catholic Church is saying these days but you’d have to wonder if even Arch Reactionary Pell would be keen. It also seems clear that most of the population support the idea of curbs on poker machines. The Drum poll (unreliable because it is online and self-selecting on nearly 4000 votes) had 81% support for action. last time I looked. A lot of reactionaries must have been part of that 81%.
So repealing existing law, especially after it is working and especially after the sunk costs associated with pre-commitment had been borne would be a pretty hard one to push through.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/10/28/when-it-comes-to-pokies-beware-of-who-you-stand-with/
indeed Kim, which begs the question of why the ALP isnt running harder. Sure there’s some well cashed up enemies – but their campaign lacks a critical ingredient: public support.
Nutbag fringe being defined as 59% of the population according to most polls.
The crikey site is currently experiencing difficulties — it has hung my PC on log in twice — so best to give it a miss until they get their act togather Kim
“together”
I’ve excerpted the relevant bit about the polling, Fran.
@35 – Craig Mc, the point was ably made in the post that you can’t extrapolate from the ravings of the few to the rest of the people who oppose the carbon price. It’s relevant here to look at polling that shows a continued willingness among *a majority* to support a carbon price in principle. The fact that a small majority of voters oppose the carbon price we have is a function of the lies and misprepresentations about it and the government’s inability to sell it. But if anyone thinks that most of the people in the oppose column do so with the same visceral feeling that the ones who are the “base” do, then they’re wrong.
Craig Mc said:
To date I’ve seen no polls on whether Abbott should repeal the legislation on carbon pricing. I’d be surprised if a properly conducted poll (i.e one that didn’t call it a carbon tax and explained the full implications of repeal and the timeline, conducted after the price had been in place for one year and people had had time to assess it, would produce as many as 20% favouring repeal. I agree though that those people who now think it a plot by The Club of Rome or the Illuminati or the UN to destroy western civilisation, enforce birth control and prop up third world dictators will probably continue to do so in 2013. Add them to the Liberal tribals and you might get 20%.
Of course by then, the Murdochracy could be in ruins, the whole world making our $23 look timid and the ALP back in front. Then the question really would be moot.
You started it by invading Poland.
I have a post up on the electoral implications of pokie reform.
Hmm. Everyone pays more, and the government gets the money. Good luck getting everyone on board with that campaign.
the government gets the money
Until it gives it back in income tax cuts.
and gives back so much that I for one will make a profit. Of course if you are a knucklehead who can’t find the off switch to your silly gadgets, well then it’ll cost you more. Cry me a river.
except when the permits are traded between companies …?
Fran B re crikey when I log on to the site and select a topic to view I get the whole n + entries not the old 50 item per page view but I cannot alert them to this problem because my attempts to actually log on with p/word or name fails, despite them resetting my P/word etc.
I have emailed them for a personal contact zero response however they still would like my subscription cash. not a good look I hope they may read this and get in contact.
This has been something I’ve thought about for a while now.
Basically, the Libs were ready to move on from Howard after 2007 and elect Costello, accepting that he’d do a few things differently. He never gave them the chance so they thought they were safe with Nelson. After a while they realised that Nelson wasn’t going to take them anywhere so they took a risk with Turnbull. Turnbull represented the post-Howard future.
What Abbott promised them was a way of getting back into government without the messy business of rethinking everything. The promotion of staffers in byelections means that there is some sort of continuum, that no random band of preselectors is going to throw up a member who wants to rethink things from first principles.
When Turnbull stumbled, they thought the protege could be trusted to bring them home. Howard remade the Liberal Party in his image from the mid-’90s. The rule that sitting members shouldn’t be challenged at preselection made him popular amongst the troops and ensured he stayed that way – and that the Libs kept his imprint on it, and stayed loyal. Abbott promised a Howard Restoration and everything he says and does is geared around that, pleasing rusted-on members rather than hard-to-please swinging voters.
The hatred that oozes out of them – the insistence that Gillard is hopeless, that she’s hated across the nation, the chaff-bag thing – comes from a determination not to face the post-Howard future (they tried post-Howard and it didn’t work), which involves oblivion for probably the oldest third of Liberal Parliamentary Party members. Rage against the dying of the light, the rage of Caliban, call it what you will: but the tumult that the Coalition should have gone through in 2007 will only start around Easter or so and intensify throughout next year.
Silkworm @27 I think that that is a misreading of Abbott. He doesn’t want to take us anywhere in particular, he just wants the job. He is willing to promise anything, oppose anything, and wreak anything if it gets him the job. That is the essence of his hollowness. The poli he most reminds me of lately is George H. W. Bush, who pretty much fulfilled most of his election promises on his first day in office by not burning the flag and letting anyone out of jail. Had Abbott won last year he would have been in a similar position
By continuing with his negative project Abbott has made Mark’s thesis more and more likely. Soon his supporters will have to be as the Red Queen, believing six impossible things before breakfast every day.
I have never posted here before, thank you
abbott offers nothing but a past, of superseded ideas from a time of abbott, costello and howard, who actually did very well nothing of note, o suppose the iraq war stands out for me, and sending people to nauru of which most ended up back in australia, and new Zealand,, I would even think that abbott would then attempt to take us back even further, beyond the days of mr whitlam , no medicare perhaps, to a life of sack cloth and ashes, where the survival of the fittest is seen as a virtue
run down our amazing health system etc,
The man and his elderly front bench offer nothing for this century,