Right, said Ted, Liberal factional gangs have me done
- Share
Why did the Liberal Party cut Ted Baillieu loose? You have to examine the factional background of conservative forces in Victoria. The Right rump never much liked him.
To understand yesterday’s political assassination of Ted Baillieu, you have to understand a bit about the factional background of the Victorian Liberal Party.
For about a decade — say 1997 to 2007 — two groups fought for control of the party organisation. I call them the Krogerites and anti-Krogerites, but you could just as easily call them “Team X” and “Team Y”; they were just groups of people, bound together by complex webs of history and chance personal factors, who competed for positions and jobs and preselections.
The anti-Krogerites had control under successive state presidents Baillieu, Joy Howley and Ian Carson until 2003, when the Krogerites took over and Helen Kroger became president.
Like most factional contests, it was more obvious in the organisation than in the parliamentary party. Party leader Denis Napthine (who, in a remarkable turn of events, is now Premier) was collateral damage when he was deposed by Krogerite Robert Doyle in 2002. Doyle went on to lose an almighty landslide and was eventually replaced by Baillieu in 2006.
About five or six years ago, conflict within the organisation began to die down. The retirement of Peter Costello, who had been a mainstay of the Kroger group, was one factor; so was the election as president of David Kemp, who, although backed by the Krogerites, was more of a consensus figure. But there was also just sheer fatigue: people eventually get sick of fighting over someone else’s decades-old personal grudge.
The factional conflict had never really been about policy or ideas.
Those who identified strongly as right-wing tended to join the Krogerites, while those who thought of themselves as on the Left tended to join their opponents, but neither side ever talked much about ideology. Even among the Krogerites, attitudes were common that would have been out of place in the Liberal Party in most other states: they were often pro-choice, pro-republic and civil libertarian.
In the meantime, however, the party was changing. It would take a sociological thesis to explain exactly how and why, but membership was in a steep long-term decline, and a declining membership meant more influence for the ideologically driven. There was generational change, and the perceived success of John Howard’s “One Nation-lite” strategy was attracting a different breed of members — self-consciously conservative, often evangelical Christians, often from blue-collar backgrounds.
They didn’t share the ideological common ground of the older members, but they were good haters, and what they hated was “the Left”. Lacking any better target, they came to identify Baillieu as the representative of everything they disliked.
Baillieu was as unideological as they come, but because he was from the organisational wing he tended, more than most parliamentarians, to behave like a factional player. The Krogerites, who had run out of worlds to conquer in the organisation (and who were increasingly divided among themselves), kept up a constant low-level sniping at him. It obviously rubbed off on their younger members.
And then there’s News Limited. Relentlessly waging a culture war against “the Left”, it picked Baillieu as its special target. I pointed this out as early as 2006, noting the strange paranoia of some articles in The Australian that had equated support for legal abortion and gay civil unions (things that someone of Baillieu’s background would find quite uncontroversial) with “radical Greens-style social policies”.
It got worse over time; the tone of political debate deteriorated and the alliance between News Ltd and the Liberal Party’s Right rump got ever stronger. Three years ago it disposed of Malcolm Turnbull; yesterday it got Baillieu.
Perhaps it’s a long bow, but it’s hard not to see a parallel with other targets of intense right-wing hatred: Bill Clinton, Paul Keating, even Barack Obama. Precisely because they were so obviously not from the traditional Left — not socialists or anything like them — they attracted a particular sort of vitriol, as if their opponents dreaded being forced to examine the basis of their own position.
Baillieu certainly had his faults; he could legitimately be attacked on many grounds. But none of them seem to remotely justify the description of “communist” and similar terms that have been routine among sections of the Liberal Party. Those attacks tell us less about him and more about the insecurities of those who made them.
Geoff Shaw, the man who actually pulled the trigger yesterday, is a classic loose cannon, so it would be unfair to paint him as representative of any group. Nonetheless, it’s symbolic of what the Liberal Party has become that someone so far out of the political mainstream — a fundamentalist who once equated gay s-x with child molestation and murder — should have acquired such pivotal power.
Perhaps if Baillieu had won a bigger majority, none of it would have mattered. (Although he still would have had the Nationals to contend with, a whole new topic.) Even now, if Victoria didn’t have fixed terms, Napthine would have the option of a snap election to cut Shaw loose and dare the Herald Sun to support Labor.
