One of the great political fantasies of the inner-city chattering classes these past few years has been that federal member for Wentworth and one-time Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull might somehow switch teams and emerge as leader of the Australian Labor Party.
This was not to question the conservative stripes on Turnbull’s political suit, or to suggest that he turned up at the wrong party meeting when seeking preselection for Wentworth, it was more of a plea for someone at the head of the ALP who had Rudd’s vision, but who had the ability to do something.
So it was intriguing to hear that the newly important country independent Rob Oakeshott had a similar thought, when he put up the “cheeky” suggestion of a unity ticket to solve the current political deadlock in Canberra — either trade Rudd to the conservatives in exchange for a portfolio, or swing Turnbull over to ALP in a similar deal.
That might sound to many like an exchange of hostages, but the independents see Turnbull as one of their own. And Turnbull, judging by the independence of his spirit and thought on Monday night’s Q&A on ABC TV, might fancy himself as one of them, too.
The desire to create some sort of “national unity government” runs much deeper than the musings of Oakeshott, as impossible as it may seem. So there might be a way to pull together two of the central themes of last weekend’s election result — the trust in intelligent independents more interested in policy and politics, and the call for action on the environment — and create a new “third force”. Let’s call it the Liberal Environmental Party (LEP).
Turnbull would be the natural leader of a LEP, with these country independents and other like-minded MPs in tow, and it would have the effect of shifting Australian politics significantly towards the centre and providing a vision that Australia desperately needs.
Supporters of the idea say it would provide an opportunity to establish a Liberal Party that represented traditional liberal views, and members who joined him would do so knowing that they were serving national interest by delivering a stable government that would address key issues facing the nation. And, of course, it would conclude the current political stalemate.
One close observer said this to me yesterday: “Malcolm Turnbull is unlikely to be under any illusion about the issues faced within the Liberal Party. Its current composition of 60% hard right and 40% with traditional liberal values leaves him in a position where he is unlikely to ever be leader. He would be more likely to be classified as a traitor. But as a politician of principle, he should have a clear conscience in knowing that, while you are a party member, your obligation to your party is second to the obligation you hold to the nation.
“The fact that Malcolm Turnbull achieved a 10% swing towards Liberal in his electorate is testament to the fact that he shares significant mainstream support. The fact that he ran a campaign without Liberal colours, and instead used green, signifies the importance he places on an appropriate environmental outcome.
“It is easy to criticise the emission trading system that (he) cobbled together trying to deal with the various factions and interests within the Liberal Party. Once free of these limitations it is highly likely that he will be able to deliver an outcome which is more clearly in the national interest and less designed to provide subsidies to significant industry groups who support the Liberal party.”
So let’s say Turnbull forms this LEP and breaks the stalemate in Australian politics, and forms an alliance with either the Coalition, or even the ALP. In addition to achieving significant stability for the country, he would undoubtedly be rewarded with a significant portfolio, such as Treasurer, within a national unity government. If there’s one thing Malcolm Turnbull knows more than anything else, it’s how to operate a business. And he could conceivably become deputy PM, ready to step into the breach …
More from the close observer: “This is Malcolm’s greatest opportunity to achieve the outcomes which he set out to achieve when he first entered politics. It is in the nation’s interest that he stands up. It is in the environment’s interest that he stands up. And finally it is in the interest of the real Liberal party that he stands up. It is high time liberals re-embraced traditional liberal principles and left the right wing game-players out in the cold.”
This article was originally published on Climate Spectator.
“it was more of a plea for someone at the head of the ALP who had Rudd’s vision, but who had the ability to do something.”
Come on now, despite what he may or may not have done in private enterprise we are talking about the man who was merely Minister for light bulbs in the previous government. “Getting things done” with light bulbs was set with a time limit such that somebody else would have to implement it – plus it was something changing on it’s own enough that no legislation was needed anyway.
All the noise and half finished policy about water came from Howard. In my opinion Turnbull didn’t do much other than keep a seat warm, so he’s certainly not one for “getting things done”.
I thought prior to the 2007 election that the Libs would split after losing again in 2010, into the uglies and the moderates. Turnbull’s treatment by his own party last November firmed up my view, though I also thought the ALP would win this one easily (oops). But the new power of the independents does throw in a fascinating new dynamic to the situation. I doubt Turnbull will get a better chance to lead a party again. Good article.
[…and create a new “third force”. Let’s call it the Liberal Environmental Party (LEP).]
No accident that there is a convergence of ideas and fantasies. On this one with Malcolm Turnbull, in print Elizabeth Farrelly beat you to it last week when she talked about a Turnbull-Bob Brown hybrid (“Turnbull wearing a Brown frock” I think it was.)
theage.com.au/opinion/politics/look-to-the-fringes-if-you-want-principles–just-ask-turnbull-and-brown-20100818-12f2t.html
I wish I could claim even earlier dibs because here is what I wrote almost a month ago but which even Crikey found too far outside their ken:
“Third, is what could be seen as a very worrisome canary in the coal mine, the withdrawal from politics of some of the most talented politicians of their generation, namely Lindsay Tanner, John Faulkner and probably Malcolm Turnbull (can anyone be confident that he is going to find a long-term comfortable place in the inappropriately named Liberal party)?
……and….
Lindsay, Malcolm, Peter would all easily win their old seats under a Greens banner (indeed it is surely not accidental Turnbull’s election posters are a nice twotone green!) and what a vitality they could bring to our moribund politics if they could freely speak their minds, not to say depth and breadth to the Greens.”
The “Peter” in my previous post is obviously Peter Garrett. Here is the full context:
“The resignations of these two and Faulkner’s retreat, and one might add Peter Garrett (who must surely be coming to doubt he can really influence the agenda much from “inside the tent”), prove that life outside the tent might be more rewarding, not to mention more honourable and more effective with the Greens having balance of power in the Senate.”
Like plenty of people I really lament the loss of Lindsay Tanner. Note that Bernard Keane put Tanner as PM in his fantasy cross-bench cabinet last Friday. Another point about such people is that they would help evolve the Greens in policy areas they currently disagree (eg. 33% business tax).
I wouldn’t join a party called the Liberal Environmental Party but I would conceivably join a dry green Progressive Party which was pro-market but not scared of significant investment in nation-building where carefully justified (such as, perhaps, a high-speed train system), socially progressive (eg pro gay marriage, but pro straight marriage too) and interested in market solutions to sustainability and environmental issues whereever possible (eg extending our successful transferable tuna quota system worldwide), and supportive of generally low taxation but with a green tinge (eg repealing FBT concessions for cars and fuel excise exemptions for miners and farmers). Pro an ETS (or carbon tax) but for energy efficiency regulation as well. Anti offshore processing but for a regional accord on irregular migration. Come to think of it – that would be a dry wing of the Greens. Watch this space, perhaps, as the older redder hippy wing of the Greens thins out or becomes (marginally) more tolerant.