Well, that broke the monotony huh?
Amid all the sound and fury last night, let’s not overlook that Malcolm Turnbull has achieved a truly remarkable feat: drag his party kicking and screaming to actually support the Government’s CPRS, in an amended form. It is an impressive achievement.
And forget about Wilson Tuckey and Dennis Jensen and the denialist bloc within the Liberal Party calling a spill against Turnbull on Thursday. If the spill motion gets up, Turnbull will likely have the numbers, and for that matter won’t even need them in the event Tony Abbott or Joe Hockey don’t stand. I mean, seriously – Kevin Andrews? A man whose ministerial career was marked by both incompetence and malice? He’d be lucky to get his own vote let alone anyone else’s.
But Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership is terminal after yesterday for two reasons: he now has a formidable array of conservative figures aligned against him, and he has confirmed yet again that he is unable to control his high-handed and aggressive style of leadership.
Andrews Robb’s decision to join the “no” camp was the bombshell of the day, but one quickly overtaken by talk of spills and numbers. It remains a critical development. Robb is the most substantial figure in the party apart from Turnbull. He is more widely-respected than Abbott, he is far, far smarter than Joe Hockey, he has supporters amongst both conservatives – his instinctive political home – and moderates (he is a republican). Above all, he was Turnbull’s trusted point man on the ETS before he was felled by illness. His decision to oppose Turnbull would not have been taken lightly. It would have been taken in the full knowledge that he was turning his back on the man whom he strongly supported for the leadership in November 2007 and September 2008.
It also means that there is now a solid bloc of Nick Minchin, Robb and Tony Abbott, amongst the senior leadership, who opposed Turnbull. This is a far more formidable grouping than a clutch of denialists like Corey Bernardi.
A key feature of the partyroom meeting yesterday was always going to be how Turnbull handled it. There has been a growing chorus – from senior Liberals down – in recent months that Turnbull is unable to control his aggression, unable to rein in his tendency to go for the jugular. It was bad enough when he bit off more than he could chew against Kevin Rudd over the faked email affair. But when directed at his colleagues, at it increasingly has been over the CPRS, it makes enemies where it is unnecessary to do so.
And Turnbull has tried to rein it in. He was extraordinarily patient in getting the party slowly but surely to move to a point where it would at least consider a deal – remarkable given it voted against the CPRS point blank earlier in the year. But he always seemed a brain explosion away from undoing all the hard work – like when he labelled opponents smartarses and reckless and irresponsible, and visibly and deliberately put his leadership on the line over the CPRS.
Yesterday, again, he tried hard – insisting that everyone who wanted to be heard should speak their piece. Hour after hour it went. Denialists, legitimate sceptics, climate change believers who didn’t like the CPRS, supporters – all had their say.
And then, as if he could restrain himself no more, he declared victory while senators were out of the room, saying he had a majority.
There was no hint of sharp practice in doing it while senators were absent – or at least that’s what Warren Truss and Barnaby Joyce said. Both said that wasn’t an issue – people had been going in and out of the partyroom all day. But very quickly, Turnbull’s opponents began saying that he had misrepresented the partyroom position. Kevin Andrews in effect accused Turnbull of lying, saying “40 or 41″ backbenchers had opposed the CPRS package, and only 33 had supported it. Tuckey said 40 were against the package. Another counted it 47-47 after including shadow Cabinet members.
The same words were again used – high-handed. Arrogant. Bullying. Sentiments unlikely to have been curtailed by his repeated, Muhammad Ali-like claim at the ensuing press conference “I am the leader”.
Turnbull has achieved an astonishing feat in getting his party to back the Government’s CPRS, particularly given just how alien he is to many conservatives in his party and how relatively politically inexperienced he is. But regardless of what happens later this week, he has confirmed the suspicion many hold that he simply cannot control himself. Worse, there are serious, substantial party figures who are now alienated from him.
For a party as deeply divided as the Liberals, Turnbull’s style simply can’t work. Frankly it’s doubtful whether anyone’s style could work given how badly they are fractured. But Turnbull risks exacerbating their divisions with his approach – and that is exactly what appears to have happened this evening.
32 Comments
Yes but does Turnbull have the courage to speak the truth about climate change – that clean coal is a pipe dream, that the coal is running out, that emissions trading cannot work as promised…
Climate change is the biggest issue in the world. A political party that fails on climate change, is a failure. And the same goes for a political leader. Sometimes history is cruelly simple, isn’t it?
