Funny how politicians change their tune when it comes to internal matters.
The Liberals — the party of rugged individualism, competition and the animal spirits of the market place — have decided that the “delegitimisation” narrative they want to pursue against the government is best served by not appearing divided. The party of competition would prefer no competition at the moment, thanks. Thus Andrew Robb’s speculative tilt at the deputy leadership has been nixed to preserve the appearance of harmony on the conservative side.
It’s a long way from the days after the 1993 election when John Howard stood against John Hewson purely, he said, in the interests of having a contest.
Robb certainly has leadership ambitions and, after his strong performance during the election campaign as spokesman and principal attack dog, why shouldn’t he have a tilt? And, yes, he was never happy about Malcolm Turnbull giving Joe Hockey the gig as shadow Treasurer, and rightly so. Robb as shadow Treasurer and deputy might help to turn around the Liberals’ dire fortunes in Victoria, a state where the only positive thing to say about the Liberals’ election performance is that it wasn’t as bad as in Tasmania — although, admittedly, losing Julian McGauran will lift the average IQ of the Victorian Liberal contingent by quite a few points.
There have been a few quibbles about Robb’s performance on the costings, but his task was to get to election day with the Opposition’s economic credibility intact and he managed that task. It’s not his fault it had a possibly disastrous consequence during negotiations over minority government. And in any event he still achieved a better bottom-line Budget outcome than Labor.
But the maintenance of the existing Liberal economic team would simply continue the problem — which, who knows, may have played a role in keeping them from winning — that their best economic assets, Robb and Malcolm Turnbull, aren’t used at all effectively. And putting Turnbull into communications just because, you know, he’s into all that tech stuff, won’t fix that.
The Turnbull situation complicates things for Robb enormously because, to put it mildly, there’s no love lost between the two men, certainly not since Robb’s Rebellion in the partyroom on climate change and, I’d suggest, well before that. If thrust into close proximity, they’ll struggle to work effectively together, although both are professional enough to manage.
But the problem for Robb was also that he was unlikely to knock off Bishop. Having spent the campaign in the HQ bunker in Melbourne, he may not have been quite aware of what Julie Bishop was up to during the election. She visited 46 electorates over the course of the campaign, and not just marginals (like, for example, Longman, where she looked like she was walking Wyatt Roy to school), but safer seats whose incumbents normally have to make do without too much in the way of support from high-profile party figures. It’s the sort of thing Brendan Nelson was good at, and one of the reasons why Nelson secured the leadership over Malcolm Turnbull back in 2007, because backbenchers remember that sort of effort. Robb would have struggled to get close to Bishop.
The Liberals like to boast they’re a more democratic party than Labor. Not for them the tyranny of the Whip — they’re free to cross the floor and vote how they like. But Joe Hockey was boasting this morning of something quite different — the Coalition leader’s “unfettered right” to pick his ministry — presumably in contrast to Labor’s tradition, abrogated by Kevin Rudd, of the factions selecting a ministry.
The latter seems somewhat more democratic, you’d think, but in the interests of serving the delegitimisation narrative, it’s stability all the way for the Liberals. None of this dangerous allocation of portfolios based on faction.
Nor, for the moment, allocating portfolios to the people who’d be best in them.

I’m not sure I follow your claim that Robb is a proven economic performer.
How did he achieve a “better bottom-line Budget outcome”? Leaving aside the issue of “better”, such outcome was based on the costings, whose shabbiness you write off as a “quibble” … I thought that sound costings is a prerequisite for whether the outcome could be achieved.
Are you being more nuanced and saying he just gave the impression of being an economic performer?
Robb seems to grasp economic and financial issues better than Hockey, its just that he’s not as smooth with the 1-liners, or the 2- and 3-liners for that matter.
It is a pity that the Coalition doesn’t seem to want to assemble its strongest front bench, but I fear we’ll be saying the same about Labor next week. Falkner, Tanner and McMullan are unfortunate losses for a start.
Andrew Robb just doesn’t look all that well. I know why he had that recent holiday away from politics, but that’s not what I’m talking about. He looks a bit battered. I certainly don’t wish him ill, so I hope I’m wrong.
I’ve always wondered what the fatal attraction was for Julie Bishop and BK has enlightened me. Obviously she works her heart out for her constituents. Very impressive.
My theory about Robb is that he had explicitly warned Hockey and Abbott that the fantasy budget they cooked up, would be at risk of blowing up in their faces–exactly what happened. And that he was over-ruled by Abbott who has no patience for that kind of caution and casually dismissed the risks (not to mention any notion of honesty) because he thought he could get away with it. I’d bet the whole party was on tenter hooks seeing Abbott stumble on any substantial issue.
And the second part is that Robb sees that the party simply must get some more competent people in critical positions. It cannot expect to win arguments with these hope & a prayer non-policies they (Abbott & Hockey) cook up for purely political purposes (a la Howard, who was saved by a similar figure, Costello).
And Venise, I agree, though really it is hard to say. Maybe that is just the way he is. And I was very wrong in predicting that he might not stick around after they lost this election. He seems more motivated to save the party….
MICHAEL R JAMES: Possibly he is one of the old school to whom the Party meant something?
I am no lover of the Conservative Parties but Oz is the loser when there is no Opposition.
Also, I’m very worried that the Liberals might decide to swing hard right again, in order to establish that there is a difference between them and Labor. This scares the Bejesus out of me.