It’s been a busy couple of days for Tony Abbott on Twitter. Perhaps demonstrating what might be called the Leyonhjelm Principle, that the most outspoken free speech advocates have the thinnest skins, the former Prime Minister has lashed out, successively, at Amanda Vanstone, Aaron Patrick and Peter Van Onselen for articles about him or, in the case of Vanstone and Van Onselen, his office and chief of staff when he was Prime Minister.
The latter two make the point that, despite the looming shadow of the 30th bad Newspoll of the Turnbull government, the problem of the Abbott Prime Ministership was never merely or even particularly about polling — that was just a symptom of a deeper malaise. Both suggest Peta Credlin was at least part of that malaise. This accords with the settled view of the Press Gallery that Credlin was a terrible chief of staff responsible for many of the problems that beset Abbott, and in particular she alienated too many MPs and ministers, and that she’s best placed now in the idiot fringe of Sky News’ evening programming, where right-wing loons caper and gambol in the moonlight.
The uncomfortable fact, however, is that Malcolm Turnbull is vulnerable to a similar criticism, albeit from the opposite angle. Turnbull’s PMO is awful — probably the worst of the modern era. Time and again it has failed to do basic things right and let the Prime Minister down.
Who was responsible for that wretched “not his partner” line about Barnaby Joyce, that Turnbull himself had to disown in parliament? Who failed to relayed the news of Stephen Parry’s resignation to Turnbull abroad? Who hadn’t worked out who would act as PM when Barnaby Joyce was rubbed out by the High Court? Who scheduled a speech for the PM on the day political donations data involving Turnbull was released? Who has persistently bowled up political strategies (like the one focusing on Bill Shorten’s character) at the most inopportune times possible? Who has presided over senior ministers freelancing out of their portfolios and, as a result, contradicting each other? Abbott’s office often failed to get the basics right, but the problem became substantially worse under Turnbull: his PMO has either tended to make bad situations worse or has failed to provide the kind of whole-of-government political strategising that any successful government needs.
In complete contrast to Abbott and Credlin, it’s actually hard to remember who Turnbull’s chiefs of staff have been. He commenced with his Secretary from the Communications Department, Drew Clarke, then Greg Moriarty, who last year moved to head Defence and was replaced by Peter Woolcott. Like Clarke, Moriarty and Woolcott were experienced and well-regarded public servants, not political operatives — clearly how Turnbull likes it, as former Communications public servant Richard Windeyer was his chief of staff when he was Communications minister. Former public servants avoid publicity and bring a greater focus on policy and administration to political offices, but they by definition lack the experience and smarts to combine the policy and the political into an effective package, and their primary experience of political bushfires is second-hand, from the comfort of the TV screen in their SES office, not in the advisers’ box in parliament or in a beleaguered ministerial office. They’re also not very good at telling ministers that they’re wrong and need to rethink something.
Turnbull, of course, is ultimately his own chief of staff, in a way that you could never say about Tony Abbott, who appeared to become totally reliant on Credlin and couldn’t even holiday without her. Turnbull could never tolerate a forceful office figure like Credlin, but if there’s one thing he could do to enhance his minimal prospects of survival, it would be to get an experienced, strong-minded political operator who could straighten out his office, critique his judgment and get it to support him effectively.
yes, but deeper observation of Turnbull’s modus operandi would settle on Lucy Turnbull as Malcolm’s most authoritative adviser, able to leap government policy in a single bound, like pushing Malcolm into a ridiculous #bonkban during the Barnaby mess.
Malcolm might have gone to an expensive secondary school but his origins were not within the Sydney Bunyip Aristocracy. The Top Hat emoji and the “born to rule” sledge often used against him by the Union movement is misleading. Malcolm “married up” into the Sydney establishment when he wed Lucy Hughes, daughter of Tom Hughes QC and grand-daughter of an illustrious Sydney City Mayor, and he knows it. It is Lucy who sniffs the wind, polishes up his mediocre impulses, which often have the glint of common greed, and pushes him the Right direction, from behind the curtains at Potts Point.
It is often rightly observed that Malcolm has the political instincts of a dead cat, which is unsurprising if his historical record in public affairs is examined. He used his acquired wealth to buy his way into high public profile campaigns, from the Flag, to the Republic, to the leadership of his party. Like the arriviste businessman he really is (see his instant identification with Donald Trump along these lines) he has no sense of public duty, and sees his role as Prime Minister as any Corporate CEO might. He is there to sign the cheques and let his Ministers get on with “policy”.
Malcolm sees himself as a presentable advocate in the court of public opinion. He needs no political or moral convictions of his own, the Liberal Party and the Murdoch papers tell him what the issue du jour is and he fronts the press like the political mercenary he is, arguing that black is white (or vice versa) depending on the issue.
The one big job that he has to see through, and the reason the Liberal Party handed him the Prime Ministership, is to advocate for a massive transfer of wealth from ordinary Australians into the pockets of Corporations, while standing back as his Ministers decimate the public service and attack the few protections available to the poor and vulnerable, “dismantling the administrative state” as Steve Bannon called it.
