The Costello departure now – now, when he could have been useful to Turnbull by simply keeping the seat filled until the election – shows what happens when a party founded on the idea of the individual crashes to the ground.
It simply shatters into a thousand shards, all edge, no weight.
Labor, meanwhile tends to break like one of those five thousand dollar salad bowls they design for warships – evenly into two bits, with no shredding, and capable of eventual repair.
Had there been sufficient solidarity, Costello would have taken the reins after Nov 07, led the party to its inevitable ‘10 defeat, with sufficient leadership for it to limit its losses, and be in position for a new leader, able to claim cleanskin.
Now the Libs are staring at losing ‘10 and ‘13 in ‘10 – and with no guarantee that they will be competitive by ‘16.
If that plays out, you can kiss the Coalition goodbye – the Nats will decide that they can revive themselves by tearing up the non-compete agreement, grab a half-dozen rural/regional seats from the Libs, and deal with both major parties.
When she goes, she really goes. Thanks Peter (Monash ALP club ‘75) – your long undercover operation is complete.
12 Comments
I think we can take it as a given that the Liberals are out for three terms at least. Apart from Gough (who had two terms) you have to go back to the ’30s to find a government that did not have three terms. The Liberals are looking at a long time in opposition.
At least liberal supporters can console themselves with the thought that there is little chance of actual leftist policies getting up.
Guy, as a matter of interest, do you think that another political party will form in australia, to the left of the ALP if Labor continue to tinker at the edges in the next 20 years?
King Coal is the real Opposition you wonderfully talented goose!
… Oh and King Coal is the government as well. Go figure.
I think having seen what happened with Kim Beazley in opposition, Pete Costello did the smart thing and didn’t seek the leadership.
The Nats splitting off and trying to pinch regional seats is a joke. They will simply start losing the seats they have to the Liberals if it turns into a true fight.
Any Liberals not prepared for another 6 years of opposition should probably leave now. By ‘16 the leadership tension between an aging Rudd and his increasingly frustrated deputy should get interesting especially when the “Rudd-Gillard” deal comes out. The last two governments had a succession deal, there’s no reason to assume that Rudd and Gillard don’t.
I’ve been hoping for a third party in Australia for years. The Democrats were doing well before… well. Annoyingly, they ceased just when they could have gained the most; if they had not bickered themselves to extinction, they would be picking up all those who voted against the Coalition rather than for the ALP. So, will a new party rise? Will the Greens grow moderate? Will there be more indies?
Hearing Billy Bunter’s shreaking call for discipline this morning on the ABC was really the sound of death for the libs. What a rabble
The Liberal’s god given right to rule has been proven false and many of the party simply cannot get their heads around it. Some of them seem to think that if they continue with the lucky dip of leadership they will find a saviour to win the next election. It dosen’t seem to have penetrated that to win they do their job and do it well. They seem to spend their time whining and carping. Another positive might be to choose their spokespersons more carefully to speak to the media. Listening to Julie Bishop last week was an embarrassment.
I’m still unsure about how much of this current turmoil we see on the conservative side is institutional and how much is ideological. Clearly, part of the problem is that only some of the Libs, and hardly any of the Nats, are equipped with philosophical convictions that translate easily into the current environment, now that Big Gummint is no longer a bogeyman, opposing the Apology is obsolete as a cultural marker, and the title of Preferred Economic Manager can be held by someone who rails (but fails to legislate) against capitalist excess. Is there a party structure that would enable conservative politicians to offer substantive opposition at a time like this? I suspect that no matter how disciplined the tories were, they would still be confined to yelling in the background about Interest Rates and Tax Cuts and Debt Trucks.
Still, they could stand to be slightly less spectacular about it.
I agree with what has been said above re the state of political conservatism in post-Kevin07 Australia. Rudd was discerning enough to capitalize on the break between popular, but moderately-conservative policy issues, and the less-appealing ideologues that bore them through much of Howard’s term in office. It was easy then for Rudd to pick up the mantle of government when he promised to be a conservative/moderate/progressive/intellectual/everyman/ruralist/urbanite/christian/secular figurehead, who on one hand opposed the excesses of the Coalition, while also assuming 95% of their political identity for electoral gain.
Like the proverbial copy-cat, Rudd began repeating the soundbytes of his political opponents, whose voice had grown coarse and neglected with the passing of time and support for their continued rule.
Besides, history won’t remember Howard’s successor as a Turnbull, or a Hockey – or even an Abbot. The man who will be seen as his true disciple will be the one known as Kevin, arrived in 07.