It was always going to end in tears for Turnbull. He’s simply too imperious a character to maintain the pretense of collegiality and compromise that is necessary for anyone who is going to get anywhere in party politics. His “my way or the highway approach” is admirable to some degree as it demonstrates that he has genuine conviction, but it’s disastrous without an enduring command of the numbers. You get the impression that Turnbull feels that it’s beneath him to dabble in the glad-handing, patient listening & quiet advocacy that is so much a part of the party-political game. (No wonder it took him so long to get preselected.) He’s managed to succeed in life through the brute force of superior intellect, personality and dazzling but momentary charm. It’s how he eventually won preselection for Wentworth, (charismatic steam-rolling goes down well among the Eastern Suburbs’ nouveau mega-rich) without ever securing the truly rusted on support that sustains lesser mortals through the ups and downs of political life. Turnbull’s mentor, Neville Wran, managed to rise above the factional mire but that’s only because he had the fierce backing of factional warlords like John Ducker (who made him) & Jack Ferguson (who’s loyalty was won with Wran’s inspired decision to share cabinet posts proportionately with the left). Wran towered over the factions but he always paid them due deference.
While Turnbull could be charming and persuasive when he had to be, he would go from one battle to the next without building any lasting political capital along the way. He felt himself so much above the fray, he never took the time, had the patience or saw the need to foster genuine, down-in-the-ditch loyalty. Where are the Beazleys to his Hawke? They’re not there because Turnbull was never a tribal player. The Liberal Party, while it was an obvious choice was never a compelling choice; it wasn’t in his bones like it was for almost every Liberal leader before him, with the exception of Brendan Nelson (enough said).
Politics, while always high Turnbull’s list of things to do before the grave, was, in the end, just another chapter in his varied life – a bit of journalism here, a little mogul-minding over there, a spot of stellar lawyering and a long stint merchant banking mixed with a bold stab at constitutional reform, oh, and almost as an afterthought: better have a serious crack at parliament; bloody hell, we did it; the leadership will fall to me as inevitably as sunrise.
It’s not that Turnbull didn’t work hard at winning the leadership; he did, with the single-minded ferocity of a Pit Bull but, having achieved the leadership, he failed to build the kind of support within the party that had enabled someone like Howard to command authority even when there was serious disquiet in the ranks.
There’s no doubt that Turnbull is by far and away the brightest crayon in the coalition box, but his lack of humility and inability to rub along with his duller fellows meant that it was a bad idea him being in the box in the first place.
bring on the religious duo Abbott & Bishop (either one they are both buffheads) as De Nero said in Rocky and Bullwinkle “its not easy being glorious leader” Malcolm is just a part time pollie move on, the NRL needs a shake up.
I know politics is always reported as a blow-by-blow, strategic game but perhaps Malcolms problem is very simple. Whether he is high handed or the very picture of concilliation, a large number of his party don’t want the ETS. There is no way to massage that. The reason they don’t want ETS is that many of them just flat out don’t believe in climate change – the reason these people are politicians is that their electorates feel their individual interests are best served by someoone with those views. This is the problem with taking a group of regional worthies, clumping them together, and pretending its a national government or shadow government. Its really just a big collection of vested stakeholders by proxy.
As for Malcolm being a part-time pollie that, at least, is in the best traditions of democracy. When parliamentarians cross the line into having an interest in protecting their own jobs, they cannot take brave decisions. Most of us have this debate between or priniciples and our mortgages on the job every day, but in a politician it is dangerous. So I am hoping that Malcomn; intelligent, informed, independently wealthy and elitist and therefore political poison in this country can, before he goes, state the bleeding obvious.
The entire purpose of climate change policy is to put the coal industry out of business as fast as possible. That its, thats all of it. If its not that, its not a climate change policy.
Which means that the ETS is not, also, a climate change policy, but thats more an issue of another egotistical, indepedently wealthy elitist with a presidential style who, regrettably, appears to be the PM.
Good post Stephen Feneley, and sums up Turnbull and his predicament well.
At least Turnbull has achieved a remarkable feat, as Bernard says, but only by doing the paradoxical: Turnbull has both crashed and crashed through simultaneously.
I disagree. You can’t lead by committee and compromise. Particularly in the Liberal party which has always had a cult of leadership. Malcolm Turnbull beating the dissenters into line will boost his personal polls. That in turn gives him the only currency that counts within the party.