Instead, it’s now become Shaw’s choice as to when he brings down the government. Baillieu wasn’t willing to serve under those conditions, and frankly, who can blame him?
I wouldn’t attribute too much of this to policy and ideology. Poor opinion polls and a Victorian recession endangers all leaders. Ted’s moderate positions-usually to the left of Brumby was accepted as long as he could win elections.
Steady decline in Liberal party members and a takeover by the lunatic fringe right allows the likes of Shaw to get preselected.
Usually the wing nuts only get put up in un-winnable seats. Given the current federal polls, we are likely to see some genuine tin foil hat wearing freaks heading to Canberra after the election.
Throw in their facebook pages, twitter accounts and blogs and its Good news for political satirists.
Yep - nobody can hold a candle to the right of the right when it comes to hating.
Nothing much positive to contribute, just fear and loathing.
You could see this coming a mile off when Baillieu won. Way too moderate - useful to win an election for them, but once in, the road was clear for News Ltd to start waging the regime change campaign on behalf of the malignant underbelly of the Libs. Whatever it takes.
Kind of funny though how the Liberal Party hates both liberalism and old-school responsible conservatism.
Except that Baillieu’s response to Gonski was mischievous, negative but hopefully not as destructive as it was designed to be. Surely that would have attracted the support of the Victorian Liberal Right and Murdoch’s mouthpieces.
Interesting that Tony Abbott today said this was very different to Gillards disposal of Rudd when what seems to have caused it are a dysfunctional leadership style that paralysed the govt,the sniping of some factional leaders against someone hwo is essentially unaligned and extraordinary pressure form News Ltd.
Gavin Moodie - I think the GOnski thing, and even perhaps the resignation, was just Ted acting on instructions from the Feds.
I suggest that like Labor, the Liberals have different organisations in each State and federally which act significantly independently of each other. Baillieu’s destructive attack on Gonski was far more astute than anything Pyne or anyone else in the federal Coalition has expressed.
Gavin - Just because Ted was more astute than Pyne doesn’t mean the orders didn’t come from Abbott and co.
FOr mine the Liberal premiers have been instructed to make life as hard for Gillard as possible, fit her for every inch and let the boys in News ltd describe her popular policies as embattled. I mean why else would Ted say we don’t want over $1b in funding, we just want you to contribute to this $400m?
I suggest that Liberal premiers would prefer a Liberal prime minister and seek to undermine federal Labor to achieve that end. It is something they want to achieve themselves - they don’t have to be told by the federal parliamentary Liberal leader. If Liberal premiers are beholden to anyone, it is to their State Liberal organisation.
You may be right Gavin and in the end the result is the same, however there are plenty of rumours doing the rounds that Ted was told by the feds to go so that he stopped hurting Tony’s chances.
Baillieu is generally regarded as a moderate, however nothing could be further from the truth.
He declared war on the environment with the first symbolic action to reintroduce cows into the National Park. His brother in law was the head of the Mountain Cattlemans Assoc and he was later appointed to the board of VicForests (nepotism), watering down environmental protections hard earned over 30 years, ramping up publicly subsidised logging of Victoria’s forests and gutting staff & funding for DSE, ParksVic, etc.
He has been ideologically active too, strangling windfarm development with the power of veto to anyone within 2km of a proposed site (not for coal though), gutting funding for TAFE colleges and VCAL programs which support the most disadvantaged in society and building another private prison.
I could go on but you get the idea.
Good riddance.
I guess the Faceless Men in Labor have extened their influence to the Liberal Party backroom
Or perhaps it just might be that the Liberal Party is just ruin by faceless men
One thing I am sure is the Abbott Media ( aka Nes Ltd) won’t raise the issue!! That’s just something to flay the ALP with.
WE have a dysfunctional L/NP Govt in Qld, The Libs in Vic in disarray, the WA Libs not accepting responsibilty for NP polices but guaranteeing they would include them in a cgovt coalition, Leadership problems in the SA Libs,Hockey & Abbot getting the Carbon Tax wrong, Abetz linking asylum seekers to pedophiles and yet the ALP is accused of being the party in crisis!
