Turnbull’s high stakes gamble
|
It’s been clear for several weeks that Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership would suffer serious damage if his backbench colleagues knocked back the raft of amendments Ian Macfarlane is preparing for the Government’s CPRS bill. Turnbull’s statement yesterday that it would become a leadership issue if they did so was only a statement of the obvious. Just to make things crystal-clear, Turnbull said he wouldn’t “lead a party that is not as committed to as effective action on climate change as I am”. Putting aside that he has been leading just such a party for over 12 months, if he had confined his remarks to those, it would have been an aggressive but fairly safe gamble to force recalcitrants into line. Turnbull isn’t worried his backbench will reject his strategy. He is confident he will convince most of his backbenchers of the implacable logic that rejecting the CPRS amendments would be electoral suicide. By lifting the stakes in the way he did yesterday, he increases the pressure on the holdouts to fall into line. It also enables him to paint a successful partyroom outcome as a major victory, and perhaps a circuit-breaker for a leader mired in months of terrible polls. And the true recalcitrants are small in number once you ignore the Nationals, who are in denial about climate change, the desire of Australians to address climate change, and the fact that they themselves committed to an ETS before the last election. They were never going to vote for emissions trading of any kind. So who in the Liberal Party is the problem? The same names keep recurring. Wilson Tuckey, who can’t resist a microphone. Corey Bernardi, a right-winger bitter about being sacked by Turnbull for indiscipline. Turncoat Nat Julian McGauran. Outright denialist Dennis Jensen. As John Hewson put it so aptly this morning in an interview, there are some politicians who prefer being in Opposition, where it’s easier to get a profile, than in Government. But in his language today, Turnbull is changing this argument from one about climate change and electoral tactics to one about his own style and leadership. You can tell from the reaction of some of his colleagues, who started to use terms like “brain snap”. Calling those among his own MPs who refused to fall into line “reckless and irresponsible” and, later, “anonymous smartarses”, is not merely likely to get their backs up — making negotiation and compromise an ever-more distant outcome — but will again concentrate everyone’s minds on the way Turnbull does politics. Remember that Government campaign about Turnbull’s judgment? The incessant suggestion, in the aftermath of the Godwin Grech business, that he lacked it? By so aggressively going after a rump of disaffected backbenchers, Turnbull will again prompt even supportive colleagues to wonder if he simply lacks what it takes to succeed at the highest level in politics. The thing is, on this issue, Turnbull has until now been uncharacteristically patient, slowly shifting his party inch by inch toward resolving the CPRS issue. There’s been no crash-or-crash-through, none of the usual Turnbull-at-a-gate tactics so vividly displayed in the famed email disaster. Until today. Maybe he had exhausted his patience, and simply had to lash out. Maybe he was so sick of Lilliputian attacks from the likes of Tuckey that he felt he needed to slap him down. But all he needed to do was hang on for a couple more weeks. Confirming that his leadership was on the line is one thing. But now he’s not merely done that, he’s attacked his own colleagues – that last thing a leader who wants to forge a united position should have done. By doing so, he’s increased the possibility that the leadership issue, which he has put on the table, could spiral out of control. Some observers wonder if Turnbull is deliberately setting himself an impossible hurdle that will give him an excuse to resign on an important issue. That might make sense if Turnbull had ever walked away from a fight of any kind, did not enjoy fighting more than not fighting, and was not obsessed with becoming Prime Minister. You could construct a complex scheme in which Turnbull resigns rather than “lead a party that is not as committed to as effective action on climate change as I am”, sits on the backbench for a couple of years, then replaces his replacement in time to take the Coalition to the 2013 election, which they might have a greater chance of winning. But that involves Turnbull sitting on the backbench twiddling his thumbs for an extended period. John Howard might have been content to do that, but not Turnbull, who has a few more strings to his bow than his former leader. The Government must be quietly rubbing their hands in glee. As usual when the Opposition undergoes its now-regular bouts of turmoil, senior ministers have dropped out of sight to let them hog the media’s attention, although the earthquakes and a community cabinet meeting in Geraldton mean that’s even more the case than usual. The strategy to use climate change primarily as a political weapon is surely succeeding beyond their expectations. This morning John Hewson posed the question “why is the Government so determined to use this to destroy Malcolm Turnbull — are they that worried about him?” The answer is not that they’re worried about him — they haven’t worried about him since the Godwin Grech disaster – but simply this: because they can. Labor doesn’t give anyone a break. Never has, never will. What they probably didn’t count on was Turnbull’s propensity to do their work for them. *Listen to yesterday’s Canberra Calling, “The two 22s and a large fried rice podcast” |
|
|
|
23 Comments
I commented yesterday on the Rooted blog, which curiously remains under moderation while being very moderate in content. The view underpins the real economic threat to Australia of dithering on climate regarding re-insurance sector, which all business depnends on in a rule of law context:
“As extreme weather affects more of the western developed economies the re-insurance industry will continue to ramp up the compulsory costs of insurance for any industry sector not seen to be mitigating climate change. At some point whole sectors or even countries’ balance sheet will be pushed off their insurance profile for just being hostile to long term financial health.