Being decisive and standing for something is a necessary trait. Inflicting party discipline and dragging the recalcitrants along is party of being the leader. Putting the leadership on the line and saying my way or find a new leader is exactly the right thing to do. It shows that his opponents within the party don’t have nearly the numbers. This in turn gives him more public credibility.
Well… Turnbull doesn’t have the slow, serpentine cunning of John Winston Howard, the heroic status of someone like Fraser (engineering something as dramatic as the dismissal gives you this, for at least a while) or the genuine charisma of someone like Andrew Peacock.
But… how many of these other leaders had to push a policy decision as difficult as an ETS? This is the Liberal party’s DLP moment, a split on a fundamental point of ideology.
In the ALP split, Doc Evatt apparently mounted a table, chanting “get their names” as the groupers exited the room, which solidified and crystalised personal dislike into ongoing enmity. Turnbull’s performance at the press conference was analogous.
It’s complicated by the fact that there’s no good compromise candidate to replace him. Any candidate will face the same fundamental dilemma:
* oppose the already compromised ETS on ideological grounds, losing both public support and credibility along with alienating a substantial chunk of the parliamentary party
* accept the ETS on pragmatic grounds, losing an “indigestible” block of climate sceptics forever, as well as handing the government a substantial political victory
Don’t envy whomever it is next.
The problem is less Turnbull than it is the Liberal party itself. It cannot continue to exist in its current form – the notion of a “broad church” is dead. The wets and the dries are utterly incompatible, and the sooner they split (or better still, cast out the fruitcakes from the right wing), the quicker their standing in the polls will improve.
The issue remains, despite the theatrics of the past few days, that this ETS will not cut emissions in any meaningful timeframe, will force us to pay polluters massive amounts for the privelege of continuing to have them pollute, will not allow Australia to have a credible position on the world stage, yet will be sold by Rudd and co as something significant. The media and commentary needs to focus on the only real issue, how fast and how far can Australia cut our emissions, thereby giving us some credibility on this critical matter? Trying to count score over who is up or down in handing out cash to polluters is a distraction. The best result would be blocked legislation, new election and at least a chance to get a configuration in the Senate that is interested in reducing emissions. Of course that is what labor fears hence their further polluter handouts this week hoping to lock in an ineffectual scheme, yet still wedge the opposition on it. Which appears to be going swimmingly. Denial or delay, its really the same outcome and Rudd is just better at spinning it than the coalition.
Keep up the fight Malcolm. I think we could have a man who as Dan Cass says, tells it like it is.
Otherwise we should get Jeremy Clarkson in for the job if Malcolm doesn’t make it.
Turnball should have the courage and decency to resign, not recontest the leadership and allow a proper party room vote on the next leader.
This debate has lost perspective. Australia produces about 1.4% of man made greenhouse gases (albeit that’s high on a per capita basis) so to make a real meaningful difference a convention involving the big players, US, China, India, EU is required. Aust invented its own system is a joke. You could shut down all Aussie industry and in 8 months China’s growth would replace it. We should be good international corporate citizens, assist in developing a workable international agreement, join it and participate at that level. The arrogance to think that Aust will make an impact pre-empting an international agreement would be funny if it wasn’t so damaging.
But if no Malcolm, then who? The idea that the ministerial architect of Work Choices, and later an immigration minister in the Howard Government could appeal to voters in the middle ground is laughable.
Andrews was also the bloke who introduced the bill that over-ruled the NT euthenasia legislation. He has Catholic views on most things including stem cell research.. to say nothing of that nasty incident with Haneef.
Andrews’ candidacy underlines that the Coalition has no one credible to lead, and Malcolm is as good as it gets, regardless of his lack of judgement.
I’d say MT is gone by this afternoon.
The idea of Malcolm being replaced by that dour, narrow-minded religioso, Kevin Andrews, had me in stitches. As if the Coalition didn’t have enough problems garnering public support.
As this scheme rewards polluters and does little to curb emissions, it might be better if the scheme does get dumped and a carbon tax scheme developed instead. It might do Malcolm Turnbull good to be deposed and spend some time in the political wilderness to gain much-needed experience and learn greater self-control, but it would be a shame if he were permanently denied the leadership. Being both intelligent and a moderate, he could be a worthy alternative to Kevin Rudd, who has disappointed many who voted for him because of his weasel-worded populism: conviction politician Rudd is not.
It would be a shame, though,
I agree with EnergyPedant. Compromise and touchy-feely is a crucial ability, but so is the ability to steamroll or stare down dissent at times. A leader has to be able to do both, as the situation requires. Lately there has been more call for the latter than the former. Frankly I’ve been amazed at Turnbull’s patience.