You were dead right, Bernard, when you identified this is a “Big Heist” by ex-banker Malcolm Turnbull (and his closet adviser Lucy) for that is what it is, and few others in the press see it so clearly.
This is one of the most convincing and insightful observations of Malcolm Turnbull’s political character that I have seen. It explains why he is so shallow and simply seems to be a mirror of all sorts of extremist views within his own party.
What I am especially concerned about is that he appears to be a conduit leading this country into a much more authoritarian form of polity, with accompanying extreme disparities in access to social and capital resources, and increasing signs of social and political disfunction. Even if the MSM see him as a small “l” liberal–which I think is quite false, as any tendencies he shows are either contradictory of functionally supporting the right–his complete lack of a sense of public service means that he is facilitating the drift of this country (and its institutions) towards the right, a drift begun by the Hawke Labor government. Given the prevailing apathy of the general public this drift has been very hard to stop even where it has been noticed by many commentator. Future generations of historians will see Turnbull as the prime facilitator of this movement to the hard right, allowing the likes of Dutton and Morrison to push their ideological agenda and to institutionalise it such that it would be very difficult to modify.
Great comment. Seldom were so many nails hit on the head in so few sentences.
Hear, hear!
Me too****
Not to overlook, of course, the problems of leading a party, deeply divided and with a one seat majority. As history might see it when he loses the next election, personal qualities aside?
And full of idiots
That was perfect!
Absolutely accurate on all counts, including some I’d not considered.
Well done.
Point Piper
Point Piper
Yes, I can’t easily think of a nail not rightly hit, although I would give Malcolm himself more credit for the opportunistic political strategies, such as the “kill Bill” one, which landed Cash in such bother.
[Public Servants] “…not very good at telling ministers that they’re wrong and need to rethink something.” There’s something similar to the anthropic principal regarding that statement. Regardless of which major party, high ranking pubes simply wouldn’t be ‘high ranking’ if they were ‘good’ at telling MP’s what to do in this context.
Well, once upon a time, telling Ministers they were wrong was exactly what senior public servants did, and rose to the top because they had a knack for it. Not any more of course. And we continue to outsource ‘advice’ guaranteeing politicisation and expedience
A good deal of this story is “old plok” but, credit to Keane, the article by Amanda Vanstone was included and provides considerable balance to the story. At the risk of simplification Abbott was out of control for quite some time prior to the “splling”. I suggest the last straws were the knighthoods that were announced; extending one to the Duke of Edinburgh! The Petra Credlin stuff was something else but contributed to the demise of Abbott.
Turnbull, having discussed options with Hawke & Keetng along with a few attempts to obtain a Lib seat, I suggest he tossed a coin as to the party that he committed to eventually because, as a closet toe-cutter (abandoned the Republic campaign when it decided not to go his way – although he blamed Howard), he is able to “insert” Supply-side policy rather more easilty than as a Labour PM/Minister.
On the other had (having bailed out of Ozemail in the nick of time) Turnbull was the best Minister for Communications for many a day. Turnbull is not without abilty and is hightly intelligent but, it would seem, not suited (indeed fit) for politics; a bit like Hewson in that regard.
“…Turnbull was the best Minister for Communications for many a day.”
That was not the opinion of Renai LeMay back in 2015:
“….when it comes to technology policy, Malcolm Turnbull has been a disaster. The Member for Wentworth will be remembered as Australia’s worst ever Communications Minister — the man who singlehandedly demolished the NBN and put a polite face on draconian Data Retention and Internet piracy laws…..So let me be the first to say it. And I will say it loud and very clear: Malcolm Turnbull has been an absolutely terrible Communications Minister.”
Worth reading the whole bit
.
https://delimiter.com.au/2015/09/14/malcolm-turnbull-was-australias-worst-ever-communications-minister/
Turnbull, as Minister of Communications did NOT give the yappers what they thought they wanted and THAT made him a good Minister. It seems to me that from your perspective a ‘good’ Minister does give the voters what they want willy-nilly. The question that I have is just how much of (let’s take a standard [university] text such as
“Data Communications” by William Stallings) chapter one of Stallings do either Renai LeMay or your good self understand?
I have read a few articles (not many) by LeMay and they tend to be rather “free-market” and somewhat oversimplified technically. In any event hardly a standard upon which Ministerial decisions ought to be made.
Turnbull, at the time, went to some trouble to explain his decisions (that were founded on advice – because they were rational) but the “chooks”, realising that they were not going to get “fibre to the door” (behaved like a spoiled teenager and), didn’t bother to listen to the explanations and any number of reporters went off half-cocked.
The link that you posted is a case in point; no facts and replete with self-opinionated generalisations by LeMay. I could reduce this article, looking for facts, to about 100 words and the content as a basis for action would be water-thin.
In point of fact the NBN is in the state that it finds itself because the matter came to be directed by the voters or should we say the market) “wagging the dog”. Its need for subsidies is in large measure because former advice was rejected. The NBN is a large project and if Moore’s law is ignored at any stage of project financial waste is assured.