Australia is surely rushing into that scenario and Malcolm Turnbull for one would be smart enough after HIH to know how disruptive that would be for big business behind the Liberal Party or Lablibs for that matter. Neither can afford that to happen in their career span.
So it’s not just the Sarkozy threat of carbon tariffs on foreign (to EU buyer) products and services originating beyond their (my term) ‘credible climate mitigation programme’ (ccmp), but also the global re-insurance industry setting those sectors ‘[rogue] legally adrift so that they can’t get OH&S or public liability or fire or any insurance whatsover. In other words send them into the liability wilderness just like the HIH fiasco did to numerous small business, builders [through no fault of their own].
Sure China or India etc may buy ‘black’ [rogue] coal outside a ccmp, even more so if they buy up the [means of] production here, but who will provide the insurance to operate such a plant? My guess even if China or India buy the local resource with FIRB approval, unless the Australian Govt abdicates sovereignty of select economic geographical zones (and thus application of domestic labour and safety laws), not even a foreign owner will be able to operate WITHOUT INSURANCE.
Indeed nothing happens in business without insurance, not even King coal power stations. Just ask Esso. [Meaning Longford Vic disaster multi million dollar public liability, workers killed etc].
There’s only one Yesterday’s Man bigger than Malcolm Turnbull and that’s John Hewson.
“…As John Hewson put it so aptly this morning in an interview, there are some politicians who prefer being in Opposition…”
Well you’d know, John.
Andrew Robb…new leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition.
Come on down.
While Andrew Robb has my sympathy re his illness, and I admire him for being so courageous and going public, and I really wish him well, but I don’t like his brand of politics either. Turnbull sounded OK for the first couple of ‘outbursts’, but now he just sounds like a spoilt kid doing a dummy spit - not ‘leadership’ material. He should be laying down the law in the party room, I’m not interested in their machinations. They had about 12 yrs to do something about global warming and didn’t, now it’s time for action.
Wilson Tuckey should be made to shut up. After I heard his comments re those poor people who’ve died and who will die from coming in contact with asbestos(sometimes only momentarily - that’s all it takes) that in his opinion older workers shouldn’t receive compensation, I’ve even less time for him. What a pathetic human being he is? He obviously thinks, that when it comes to making money, it doesn’t matter who you kill or make suffer? Just as an excercise, I wonder how he’d feel if it became known for example, that those sitting in those comfy commonwealth cars were in danger of getting asbestosis(carpet, brake linings? etc)how he’d feel about being compensated while he died a slow and agonising death like mesothelioma? One can only hope that he has to suffer heaps before he finally pushes off! Probably won’t though! Those type keep on keeping on. No justice at all!
Turnbull is in a lose lose situation. If he prevails in the party room, he will have made bitter political enemies who will be sniping at him for the rest of his tenure. And if he loses, his political career is effectively over and he may as well go cap in hand to Rudd for a cushy UN or diplomatic posting. Possibly Australia’s representative on climate change.
The problem in my view, is that Turnbull has failed to convince his party that he has a credible alternative platform or alternatively a political strategy. If he had been able to convince his colleagues that his approach was to provide uncommitted bipartisan support as a political tactic and if or when the Rudd plan subsequently came unstuck, the Libs would have been able to avoid the lashings of egg about the Rudd & Wong faces by claiming they acted responsibly as they felt the public wanted them to rightly or wrongly.
But I get the impression he has neither strategy nor alternative platform. Just my impression mind you. That is why I believe a lot of the tougher opposition politicians are unhappy. Not about the policy position either way, they just feel uneasy about a possible hollow man leading them.
Malcolm Turnbull’s diary had an entry ‘Become Prime Minister’ as he sees this possibility slipping away in the near future his current stand is perfect. He can walk away head held high as a man of integrity and move back to the corporate world.
