First Dog socks now in stock at the Crikey Emporium!
A cautionary tale…
Why Turnbull is an uncomfortable fit
|
The trouble with Malcolm Turnbull, said an old and wise friend of mine, is that he’s in the wrong party. Well, apparently; but the real trouble is that there is no right party for him to join. My friend’s implication was that Turnbull really belonged in the ALP, and it is true that he agrees with much of what Kevin Rudd is trying to do. Apart from the ETS, Turnbull is an environmental activist, a nationalist impatient with the general incompetence of state governments, a strong advocate for Australia’s involvement in international issues and, last but definitely not least, a staunch republican. Last week he even described himself as a progressive. From a policy point of view he would not be out of place in today’s ALP. But on a personal level he would find it intolerable. He has shown himself incapable of massaging the fuzzy and largely impotent factions within the Liberal Party; his attempts at domination have proved totally ineffective, and finally counterproductive. Obviously he would find the far more robust democratic traditions and the intractable stubbornness of Labor’s heavyweights too much for his notoriously low tolerance level. After all, they induce the odd brain snap in Rudd, and he has been virtually brought up in the culture. Turnbull would self-destruct in about a week-and-a-half. But more importantly, he could never achieve his ambition, which was and is the top job. Turnbull is in politics to be prime minister; no lesser post will suffice. But the party elects the leader, and even the modern, non-socialist ALP has not got to the point where it would contemplate placing its future in the hands of a millionaire merchant banker from Vaucluse. For Turnbull, the Libs were always his only chance and he knew it. But he has always been an uncomfortable fit, and not only on policy grounds, although as the above list shows, his wish list — and particularly his republicanism — is hardly designed to appeal to a party that over the past 15 years has been moving slowly but remorselessly to the right-hand edge of the political spectrum. To achieve his avowed aim of modernising his party and dragging the Libs into the 21st century was always going to be a tough job, and one requiring immense reserves of tact and patience. It needs hardly be said that neither quality is among Turnbull’s many strengths. Thus the schism, part policy, part personality. Some breathless commentators have described it as a “battle for the soul of the Liberal Party”, which is frankly hogwash. The Liberal Party is a purely pragmatic body formed with just one purpose in mind: to oppose the Labor Party. Until 1909 the conservative forces in Australia were split into two warring groups: the Free Traders and the Protectionists. But with a vigorous Labor Party on the rise, the sworn enemies united in a pact against the common threat. The recriminations were so severe, even violent, that they killed the speaker, Sir Frederick Holder, who fell from his chair with a cry of “Dreadful! Dreadful!” This was the inauspicious start of the Liberal Party Mark I, whose centenary was celebrated a few weeks ago. When the first of the great Labor rats, Billy Hughes, joined them in 1916, the name was changed to the National Party. When the second of the great Labor rats, Joseph Lyons, came aboard in 1931 the name changed again, this time to the United Australia Party. Hughes and Lyons were given the post of Prime Minister; rewarding treachery is a long-standing tradition in the anti-Labor ranks, proving yet again that power trumps policy every time, with “soul” finishing nowhere. The UAP became impotent and irrelevant during the war years but in 1945 Robert Menzies cobbled together a motley group of anti-Labor leftovers to form the Liberal Party Mark II, which endured in its current incarnation until last week. Like all its predecessors, its sole purpose is to keep Labor out of power, or at least unable to implement its policies. Where it has policies of its own (the GST, WorkChoices) these are more often that not arrived at by looking at what Labor would do and then proposing the reverse. Turnbull, a genuine liberal (as opposed to Liberal) is an exception, and it is not surprising that he has been targeted by some of the most unpleasant relics of his party. Nick Minchin, the sinister minister, the conspirator senator, is an ageing factional warlord who has long since abandoned his party’s interests for those of himself and his cronies. Kevin Andrews, the sea green inconceivable, is more concerned with the welfare of the Vatican than of Australia. His fellow Catholic Tony Abbott has taken as his model the Vicar of Bray, elevating political pragmatism to a total lack of principle. And on the sidelines they are egged on by the likes of Wilson Tuckey and Alby Schultz, both barking mad. This is supposed to be a contest about the soul of the Liberal Party? The arsehole, perhaps. In retrospect, Malcolm Turnbull must be wondering why he ever bothered. However, there was some cheering news last week with the release of the Senate privileges committee report on the capers of Godwin Gretch. Emails from his time in Treasury reveal that he saw himself as the centre of a vast secret network, which included not only Turnbull and other active politicians, but background figures such as the Liberals’ bagman, John O’Sullivan, of Credit Suisse, who received special, and possibly corrupt, favours from the Gretch. But best of all, he was an endless font of ideas for O’Sullivan’s wife, Janet Albrechtsen. How pleasing to find that The Australian’s resident dominatrix is actually Godwin Gretch’s ghost writer. Of course, with her inspiration and source now “undergoing treatment”, as it euphemistically described, the Libs might have to send around the hat to buy her a new set of alphabet blocks. They need all the help they can get. |
|
|
22 Comments
Heavens, another overlong and digressive history lesson which would have been much better had its insights been fewer and pithier. C’mon editors, can’t you tap Rundle about the need for incisive brevity?
words?!?! in MY crikey!??!
