Peter Costello is back in the news, with an internet-based poll from Essential Media showing public opinion to be divided on his future: 34% say he should resign, 46% that he should stay in parliament (but with no consensus on what capacity), and 20% are undecided.
I’ve been thinking about the Costello question for a while — especially since Alex Mitchell last week made a brave prediction that he would return to the leadership — and I’ve finally worked out the appropriate historical analogy. It’s an unlikely one, but bear with me: Costello reminds me of Mary, Queen of Scots.
Recall some history: Mary Stuart, widow of the French king and queen of Scotland in her own right, was also the next heir by blood to Elizabeth I of England, and in the eyes of many Catholics the rightful queen of England. For England’s Protestant political class, her succession represented their worst nightmare, with the likely reversal of the country’s religious and foreign policies.
Accordingly, Elizabeth’s ministers worked tirelessly to dispose of Mary: they lobbied against recognising her as heir presumptive, they intrigued with her enemies in Scotland to have her deposed, and when she was a fugitive in England they pressed Elizabeth to keep her imprisoned and ultimately to have her executed.
But at the same time, they were conscious of the fact that things could go wrong, Elizabeth could die at any time, and Mary might well end up as their queen — so they maintained a constant unofficial stream of messages to Mary, assuring her of their good intentions and their secret loyalty to her interests.
That’s how monarchy works. Hereditary succession is capricious, and those who depend on the monarch’s favour always have to keep one eye on the succession. Similarly, William III’s ministers kept up a treasonable correspondence with the Jacobite court in the 1690s, and the Hanoverian kings always found their sons to be competing centres of political influence.
Now, in the semi-monarchical environment of the Liberal Party, its MPs find themselves in the same position as Queen Elizabeth’s ministers.
They would dearly like to be rid of Costello; they don’t want and don’t expect him to take the leadership. But they know that it might happen regardless, through failure of the alternatives, and so they have an incentive to stay in his good books just in case.
Hence the hopelessly mixed messages coming out of the parliamentary Liberal Party. Even those who are most strongly against a Costello succession know that their careers may one day be in his hands. So double-dealing becomes a way of life, and people’s private positions contrast sharply with their public ones.
We know how Mary Stuart’s story ended: she went to the block, and Elizabeth and most of her ministers died peacefully in their beds. But it would be unwise to count on history repeating itself.
Hey Author I think you’ve got it.
Well done.
To assist Venise let me say this is the umpteenth time I am labelling Costello as a dumb dick.
I like the analogy. There are some other similarities: They both were (notice the hopeful past tense) very tall and with the same coloured hair. Then you would have to make the point that neither Mary nor Peter were/are all that bright. They were/are both up to their eyeballs in treachery and both arrogant beyond belief. At least Elizabeth was able to lock up Mary for twenty years. Whereas with Peter it would be a case of locking him out of the country for life. Also they both are/were overly concerned with religion. In fairness it was Mary’s Catholic followers who were the most concerned with religion. Mary had no qualms about marrying a protestant for her third husband.
Most importantly the unfortunate Mary had to contend with a major, major intellect in Lord Burghley aka William Cecil. But can you see Malcolm Turnbull as approaching the almost Machiavellian genius of Burghley? Foolish Mary was caught in the act of planning Elizabeth’s assassination, for which she had to pay the price. Her neck. Regrettably it is no longer possible to execute politicians. Lord Burghley would be turning in his grave to see how twenty-first century society tolerates the likes of Peter Costello.
Further to my comment about Costello in Cabinet supporting the $3 trillion Iraq war as nobel prize winner (economics)Joseph Stiglitz calls it – which surely contributed to today’s synchronised global recession out of the USA.
Costello’s career took off as a union busting lawyer in the Dollar Sweets case. Howeverit may be the real brains that thought of the innovative common law cause of action in IR was a certain honours law student at ANU around 1986 by the name of Lisa Hamilton who now works as counsel for Woodside in north west Western Australia. If memory serves I believe she went on to work for Freehills in Melbourne.
She was always pretty keen on Ayn Rand too.
As I understand it the ANU law libary keeps one copy of all honours projects. I wonder if a cross reference of that document would show whether Costello was quite the brilliant tactician that political folklore has attributed to him, or whether he sort of borrowed someone else’s brains to launch his career.
One thing about those student politicians – they don’t leave much time for real study, as they grind their axes in silly meetings. Hamilton on the other hand was/probably is a real swot.