Australia is so poorly served by its main stream media!
That is a moderate Liberal these days!!
This is a shame. Ted Baillieu earlier looked like a positive move away from the fundamentalist right. The voters wouldn’t accept this if he had not spent so much time championing Tony Abbott and so little time working on behalf of Victorians. He was a hologram Premier. Fighting every Fed. Gov. move on every occaision does make him look like another of Tony’s “Good Boys”. What’s in it for the country if we have wall to wall coalition? Dictatorship?
Meanwhile, Peter Ryan, alleged to have lied to Parliament, continues unchallanged and Goeff shaw, under investigation for using taxpayer funds for his business purposes, gets to kill off a Premier.
Agreed, @Carbon F and others, it’s not about policy, or even about ideology in the usual sense; it’s a very tribal sort of ideology that picks on a hate figure quite independently of their actual views. Vendetta is probably a better word.
@Sharkie: yes, the low talent pool has a serious effect on preselections, especially with a seat like Frankston that they probably didn’t expect to win.
@Jimmy: the parallels with Rudd/Gillard are fascinating, altho Baillieu was a factional player in a sense that Rudd wasn’t. But the big difference is that News Ltd there were trying to hurt the ALP generally because they wanted Abbott; here it’s not really clear what they want. They seem to be just lashing out.
Yes Jimmy I suppose it is. I must be off the scale!
“We was getting nowhere, and so we had a cuppa tea.”
Crikey et al, it amazes me how you can argue opposite cases with ease - on one hand newspapers are dead and buried, on the other the Herald Sun can bring down a premier and a couple of papers brought down Malcolm Turnball…you reckon the right of the right are haters? Murdoch haters are equally nasty and illogical
The PAv - you forgot Abbott’s publicly endorsed pre-selection candidate in the ACT getting rolled.
Charles Richardson - Yeah it is hard to see what they want although probably just something more right. The battle between the Age & Sun over Baillieu & Guy has been interesting.
Yeah Jimmy,
There’s so much its hard to remember it all and the MSM ignores it just like it ignores the multiple achivemets of the Rudd / Gillard govt in lieu of asinine leadership speculation
“Precisely because they were so obviously not from the traditional Left — not socialists or anything like them — they attracted a particular sort of vitriol, as if their opponents dreaded being forced to examine the basis of their own position.”
Mind… Blown…
@Pete from S: well, I can’t speak for other Crikey writers (we’re not a monolith, you know), but I don’t think newspapers are dead and buried. I think their economic model is broken and they haven’t found a new one, but that doesn’t stop them being influential. You can be powerful even if you’re printing crap; indeed in a sense you can be more powerful, because if you don’t feel constrained by truth you’ve got more scope to push an agenda.
Pete form Sydney - Are you honestly trying to say that News Ltd has been reporting politics in an unbiased fashion in the last 5 years?
Plus if you look at the Australians circulation you could say that while it isn’t dead it is on life support yet becuase of the laziness of the media as a whole it still sets the news for the day, it runs a negative story about the ALP, the morning talk radio shows follow it up and then the it get’s coverage on the evening TV news.
On evening TV nes when was the last time Mark Riley actually discussed a policy? Everytime I see him he seems more intent on working on his stand up routine.
Also Pete didn’t you see the article on Warrne Buffett buying up papers?
Charles
You’re right about a paper having influence despite printing crap.
Just look at the Oz.
What gets me is that by being so biased papers like the Oz are alienating a significant market and trashing the intangible asset of credibility. Hardly good business which is probably why they are in decline
Jimmy
My post#12 & yours #19
We both forgot “Yesterday afternoon the slow moving train wreck that is the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party government led by Terry “Freckles” Mills drove itself over a cliff.”
Aren’t we duffers! Maybe we could get a job with the Libs?
Thanks for that, I was wondering what Ted had done to p*ss of the Herald Scum, they have really laid it into him of late.
The Pav - And even with that it still isn’t a party in crisis, a party in crisis is one where 2 ministers announce they won’t contest the next election and are replaced 8 months out from an election, now that is a crisis!
Jimmy
On the same day or thereabouts ttwo opposition members advise they won’t be contesting.but that isn’t a crisis.