Um, Baal:
- this article is actually written by Mungo MacCallum not Guy Rundle
- Its actually a pretty good read
Actually Mungo, you do slightly miss the point that liberalism is not about changing the world. The theory of classical liberalism is to protect people from each other, protect private property, free enterprise, make contracts transparent and enforceable, maintain competitive free markets, keep taxes down and beaurocracy small. In classical liberal theory, the big ideas are supposed to come from free enterprise, not from government. Liberalism is a form of institutionalised under-achieving for government, because whenever government starts thinking it is the solution, it becomes the problem.
Love it. Not a word out of place.
Excellent piece, Mungo! Now that it appears Turnbull is for the tumbrel, one realises how poor his likely successors are; good news for Rudd, of course. Since the Fraser/Kerr coup of 1975, I’ve seen Liberal Party ambition as nothing more than power at any cost, whatever it takes. Long term interests of Australia and “principles” are only a means to that end. As Mungo says, oppose anything and everything initiated by the ALP if there’s a (perceived) vote in it. Minchin and co. would be entirely at home with the Liberal Party plotters of 1974/75. The big difference this time around is that the ALP will win the next election.
Very nice Mungo.
The question is still whether the anti-Labor forces will splinter and then re-form into a new party(imaging the conservative wing of the Libs allying with those agrarian socialists in the Nats based on a shared loathing of AGW policy) or whether the Liberal Party will once again limp through a period of irrelevance (think the Things-That-Batter period) until the next messiah comes along to unite the party. Given the current talent on offer, it might be a while.
Crikey needs more of Mungo’s even-handed, dispassionate analysis.
@BAAL
It’s not Rundle but yet another voluble Crikey left wing loon.
They both are usually inebriated but never quite enough.
Personally though, I find MacCallum much the more amusing.
Always enjoy your contributions Mungo; this one is a classic.
“Where it has policies of its own (the GST, WorkChoices) these are more often that not arrived at by looking at what Labor would do and then proposing the reverse.”
That’s maybe a bit harsh, but still… it looks like we are on the brink of a significant change, so it may not matter as much what the Liberal Party Mark II has been like.
Usual high quality analysis, Mungo. Like Frank Birchall, I see parallels to 1975 Liberals preparedness to throw out any inconvenient long held principles or conventions in order to oppose Labor party initiatives. or horror of horror, major reforms. Don’t they just hate opposition and endlessly fail to comprehend why they are thrown out of office. This self laceration also has overtones of the Peacock Howard wars in opposition, once again after numerous years in office.
Great stuff, Mungo.
There’s nothing wrong with a bit of one-eyed analysis and gloating… especially when I agree with every word.
‘Tis a pity, though. Australia’s Federal Government must have a credible Opposition if it is to achieve.
Menzies on the original Liberal Party vision, quoted by Mike Steketee in the Weekend Oz</a:
' "We took the name Liberal because we were determined to be a progressive party, willing to make experiments, in no sense reactionary but believing in the individual, his rights and his enterprise and rejecting the socialist panacea," [Menzies] wrote.
'… One of the points Menzies made at the party's founding conference,' Steketee writes, 'was that the non-Labor side too often had allowed itself to be portrayed as resisting political and economic progress. "Once this atmosphere is created, it is quite simple for us to be branded as reactionaries … There is no room in Australia for a party of reaction." '
Menzies, quoted by Mike Steketee in the Weekend Oz:
’ “We took the name Liberal because we were determined to be a progressive party, willing to make experiments, in no sense reactionary but believing in the individual, his rights and his enterprise and rejecting the socialist panacea,” [Menzies] wrote.
‘… One of the points Menzies made at the party’s founding conference,’ Steketee writes, ‘was that the non-Labor side too often had allowed itself to be portrayed as resisting political and economic progress. “Once this atmosphere is created, it is quite simple for us to be branded as reactionaries … There is no room in Australia for a party of reaction.” ‘
“On far too many questions we have found our role to be simply that of the man who says ‘No.’ …There is no useful place for a policy of negation.”
Note: I said it first. Mike Steketee in the Australian on November 28. Jillian on facebook on November 25.
As an observor of politics, the disintegration of the Liberal Party is the best entertainment of the Non Ratings period.
I can’t wait for the Four Corners expose, the TV Mini Series and the Blockbuster Movie. Mungo, can you write it?
The Movie should star Robbie “Hagrid” Coltrane as Joe Hockey, Chopper Reid as Senator Minchin, & Sylvester Stallone as Tony Abbott. Sean Penn could star as Turnbull and Paris Hilton as Julie Bishop. And they are the sane ones. There are dozens of rolls for loopies like Tuckey and Schulz, to Bronwyn Bishop and Helen Coonan.
The bloodbath scene would be awesome.
Sean Penn would be good as Malcolm, as he was in the movie Milk.
Bruce Willis as Abbott.
Get real folks, Malcolm would demand to play himself.
Nice piece Mungo. I’ve printed it out for keeping.
Actually it was Labor that killed Holder, specifically Hughes (who went on to kill another 60 000 Australians in the next decade) who claimed that unlike Judas who had betrayed for silver also, Deakin did not have the decency to kill himslef after the deed. This proved the final straw for the former methodist lay preacher.