BERNARDK: As usual, a fine article, Thank you.
STEPHEN FENELEY : Fine comment: To which I would add that being the brightest crayon in the box, wins very few friends in the Liberal Party. Paradoxically the Labor Party throws out men/women of individualism and brain power. Men like Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and a woman like Julia Gillard just have no parallel in the Liberal Party. Indeed the two Liberal leaders to hold the longest serving status, Robert Menzies and John Howard, were the most banal politicians of their time. As for Julie Bishop! What on earth got her noticed at any stage of the last two hundred years?
It’s too early for me to comment about Kevin Rudd, for every arse-hat thing he does the Liberals just keep on throwing good luck at him. Their generosity cannot last.
That’s odd. Doesn’t this section get moderated? My comment went straight through! Very odd.
@DanCass – minor quibble: we’re not running out of coal. Australia is sitting on hundreds of years’ worth of the stuff. We are however running out of oil globally.
Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly with your point. This is our biggest threat – if we can’t breathe, drink, or eat then everything else pales into insignificance. We need leaders who understand and have the courage to respond to this burdensome but unavoidable fact.
Can anyone remember the dark, dark, years of the Howard government? The visceral disgust and frustration due to the actions of the Howard government, and the patheticness of the Labor party. Back then the conservatives would taunt and ridicule anyone to the left of Genghis Khan. There was a feeling of utter dispair from many not in agreement with the conservatives.
Now the worm has turned and it’s the Liberal Party that are in the dark place. But I don’t feel like taunting and ridiculing, I feel a dispair that this country will be the one to suffer from a virtually absent opposition and an increasingly ineffective government.
Why is that both the left and the right completely fall apart after eviction from a long period in government? Is each party that dependent on the leaser they are unable to function without them? It doesn’t serve the country well.
@ EnergyPedant : Turnbull is right to call the challengers’ bluff if and only if he is certain he *does* have the numbers. I don’t think he has much cause for such certainty today.
Mine hasn’t. Still awaiting moderation since 10:16 this morning.
I thought Mr Rudd was the most desperate at all costs to get this through to parade on the world stage before Copenhagen. It seems Mr Turnbull is more desperate and is willing to lose his leadership and possibly destroy his party. Why?
The way it was described loosely on lateline it seems to me that Mr Turnbull declared that he had the numbers and that is disputed at best. Perhaps I just missed what everyone else saw, wouldn’t be the first time.
Heathdon, maybe that’s because Turnbull prefers good policy whereas Rudd just likes to win at all costs. Turnbull is a follower of the wisdom that it is more important to defeat a bad bill than to pass a good one.
Turnbull is also a bit cerebral than many of his colleagues, he doesn’t speak lowest-common-denominator as Howard and Hawke could. Neither does Rudd, actually, but Rudd has had a lot of help from the papers interpreting what he says. No such help for Turnbull–his home ground is the Australian, and political editor Dennis Shanahan has hated him ever since he took the leadership. Shanahan has gone out of his way to misrepresent complex things Turnbull said, even though Shanahan understood him perfectly well, knowing that no-one would gainsay him.
This is less to do with Malcolm Turnbull’s supposedly inadequate leadership or imperious personality than it is with the long-building tensions inside a jerrybuilt political unit that’s always displayed the fault-lines portending its own implosion. The GFC and AGW, the rise of the Greens, the boom in alternative paths to civic engagement (not least, via the new technologies), the withering of rural communities and the aging/hollowing out of an always-tenuous organisational structure…these are the root causes of the Lib/Nat agonies we’re witnessing. It’s not just an Opposition Leader’s incumbency that looks terminal here, it might be conservative Australian politics as viable governmental option, too: Turnbull’s high-handedness/the ETS debate as mere catalyst for a renting that’s been threatening for…geez, I dunno, the entire life of the Coalition? And I think any such split – into incompatible, squabbling mini-parties of the ‘right’ (sic), say – would prove a disaster for Australian democratic stability.
Which is why I think that Rudd should be working to help Malcolm Turnbull out as much as he can get away with, here. The PM’s numbers are solid. His Cabinet is growing in confidence daily. The wonks are getting a handle on the GFC numbers. Party discipline is good. He’s probably got the next two elections in the bag already. Meanwhile, the other side’s in deep existential trouble and this is a genuine crisis moment in national policy making, demanding authentic, long-sighted bipartisanship. If Rudd lacks the political imagination and vision to grasp that this ain’t the time or opportunity for domestic point-scoring or kicking the other guy while he’s down (and very nearly out for good)…I think we’ll all end up losers in the long run.