In WA on of Barnetts negative addf is don’t vote ALP because they’re a mess!!
Even for the Liberals that’s a stupid statement.
Really can’t they come up with anything?
With Abbott demonstrating his lack of character by hiding from the media it would be nice if a “Where’s Wally” type campaign was instigated by the press to make sure he can’t hide.Don’t hold your breath tho’
The Pav - I Like the idea of a “where’s tony” book you could have him in a fluro vest and hard hat in all sorts of scenarios.
Speaking of that did you see the footage of him and what looked like 5 other people carrying a shopping trolley at the recent clean up Australia thing in Western Sydney. I hope that isn’t Tony’s idea of efficiency!
All I want from the press gallery is them to ask one question, how on earth do you expect us to beli eve your figures add up!
(Oh and does a party in crisis give contradictory statements on the same day about numerous policies?)
And now we await the outcome of the Ramjan/Kroger defamation case. Repercussions everywhere for everyone especially the schoolboy bully Tony Abbott. Now Crikey, you will cover that, wont you?
Very good Charles though wasted on Crikey judging by the Comments. Thanks for pulling a lot of stuff that might have gone unnoticed together in a comprehensible way. Ted Baillieu of course is a typical civilised Hamer type Liberal (though Dick Hamer hadn’t quite got over the Depression and the Arts and Environment deficit before his government and hadn’t got round to the economic rationalism which eventually took hold under Hawke and Keating in the 80s and under Kennett and Stockdale in Victoria from 1992). Ted wasn’t an extreme Dry of course and indeed the big failure of that very reasonable and mild man is that he obviously didn’t really grasp how dire Victoria’s economic future was before he took office. A very senior colleague of his told me in January 2011 that they did know that but I don’t think they really did. Otherwise they would have pointed out how, after a little initial caution (cp. Gordon Brown in the UK) the Bracks and Brumby governments lost financial discipline. Part of it is the desire of nearly all politicians on all sides to do nice things for people so spending on people who are lifetime tax eaters rather than net taxpayers goes up, and it ratchets up of course. Part of it is Labor having to appease its union backers - most notably shown in the vast overruns in costs on the MCG, the Ballarat and Bendigo railway upgrades, the desalination plant and the unused pipeline from the Goulburn. Part of it is simply relying on sources of revenue and economic activity which were about to fail: principally increasing stamp duty receipts from a growing population buying houses but also, when the dollar was not so overvalued, the revenue from foreign students. Melbourne has major advantages amongst large cities (and most large cities have by their size and the concentration of talent and skills major advantages anyway) but well targeted infrastructure spending needed to start asap after the 2010 election and the message needed to be sold that Victoria needed to shape up and adopt fiscal discipline.
Ted has now done the right thing by everyone. Peter van Onselen (“van Oscillator”?) makes a ridiculous comparison with the knifing of Rudd. (And that hardly fits in with the idea that News had it in for Ted). Practically nobody disliked him and he did not behave in any way like Rudd - almost the opposite in many ways in relation to 24 hours spin and keeping everyone under pressure thoughtlessly - and will not behave like Rudd now. I don’t suppose Denis Napthine is going to turn into the charismatic equivalent of a moderate Hugo Chavez and become widely loved and admired but maybe he can just remind Victorians of what all voters in state elections, but particularly in Victoria, need to consider, namely that careful attention to long term solvency and creating the conditions for taxpaying enterprises to flourish (even if the Commonwealth reaps much of the revenue benefit)is almost everything. Then a clear message that Labor’s record is one of eventually squandering the fruits of good government and good business under the influence of their fundamentally unproductive support base - unions, welfare recipients and those paid to look after them. (Sound like Mitt Romney? Well his figures were just about right). Of course John Howard did a great deal of damage by turning a whole lot of people into pensioners and health card recipients who weren’t even close to poor when there were temporary good fiscal times. In the end bad policy leads to even worse weaseling. Thank G for the miners and China which will give us the chance to see how rotten things can become in the UK and the EU before we take ourselves to the edge of the same precipices.
