Despite the breathless reports of who leaked what to whom and why — and I write as one who filed exactly that yesterday — it’s time to take a step back from the Nelson-Turnbull business and put it in perspective.
We’re six months into a three-year term. Historically there’s little chance the Government will lose the election that will be held, most likely, at the end of that three-year term. Who leads the Liberal Party currently doesn’t matter a great deal.
A senior Liberal MP — who voted for Turnbull — explained to me today the critical things that they believe need to be done by the Liberals over the long-term to maximise their competitiveness. They are: put in place sound policies; sort out who is staying and who is going; and give a young team time to establish itself.
And, they say, those things are happening. It is expected that Peter Costello will be moving on once it is clear his seat is not in danger, although no-one really knows. Speculation continues about Alexander Downer — his consultancy with Ian Smith and Nick Bolkus is apparently ready to start. McGauran has left. Andrews, Ruddock and Vaile are staying.
And on policy, they argued, the Coalition is slowly getting runs on the board. Support for the apology to the stolen generations. The burial of WorkChoices. And even the excise decision.
“I’ve never believed we should tax petrol at a differential rate to other goods,” the MP explained, “but we impose a massive excise in addition to the GST. And petrol consumption is inelastic so it doesn’t make a difference to the environment anyway. Reduction of excise will make a big difference to the so-called ‘working families’. It was good policy and good politics.”
The key thing the party needs is stability and a chance to enable a young, though not inexperienced, team to master their briefs and get some profile. Who specifically leads the party is, from this point of view, not especially important.
As the MP said, “if Nelson doesn’t cut through, he doesn’t cut through, and we’ll do something about it. But Malcolm’s and the party’s best interests are served by everyone doing their job.”
The media, however, can’t help itself with leadership speculation, especially Gallery members who consider themselves players rather than spectators. There’s also the sense that, given their preferred candidate lost out following the election, they’re going to keep battering Nelson until Turnbull gets the job. Playing leadership favourites has always been a Gallery game — remember the Bronwyn Bishop bubble after the 1993 election?
There is press talk of Nelson “damaging the brand.” Well, perhaps. But Mark Latham did a pretty good job of trashing the ALP brand when he was leader and they still managed to win comfortably last year. Funny thing about politics — winning an election suddenly makes massive problems seem pretty irrelevant.
There are only two groups who are eager to stoke leadership tension in all this. Malcolm Turnbull and his small group of hard-core supporters, and the media. No wonder many Liberals think they’re working together.
Latham did look good for a while but ultimately showed he wasn’t up to the job and that was the end of that. Having said that, I’m not at all convinced that Labor could have won in 2004. Australian political history shows that governments lose elections either through incompetence or the ‘its time’ factor; oppositions don’t win them. JamesK’s claim that the Liberals can win in 2010/2011 ignores Australian political reality. The Liberals can develop the best policies, make great promises and look united and relateable and it won’t do them a lick of good unless the current government makes some noteable stuff-ups. 2014 may be a better bet for the Libs, but they really need to have a two-term opposition strategy and changing leader anytime soon won’t make much difference to their chances at all.
Tom McLoughlin: When reading your comments I get the feeling that they’ve been translated from Urdu.
No, have to disagree there BK. First petrol use is not so inelastic. Public transport use figures and bike use (albeit latter very low base) are trending up in the Sydney metro area over say 2 years now. So strike 1. Strike 2 would be OUR DEMOCRACY between elections for heaven sake. It’s not just about winning. Crean stood against the Iraq war. Howard may well have won in 2004 partly because WMD was still unresolved. Getting that wrong emphasised so many other accountabilities. But Rudd harvested Crean’s (lucky/moral/instinctive?) call back in Jan-March 2003. That’s real democracy in action from Opposition. And Latham changed policies – from Opposition.// Folks … this life, I tell ya, it’s not always about winning or losing, it’s about doing your best and doing what’s right and just be satisfied you played and you’re still here amongst the living. So philosophy aside, we need a strong Opposition for a strong country and a strong democracy. Don’t warm the seats!
I agree that Labor should rather then might have won the election 2005 but the problem was greater than Latham. The Liberals can win the next election unless the believe the bullshit that Bernard and the rest of the press gallery are peddling. They have no chance if they do not show professionalism and “steely resolve” and presently they do not. The problems of leadership have not suddenly appeared; they were there and obvious for at least 2 years. Howard deserved to be tapped on the shoulder a very long time ago. That was a failure of leadership within the Liberal party.