Jonathon, looks like Turnbull has the numbers for now. My thought was that the rabble rouses of the right where loud but fewer in number. I’m somewhat surprised they comprised 40% or so of the coalition.
Regardless Turnbull had to do something to get himself some of the big Mo’**. Now he’s shown he can lead a party where 40% of the members disagree with him, he can go on to make the case he might be able to lead a country where at least 40% of people will disagree with him.
**the big Mo’ is momentum
James
I agree with that your explanation being the reason he was willing to negotiate and try to have something ready for Copenhagen but I am concerned by the take it or leave it and the splitting of the party. That is what I don’t understand. I hope I am clear enough. I’m not sure how to describe how panicked a rwaction this seems for something that is going to be a feather in Rudd’s cap if it goes through?
Heathdon, from what I’ve read, that was all realpolitik and compromise. Turnbull wanted to wait and do a more effective CPRS after Copenhagen.
But …
(1) he believed, probably correctly, that Rudd wasn’t bluffing about a DD
(2) he was afraid, again probably correctly, of the damage Rudd could do if he controlled both houses
(3) he knew the AGW voters would paint him as a “denier” if he delayed the CPRS, and he would have difficulty getting the message through that taking the time to get it right results in a better outcome
(4) he also knew that he would be blamed for the years he didn’t do it during the Howard government, when the truth is Howard wouldn’t let him
The fact that he’s been able to hold it all together through all this is amazing, the more so considering he is not a “man of the people” in his communication style, and he knows it.
But how the hell did the Liberals wind up as the main game? It reminds me very much of the democrats and the GST. They got the blame for the GST on books. I can see the same happening to the Liberals now. The government has proposed an appallingly bad ETS – a huge tax on everyone that offers absolutely no environmental benefits. I can only suggest that it is Turnbull’s lack of political experience that has got them in this boat. By agreeing to negotiate up-front they made themselves the main story. The result is that the Liberal party gets to tear itself apart, we all get a huge tax bill subsidizing polluters,the environment continues to get trashed, and Rudd gets off scot free. Thanks Malcolm!
Black Russian, what’s your next prediction? LOL!
Venise, I note that whenever I use your name in my posts, they usually get moderated.
Seems you’re on the “watch” list. (Also LOL!)
I agree with amrai’s analysis of the situation, but I don’t blame Malcolm Turnbull particularly. I do not think there is any significant difference between the two major parties on the issue of a response to climate change (CC). Both parties are beholden to interests which are vested in the fossil fuel economy. Although even those industries seem resigned to having to deal with CC. They have benefitted from the discussion being dragged out for so long by deniers, sceptics, ignorance and creative journalism on the one hand, and the ill fit between scientific literature and modern, sound byte journalism on the other. It is very reminiscent of the dragged out “debates” over cigarettes, and asbestos.
I don’t actually think it is necessary to be persuaded that CC is happening. There seems to be a fair chance that it is, and that this will result in increased catastrophes of various sorts over the next eight or nine decades. So it would seem sensible to take out insurance. Contrary to dire predictions of economic disaster promulgated by fossil fuel fanciers, I believe that developing non-fossil fuel energy sources for commercial, even industrial scale application, can have a very stimulating economic effect. Be assured that as soon as the energy and resource behemoths have settled themselves comfortably in charge of the new economy, we will all go green without a whimper.
As Pete Townsend wrote “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
However, for those of you who still cherish ties to the Liberal party, if Tony Abbott gains the leadership, remember this. As a young man, and committed Catholic, he admits that he practised sex outside marriage (frowned upon) without using contraception – a practice also frowned upon by Rome, but not necessary if one refrains from the sex. When confronted with a foetus he believed bore his genes, he abandoned it. The fact that said foetus in fact did not bear his genes is irrelevant: he made the decision based on a firm (and presumably well-founded) belief that it did.
Now. For those who have yet to join the dots. Tony is not prepared to take out insurance against possible effects of his fossil fuelled lifestyle. This is equivalent to not using contraception if you can’t control your lust. If it turns out that the roulette wheel stops on catastrophic CC, then he would seem likely to run away. Was it St. Ignatius? who said something like: “Give me the child, and I will show you the man.”