The politics of hate, they got Redman as well on the same pretext of being too moderate (too WET) for the right faction in SA driven by Pine - who flip flops as it suits him and his devisive colleagues. The shift to the right fostered by News Ltd will stop at nothing to gainb power - both Australia / The UK and US. Cameron won’t last in the UK as UKIP undermines him again trumpeted by News Ltd who in the UK have a few scores to settle over the tapes scandal as well. I note no calls for an election as that would be the decent thing to do- even Gillard sought a mandate — -Napthine hasn’t the guts it seems.
He was a poor leader and was deposed by Doyle and he is again ” off the reserves bench” but his defence of Ryan is questionable and Baillieu was a fool to support Nutt.
Those tapes needed to aired to show how rotten the Liberal Party machine has become. What don’t the electorate of Victoria know and I hope that question time will be an inquisition to expose the faceless men of the right. Australian politics is in the gutter and we owe our destiny to these clowns. The next cab off the rank will be NSW as Barry OFarrell does not fit the mould either.
@tonyfunnywalker
On what principle do you suggest that Napthine should go to election having regard to precedent and convention?
What makes it a question of guts when Labor, under Cain, introduced fixed terms which would require a devious workaround for Napthine to go to election?
And the notion of “mandate” though uttered by politicians of all stripes is usually logical rubbish though first brought into political debate early in the 20th century as a way for the party with control of the Commons to beat up on the Lords. True, you might be using it in the sense that he seeks a “mandate to govern” but that presupposes that we have an uber-presidential system wherein it is not the part and its platform that are voted for but its leader. You wouldn’t assert that would you? I don’t think we really want Fuehrers.
I’m with you Warren
If you can get the votes in the house you govern and that is legitimate.
There is no need for an election unless there is a vote of no-confidence
So this is another assault by the Right of the Liberals following on from Redman in SA and Garry Humphries in the UK - they must have been warm-ups for rolling Baillieu. All in the months before a federal election. Sounds like the Liberals are clearing the decks of anyone to the left of Mussolini so they’ll have solid Right government.
spot on about news ltd, and its horror of boundary crossers, and illuminating on their role in the current lib party. a great article, CR
Reading all the comments it is clear to me that most perceptions in the Crikey crypt about the inner workings of the Liberal Party are so far from reality that any effective strategies to help Labor or the Greens won’t emanate from here.
I am supremely confident that Murdoch didn’t instruct Tony to instruct the Victorian Liberals to dump Baillieu.
Occam’s razor, a view that the simplest explanation is probably correct, is that too many Liberal members became convinced that they would lose their seat at the next election and Shaw’s resignation made that election more likely to be sooner than before, so they made a change.
I know it’s boring and democratic, but it’s also more likely that a News Ltd plot.
@David H: You’re right, there are certainly some conspiracy theorists among the commenters. But I didn’t say any of that. I don’t for a moment think either Murdoch or Abbott gave instructions to the partyroom. In a sense I’m not even trying to explain the events of yesterday; I’m trying to put them in context and explain the peculiar intensity of the hatred of Baillieu. And I don’t think you can tell that story without mentioning News Ltd. (Incidentally, your theory doesn’t really work, since Baillieu made the decision to resign, and it’s hard to imagine any of his colleagues really thought Napthine was a better bet to win an election - unless because getting rid of Baillieu would shut News Ltd up, which brings us back to my story.)
Charles,
I don’t for a moment believe the attitude and support by News Ltd for or against Baillieu had a skerrick of influence among Victorian Liberal MPs. I think the polls had much more influence and that Baillieu had been given plenty of warning.
The idea that Murdoch exerts a vader-like influence over Australian politics to the cost of the left is a fantasy of urban intellectuals who are in denial that their favoured political positions are not shared by the “bogans of suburbia” who select governments.
That view inhibits objective discussion about what left wing politics should be about and how it should modify its extreme elements to win the centre. Instead, Murdoch becomes a convenient bogeyman to blame it on.
That sort of willing self delusion is the doom of the left.
I fully expect that when the ALP gets its deserved drubbing on 14 Sep and Abbott becomes prime minister, the Crikey crypt will be full of grieving lefties, absolutely convinced that the Libs won because Murdoch told unthinking suburban bogans who to vote for.
Why would you choose Napthine if it’s all about the polls?
