Shambolic isn’t the word for it. The Liberal Party is so far beyond shambolic we’re starting to run out of adjectives. The party’s conservatives and the liberals are locked in a death match with each unable to deliver a killer blow. They can only wrestle around in public, while the government, and the rest of us, watch. Watch, increasingly, with embarrassment. This party is ripping itself apart into two camps virtually at war with each other.
“The lunatics are running the asylum”, was the despairing summary of one Liberal staffer.
Who could lead such a flailing collective of internal hatreds and ideological divisions? Who could bridge the divide, the gulf between these inimically opposed forces?
Well, no one, probably, certainly not at the moment.
But Malcolm Turnbull has proven almost uniquely incapable of it. His moderate views aren’t the problem, it’s his leadership style, in which a lifelong tendency — need — to go for the jugular comes to the fore when he needs to be inclusive and consultative, especially in the post-Howard Liberal Party, freed from the dominance exerted by its central figure of the past two decades.
Again yesterday Turnbull showed how he knew how important patience and consultation were in his quest to get his colleagues over the line on the CPRS. He let the party room talk for hours on end, insisting everyone who wanted to be heard should be. And then, while several senators were absent, at the death, he declared he had won and walked out, leaving conservatives furious and insisting they had the numbers.
It’s a pattern that we’ve seen before, and plenty of his colleagues have noticed.
I suspect that’s partly why Andrew Robb had no qualms in turning his back on the man he helped into the leadership last year. Robb has serious policy reservations about the CPRS package. But in other circumstances, he might have kept his doubts hidden, concerned about the impact on the party leadership.
Evidently, he has decided Turnbull’s leadership cannot survive, even if he succeeds in today’s spill or non-spill. And he’s almost certainly right.
The only problem is that there’s no one else currently. Certainly not Kevin Andrews. The instinctive reaction even of many Liberals to his name being linked to the leadership is laughter.
The larger irony in all this is that Turnbull, a man genuinely committed to taking action on climate change, has massively damaged, and probably destroyed, his leadership over a scheme that will do absolutely nothing to address climate change. To have wrecked his political career and hopes of the prime ministership in the cause of preventing global warming would be commendable.
But to wreck them for Kevin Rudd’s CPRS? Oh, Malcolm.
Instead, Turnbull and Rudd, and Penny Wong, will forever be associated with a new model of policy development in Australia.
The model is simple: if powerful interests are opposed to significant reform, they must be bought off at the expense of the taxpayer. The era of reform driven by political bravery, by the willingness to sacrifice political capital for the sake of achieving long-term improvements in the living standards of Australians, the Hawke-Keating-Howard era in which good policy could be good politics, is over.
All powerful interests now need to do is hire a prominent consulting firm to show that reform will lead to significant job losses, promote the bad news via friendly journalists or media outlets hostile to the government, hire a top lobbyist, make some generous donations, and wait for the politicians to cave in.
If major reform cannot be achieved by a Prime Minister at record levels of popularity faced with an opposition tearing itself apart and an opposition leader pathologically incapable of healing the divisions in his party, then hope for genuine reform is lost.
That’s the real story today, regardless of who wins this afternoon, or at what point Malcolm Turnbull finally topples.
Two things, Bernard:
1/ major reform can easily be achieved by a Prime Minister in Rudd’s position. He just doesn’t want to. Regardless of whether he’s scared of being seen to be doing something, or he genuinely believes he is doing enough, he has not tried to do any more. It is unthinkable that this bill will not pass, even if some Liberal Senators need to cross the floor.
2/ we are moving towards a more American / ‘sophisticated’ model where money talks. Ok, money has always talked, but these days more industries seem to have the guts to put their money where their mouth is as opposed to just complain. The only way out of this hole is with further public interest in the political process and issues of the day. People don’t care and so they only catch that 20 second soundbite.
It’s day like these that I think we should more to non-compulsory voting (because in between the bouts of hilarity and giddy excitement, it is really quite sad). Politicians might even have to try to do the right thing in order to get elected. Heaven forbid.
Bernard – I think the key to understanding Rudd’s government style is that he’s an ex-public servant (like me). It can lead to a preoccupation with process and detail rather than broad vision, and an inclination towards consultation. The (disgracefully) successful lobbying effort can be justified as consultation with stake-holders. He’s sort of the opposite extreme from Whitlam.
Kirk – re. your second point I agree totally. I’m concerned that the CPRS is a watershed in Australian policy development, with us from now on enmeshed in a US-style lobbying free-for-all. At least we have public funding of elections which hopefully can stop the worst US abuses.
“It’s day like these that I think we should more to non-compulsory voting (because in between the bouts of hilarity and giddy excitement, it is really quite sad). Politicians might even have to try to do the right thing in order to get elected. Heaven forbid.”
Be careful what you wish for. “The right thing” may, as in the US Right, involve gay-bashing, restrictions on abortion, isolationism, xenophobia, militarism, promotion of religious ratbaggery and anti-science agendas (eg evolution and climate change). Tony Abbot and the troglodyte wing of the Liberal party would love it. IMHO one thing very much a plus for compulsory voting is that it ensures that the voting population is representative of the society as a whole, rather than overpopulated proportionally with highly-motivated ratbags.
With a Senate minority there was no ETS possible. No one can argue otherwise. What we now have is a bastard child of the loopy left and the lunar right.
The Greens stood on their moral high chair and mocked the government’s ‘derisory’ targets, while the lunar right (as typified by the Barnyard Joystick surreal style of homespun homilies) flatly refuse to accept that the earth is not in fact flat.
OK, Rudd’s used the good sense of Turnbull (and surprising intellectual honesty) as a battering ram to push his legislation through the Senate, but without Turnbull and McFarlane, what else would have stood a chance of passing?
Hearing Milne in the Senate today, scolding the government for the certain demise of the Great Barrier Reef was yet another bit of hysterical hypocrisy from a party that just will not grow up and act like adults. Australia could turn out the lights, shut down all coal generators, and the GBR would still disappear if China and US don’t get serious. That the Greens peddle this nonsense dooms them to eternal political irrelevance.
So don’t blame Rudd, just name one other choice there was to get ANY legislation through the Senate.
It stinks, but that’s the reality.
@Malcolm – That is the case in some parts of the USA, but don’t forget that they have legalised gay marriage in many states. Yes, overturned, but we haven’t got any politicians with the guts to legalise it. Medicinal marijuana in a number of US states. Some places in the USA are much more progressive than Australia.
Don’t forget that most European nations have non-compulsory voting. The most progressive nations in the world do not force their citizens to vote.
It is my (almost, because of weekend) everyday pleasure to read your analysis. Certainly it looks as if no Hawke-Keating economic reform would be enacted by the Rudd government. However, Hawke and Keating had a luxuary of being supported by the Opposition on their economic reform agenda. If they did not on othet issues, they were able to rely on the Democrats, who had been the sole custodian of the Senate balance of power most of the time.
When the Greens alone cannot guarantee the ALP the Senate majority and you have to take Steve Fielding into equation, it looks clear to me that the only althernative for Rudd and Wong was to go to the Libs (rather to the small ‘l’ libs).
I reckon you have to start from somewhere which can be improved later (I do hope the government would do that).