On climate change policy, Malcolm Turnbull is a man totally out of step with his party’s most deeply held principles and verities. It isn’t the climate change sceptics who are the rump, the converse is true — they are the overwhelming majority. If the climate change sceptics on the good ship “Liberal Party” chose to mutiny and forced Turnbull into the long boat, he would be joined by only a handful of people (perhaps including Greg Hunt and Mal Washer), and be left watching mournfully as the “Liberal Party” set sail for the far right horizon.
ABC News Radio are running a poll today asking who should replace Turnbull as Leader of the Opposition……
results thus far 1-50pm WST
Hockey - 20.5%
Abbott - 9.4%
Robb - 3.4%
Phar Lap - 66.7%
Of course highly unscientific but interesting. The horse by the length of the straight. Has there ever been an Opposition as unpopular as this mob?
“Malcolm Turnbull is a man totally out of step with his party’s most deeply held principles and verities” GIANNI: When will people start to realize that conservative parties don’t have principles. This is not meant to shaft them, it is merely a statement of fact. Once, in the founding of the Liberal Party in England, which has bugger all in common with our Liberal Party, they had idealism but not the Tory Party. Conservative parties are all for telling people what laws they have to stick to, they encourage capitalism, make the trains run on time. Well, not in Victoria they couldn’t and all the other things which are so necessary for a money making society. But ninety-five percent of improving the lives for the populace come from the left of centre brigade.
There’s no miracle about it. Nothing holy or magical. It just is.
“and be left watching mournfully as the “Liberal Party” set sail for the far right horizon.” Perfectly correct. They can hardly become a party of the left-wing-not with the darling Nashos in tow. Imagine the colour Barnaby Joyce would turn. They were a party of the middle right, before they lost an election and the Labor Party grabbed the last chair. So their only alternative is to swing the rudder over and turn hard right. They should have known this before engaging the services of Malcolm Turnbull. He should have know it too, but he was blinded by his engorged ego and his vaunting ambition.
All we can do is look on with stunned surprise as we watch the ship sinking at the speed of RAYMOND CHURCH’s “Phar Lap -66.7%” per two year degrees.
Terrific piece of analysis Bernard. But I wonder whether this may be the one fight that Turnbull will walk away from. Even a man as driven and unself-critical as Turnbull must at some point recognsise that a “dignified retreat” is better than a severe beating. I am sure you are right that twiddling his thumbs on the back-bench would be anathema, but being thwarted at every turn on the front-bench must be driving him crazy. I wonder what Lucy thinks.
Is there anyone in Labor who can do a Garrulous/Kernot on Bullturd? Perhaps one of the triangle that always sits behind Krudd at PMQ? Or one of the more lithesome lads…? jes’askin
If Rudd offered Turnbull a nice job so that he could remove himself from the political scene with dignity the whole country would be better off.
I liked the “anonymous smartarses” line, it’s about the only thing Turnbull has got right since he became leader of the Liberal party.
Clive Hamilton said: ‘I wonder whether this may be the one fight that Turnbull will walk away from. Even a man as driven and unself-critical as Turnbull must at some point recognsise that a “dignified retreat” is better than a severe beating.’
I’m with you. I have long felt that Turnbull realises that he’s made a very poor career move and wants out one way or another. His personality, nicely summed up by Brendan Nelson, does not allow him to be constantly surrounded by contradiction and, as he demonstrates almost daily, he has abysmal people skills. I believe the ETS issue has given him the perfect exit strategy.
“You could construct a complex scheme in which Turnbull resigns rather than “lead a party that is not as committed to as effective action on climate change as I am”, sits on the backbench for a couple of years, then replaces his replacement in time to take the Coalition to the 2013 election, which they might have a greater chance of winning.”
How about he’s (correctly) decided that in the long term, being associated with a party that has too many people in it who don’t accept the climate science, is not a good long term political strategy as public opinion catches up with the fact that we”ve now been betrayed by two PM’s in a row on climate change?
My private fantasy is that he resigns and takes with him those Libs, who do believe the science and then teams up with those in Labor who also believe the science and are disgusted with Rudd’s backsliding on climate change and his grovelling to the big overseas, rent seeking coal owners.
We need in any case a strong and stable cross-party coalition to deal with at least the first 8-12 years of seriously migrating this country away from burning fossil fuels, which will be necessary, but fiendishly difficult both economically and politically. Hopefully the Greens would join the coalition too.
Frankly, if we don’t start thinking outside the box of our ‘business-as-usual’ two party politics by the next election, I’d say Australia’s international image as recalcitrant, fossil fuel supporting backsliders will be etched in forever.