Floorer,
The term “all about the polls” is about the likelihood of the coalition winning the next election. I don’t know much about Victorian politics but I guess they don’t think they will get re-elected with Baillieu so they must turn to someone more likely to take the party forward. They must think Napthine has a better chance than Baillieu. Maybe there is no ideal candidate. In democracies and politics, it can be a bit chaotic. The idea of control and strategy reigning supreme is a bit of a delusion in my view.
Maybe it’s just a complete stuff up!
Just heard on ABC Radio that the reason Shaw resigned and took a swipe at Baillieu was because a representative group of back benchers (those elected since 2006) met with the then Premier last week regarding their parliamentary super. Those elected before 2006 still enjoy a ridiculously generous scheme, and the post-2006 lot wanted Baillieu to change the 2006 decision. When he refused to do so, they all ganged up on him, and the result was the Shaw affair, which ultimately led to the former Premier’s downfall.
Now why does it not surprise me that ALL politicians are only concerned with their own interests? So much for the Labor party MP’s being the only ones wanting to feather their own nests and stay in power “at all cost”.
Some say that Napthine is a stop gap until Matthew Guy can organise a seat in the lower house.
How lazy can the moderator be? This is still the beginning of my long comment yesterday:
7 March 2013 at 5:28 pm | Permalink
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Very good Charles though wasted on Crikey judging by the Comments. Thanks for pulling a lot of stuff that might have gone unnoticed together in a comprehensible way. Ted Baillieu of course is a typical civilised Hamer type Liberal ……
The polls are precisely the problem with this whole set-up.
If every government feels it has to sniff the wind every time it undertakes something we get the craven lick-spittles we have now, who dare not do anything to upset the entitled middle-classes.
I’m not sure that the moderator is lazy. The moderator’s job may be combined with other duties which are pressing just now or maybe comments are moderated by an intern who isn’t in yet.
However, I agree with your general point that moderation delays are frustrating. I’m not even convinced that Crikey need be moderated as it is. The web site and newsletter called ‘The Conversation’ isn’t moderated.
Well David, with respect, if you admit you don’t know much about Victorian politics, perhaps you shouldn’t be quite so dogmatic about what was motivating Liberal MPs. I don’t think News Ltd has a huge influence on the public, and I’ve said so many times (again, no responsibility for what other Crikey people might say). But I do think it’s very powerful in certain circles, and one of those is the Liberal partyroom. Of course it’s not the whole story, but it’s an important part of it.
Charles Richardson - ” I don’t think News Ltd has a huge influence on the public” Not sure about that, the number of people who I see everyday who’s political and economic views are simply regurgitating Blot and McCrant is amazing.
Plus when the most read paper in the state constantly uses it’s front page and cartoon (2 big weapons in reaching the non political reader) to set a very negative tone around the govt I think News ltd has a very big impact on public opinion.
@CML
You could be on to something. A senior Liberal told me a couple of years ago that the superannuation division between the old (earlier than 2006 wasn’t it?) and new was a very big issue.
The Bolte era scheme, as modified, was based on 11 per cent contributions by the member and only had a few (arguably) seriously bad features. Others were added in an entirely cross-party way. After the modest self-sacrifice of MPs under the first Kennett government to help with the bigger task of finally fixing public sector superannuation generally in the state those who were still in Parliament after the 1996 election got it all back, and more, with an outrageous adoption (as an offer/option which they couldn’t afford to refuse) of the Commonwealth parliamentary scheme. That was the work of Tony Sheahan former Labor Treasurer, Pat Macnamara, leader of the Nats and Deputy Premier, and Jeffrey Kennett: the greedy guilty men.
Fast forward and you get to Mark Latham’s opportunistic sally early in his brief time as federal Leader of the Opposition. Federal MPs lost their splendid scheme prospectively when Howard took fright. It didn’t affect Latham of course!
Then Victoria did it too under Brumby. But, curiously, they did things which were scandalously expensive in the other direction as well, like allowing e.g. a 90 year old ex-Premier to marry, or just shack-up with, a 30 year old (either sex will do now) and confer a pension worth $3 million or more on the nice young companion.
My long post mostly complimentary to Charles is still awaiting moderation from
Thursday, 7 March 2013 at 5:28 pm
and my subsequent recent post noting that has been moderated out of existence instantly.