Legislation concerning the internet, in general, within Australia is an entirely different matter. I would suggest that most Ministers do not have the least idea concerning the policies and characteristics of “open source” and, upon my reading at least, take a very simple minded view of data technology.
Kyle, you must have heard or read about Schumpeter’s Storm, the repeated scenario where a new technology does great damage to existing investments.
Abbott’s brief to Turnbull, (the untested, and untrusted, recently back stabbed, businessman outsider in the very incestuous Liberal party) was to knacker Labor’s NBN fibre to the door because of the threat to existing real estate values posed by the “internet superhighway”, rendering the actual highways to high priced homes and high priced super-malls as destinations less used, as employment and purchasing moved online, and people relocated to more pleasant and less expensive locales.
Real estate prices drop and the banks shareholders suffer, anticipated by Lowy with his super sale of super malls recently?
Rupert Murdoch wrote directly, in his own publications, ( a rare occurrence) sometime back using the sales of new vehicles via such internet communications power to show that road side car yards would become redundant and should be sold in the interests of efficiency, buyers viewing and ordering their vehicle on line.
A Schumpeter Storm, caused by the super computer power only accessible by a fibre network, one of vast potential to decentralised small to medium enterprises, who, unlike the pissante, perambulating peasants, will not be doing so on their mobile phones?
So not giving the ignorant peasants what they wanted just co-incidentally preserved the real estate status quo, for the time being; a result you apparently agree with?
Looking forward to your critique of the above speculation.
It might be measured taking into account Adam Smith’s declaration at the end of the first book of his Wealth of Nations, ( he also wrote on “communications” and the economy) saying that the “order of people”, who typically owned bank shares for example, had “an interest to deceive and oppress the public”. And that having done so in the past, through parliament, would do so again in the future.
Bringing us back to the best Communication’s Minister Australia has ever had with regard to protecting the interests represented by the Liberal Party.
Your post does not reveal you as a willing part of just such a deception and oppression of the public, as outlined by Smith? Just asking?
Or is history bunk?
“you must have heard or read about Schumpeter’s Storm”
Yes indeed. Schumpeter got the idea from Marx; referred to as “Marx’s gale” – if that is how it translates but don’t hold me to it. Others can decide on the translation. As to your concluding remarks:
> Or is history bunk?
No : history is our life!
“with regard to protecting the interests represented by the Liberal Party.”
Well, I think that observation amounts to “situation normal”; consider Shorten and the aggro from the wealthy pensioners.
“Your post does not reveal you as a willing part of just such a deception and oppression of the public, as outlined by Smith? Just asking?”
Well I’m (at variance to some on this list) not at all partisan. I see politics, and history for that matter, as a tennis match; wack..wack — ..wack..wack — ..wack – and then someone obtains a point or an advantage or a set or whatever.
I have the highest regard for Smith and indeed for David Ricardo for that matter. Like you, I think, it annoys me to see Smith grossly misrepresented in standard (semi-right wing) university texts. Smith and Ricardo were much closer to Marx (they agreed upon the Labour Theory of Value) that to anything that looks like the Chicago School- and statements by the former are consistently taken out of context to suit the assumptions of the latter.
No one said that “trenching” for conduit should not be undertaken. What WAS said was “pull the fibre through when the need arises”. A decent feed on Cu is still pretty good. Blow the dust from your materials and linear algebra texts and you will see that Cu can (easily) support 200MHz (bandwidth) providing (at half that rate) 1G-bits/s data flow rate although, with losses, – let’s put the efficiency, rather conservatively, at 50% – 500M-bits/s is clearly achievable. The technology regarding fibre is changing; a hash (analogy) of Moore’s Law if you like. Thus the stuff should get yanked through (and spliced) when the need arises. Ditto for the NBN project as a whole.
“So not giving the ignorant peasants what they wanted just co-incidentally preserved the real estate status quo, for the time being; a result you apparently agree with?”
To be honest the real estate consideration did not occur to me; just too innocent I guess. But having written that a good deal of capitalism (a collective noun for the economy) can anticipate significant disruptions WITH internet commerce and off-shore provision of services (from legal advice to architectural plans or whatever). A guide for the future is Amazon, FB and the major on-line stores. The “the real estate status quo” is on borrowed time.
“Looking forward to your critique of the above speculation.”
I trust the above meets your expectation.
Agree worst communications minister, and will never have any competition for that gong! Dictator to the ABC another gong! Dreadful PM??? gold medal chance, but will medal.
For Malcolm to survive Abbott must be forced to leave parliament before the next election.
But don’t the difficulties described in this article as incompetent advice to leaders also apply to the Federation of State’s Greens parties? From Brown onwards?
Only slightly off topic, but is there something in the water in Canberra?
“where right-wing loons caper and gambol in the moonlight.”
Brilliant as it’s precise and poetic. It’s the only way to view them when flicking over to Sky News (601).