Our real economic challenge is how we replace the export revenue from currently decling agriculture and coal, which international studies show ( see Richard Heinberg: Coal, Climate and the Last Energy Crisis - 2009) will peak globally as early as 2025 - contrary to what our popliticians and the industry would have us believe.
Chris Sanderson,
I am impressed firstly with bernard’s article and secondly your finessing, which, I am sure even Bernard, Clive and Bullmore’s Ghost would agree, is world class.
I am an instant fan.
cheers for the insight
Well thanks Evidently for ignoring re-insurance! Sigh. It’s based on ABC RN programme some 3 years back with my own HIH finesse.
By they by if Chris Sanderson is not Paul Keating, newly embracing the web with his own webpage, then he makes a nice (olden days) facsimile.
And I agree it was a great comment from him. Will have to re-read it closely. However Keating, whether my guess is right or not, has still alot of ashphalt in his veins to clear out yet. Good luck with the detox Paul!
End of the Liberal Party?
will we see the liberal party break up over the issue of global warming? malcolm turnbull probably knows he will not be able to continue as leader, not only because of the party division on climate change, but because of his consistently low popularity ratings over the past year. hence his threat to resign might be an attempt to jump before he is pushed.
if so, where will he jump? will he leave the liberals and join labor? and what about those ten or so liberals who support malcolm’s position. if he leaves the party, will they leave too?
where does this leave the national party? do they have any future in this country?
if the final result is crippled, much smaller liberal and national parties, its possible that the main opposition to labor will become the greens, who will be likely to grow in support and power.
what do you think of these possibilities?
Chris Sanderson: Excellent comment.
Historically, Australia has always been the land of the ‘future’.
Man made climate change, fragile ecosystem, mineral wealth beyond anyone’s comprehension, over population on said ecosystem, massive immigration, over indulgence of the rural sector and rampant McMansionism have made Australia the country of ‘now’.
Inept and unimaginative, tiny-minded, egocentric, third-rate politicians have turned Australia almost into being the country of the ‘past’.
What is needed is a completely different form of governance, and I would be the last to know how this could be achieved. So long as this vast, yet fragile continent, is run by people who are elected by the least competent, so long will our politicians be incompetent too.
In these columns many people seem to believe that Malcolm Turnbull is another Don Quixote, a man who fights windmills. Unlike Malcolm Turnbull, Don Quixote lacked hubris, calculation, deviousness, and a deep desire to be loved.
As a nation we should be able to do better than this. Two years of begging our leaders to show compassion and heart towards the land, John Howard and Kevin Rudd are perfect examples of the wrong people being elected by the wrong people.
Thanks ‘Evidentally’ and Tom for your kind comments. No, I’m not Paul Keating in disguise! Wish I had his capacity for getting to the nub of things.
I’m just someone frustrated by the apparent inability of either major party when in government, to effectively deal with the converging problems of climate change and energy security.
Nor have they even developed rational policies on both issues that fulfill a government’s obligations regarding duty of care to its citizens.
I’m really staggered by the extent to which big business, starting in the 1970’s, has managed to manipulate the democratic process to the point where they now effectively control government policy on any matter that affects their bottom line.
We really have been asleep. What happened to “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”?
It was one thing to allow the tobacco industry to pretend for many years that smoking could not cause cancer. That at least only affected smokers who had the choice.
With climate change, none of us has a choice. Either the entire world stops emitting or our children inherit a planet whose climate we would not wish on them.
My only hope is that once it is widely understood (please God, soon) that government now proposes to financially encourage the fossil fuel industry (via this CPRS) to continue to increase the amount of their pollution, we will insist on ending this corruption of democracy at the next election.
Contrary to what Rudd and Howard would have us believe, Mother Nature does not negotiate to achieve a ‘balance between economics and emissions’. She simply responds to the level of emissions we send her - without pity or remorse.
Once we have a coalition of MP’s in power, who embrace the climate science and are ready to state these obvious facts, then we can move on to work out how to do what has to be done in a way that protects jobs and the economy as much as possible in the process.
Apologies for this frustrated rave!
CHRIS: Read my c0mment to see you are not alone in this. I may lack your eloquence, but my heart is in the right place.
Chris, you express the frustrations of so many. The Australian export coal industry, one of the world’s MAJOR sources of global warming, clearly has both sides of politics (and the union movement) under their control. The extent of this influence is only now becoming clear.
What you mean their are dissenters in science…ohh noes…what to do…this sounds like a healthy debate on a scientific hypothesis…very balanced.
OOOPS: Read this morning over a coffee in the dreaded Herald Sun, that Malcolm Turnbull is the fourth most hated man in Oz.
A good look NOT!