My fellow blogger Chris Berg has repeatedly made the correct point that too many have tried to blame John Howard for the Liberal debacle of the last week.
I came close myself the other day, saying the Howard had been extraordinarily successful but that if he’d moved more quickly on an ETS the Liberals could have put this issue to bed while in Government. Instead, they suffered through one election weighed down by climate change and have since chewed up two leaders on the issue. Tony Abbott will be the third when he leads the Liberals to the mother of all defeats in 2010.
But Berg has a good point, and for a reason well-demonstrated by today’s shenanigans.
One of the really serious problems about the Abbott-Minchin putsch is that it takes the Liberal Party backwards – back beyond Turnbull, obviously, back beyond Nelson, and back, even, beyond John Howard.
Howard understood that the politics of climate change was moving against him and tried to shore up his position, encouraged by Turnbull who wanted Kyoto ratified. That’s why he promised to implement “the world’s most comprehensive emissions trading scheme”.
It was part of a large pattern. Howard had moved to soften his Government’s image, especially on asylum seekers, introducing a slew of changes to remove the most draconian aspects of his policies, especially under Amanda Vanstone. He allowed conscience votes on controversial issues like RU486, allowing his protege Tony Abbott to be humiliated.
That’s not to say Howard turned into an old lefty as the end neared, but he was a pragmatist. He even tried to soften Workchoices when it became clear it was a disaster.
Brendan Nelson continued some of that work. Nelson’s leadership was mostly something of a joke – a lachrymose but very funny joke – but he did very good work in dragging the party onward from the Howard era, especially on the Apology, and on killing Workchoices.
Turnbull pursued the shift to the centre as well, knowing that he needed to drag the party to the point where it was accepted as a legitimate part of the climate change solution, not the problem.
Abbott and Minchin will reverse all that. Workchoices seems like it will be back under a different name. The CPRS and probably any ETS will be attacked. The old guard – the likes of Bronwyn Bishop – may well return to the frontbench.
It will undo all the work John Howard, Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull did to keep the party moored to the centre of Australian politics. The work of three or four years, since before the last election.
“We can’t go to the next election being, if you like, browner than Howard,” said Tony Abbott earlier this year. Strange that he has so obviously forgotten that logic.
32 Comments
Nice article thanks.
Seems to me the Abbott experiment will be compared to Labor’s Latham experience in years to come. Both intelligent, belligerent and witha reputation as hard men, yet ultimately divisive.
Latham had a lot of support until people started to see something that didn’t feel right. Abbott right from the get go is not liked and it can only get worse.
I guess with Abbott we will now get a good gauge of what the absolute low the liberal vote can be, the ultra rusted ons.
I predict if Turnbull hangs around people will be begging him or Hockey to replace a lame duck Abbott two or three months before an election, maybe August next year, unless Rudd does a DD.
Turnbull will become the new Costello, white knight in the cupboard. If Turnbull wants to lead he will want to save some moderates, which means taking over before and election.
The Liberal Party is working hard to reinforce Rudd’s dominance and as a result their party is headed for its worst ever election defeat. Any ordinarily competent Labor team would comprehensively defeat Abbott.
Imagine a Labor government headed by Albanese, a pretty ordinary politician, and it would quite easily defeat Abbott. Substitute Albanese with Rudd and Gillard and you have the makings of a catastrophic defeat.
Some media commentators, like TV sports commentators trying to retain audience interest in a game that is already decided, will try to present a case that Abbott presents a real and unpredictable danger but that is simply laughable as he presents absolutely no danger at all to Labor.
He does, however, present a mortal danger to the Liberals as their moderate and small ‘l’ supporters peel away in droves.
I do think some blame can be laid at John Howard’s feet for this. He really didn’t handle succession at all well and he purged the party of moderates. Whether that’s primarily Howard’s fault or a structural problem with the Liberal Party is hard to say. But I think there’s a bit of blame there.
The really disastrous outcome for the Libs is that it gives the ALP a ready made scare campaign about Work-Choices. I couldn’t believe my ears last night when I heard Tony Abbott defending it. Maybe I misheard, but it sounded an awful lot like he thinks Work Choices was a good thing. I don’t think anyone in the real world would deny that politically, it was a disaster.
I really doubt that the Opposition can neutralise climate change as an issue with the
“big green tax” line. Scare campaigns usually only work when the government runs them, because they tap into latent fears within the electorate about changing government and there are lots of latent fears about Tony Abbott (yes, I am channeling Peter Brent). But the problem for the Libs with campaigning on it is that it keeps it in voter’s minds as an issue which the Libs are not going to win. Far better would have been to get the issue off the front page.
In the election the ALP will portray the Libs as having an even more Right wing agenda than the last campaign – Work Choices back, No action on climate change… No doubt the Opposition will deny it, but they will be on the defensive throughout the campaign. Once again, through choosing Tony Abbott, they will have managed to make themselves, rather than the government, the issue.
On a lighter note, I see that Paul Sheehan across at SMH reports that the Liberal members received over 400,000 emails from their core constituency opposing the ETS. (Strangely, the article is dated “December 3 2009”; good on you SMH sub-editors! Though if they got the date wrong, they may have gotten the number wrong too? But it is Sheehan; maybe the date should have been December 2 2003?)
Anyway, my jaw dropped at the Liberal base sending so many emails… Who knew they could email? I’d expect nicely hand-written missives on parchment. Or do you think there is a pensioner somewhere who misunderstands emailing, and sent off his objections one letter at a time in separate emails? They caught apparently the world’s biggest spammer living on the Gold Coast, so could he be responsible, as a likely member of the white-shoe brigade. I hope the Liberals publish these emails like was done for those of the University of East Anglia; they would be an invaluable research resource. Do you think they are mostly written all in capital letters? How many would accidently include photos of their grand kids, clogging up Liberal mail servers with huge file sizes? It’s a worry.
Gillard will probably damage Abbott even more than Rudd. Her cool, forensic, unstoppable but humorous style will be the perfect antidote to Abbott’s florid, blustery rhetoric.
Let the slicing and dicing begin.
Agree with Thomas Paine that the Latham – Abbott analogy does not really work because Latham’s early months in the job were a spectacular success. Very hard to see that being the case with Abbott. Why anyone in the libs would even mention IR is beyond me.
If Turnbull were in a safe seat he could watch the disaster unfold and run for the leadership after the election, but being on a 3% margin…well, he probably doesn’t have that luxury. And it’s probably not in his nature either.
Bring on Question Time!! He will get torn to shreds and I can’t wait to see it.
Agree with John about the Latham stuff, but I think Turnbull will benefit (in Wentworth) – he’ll have plenty of time to focus on local issues as a backbencher now that he isn’t burdened by running the Libs campaign. I wouldn’t be surprised that he increases his margin. If Labor were really smart, they’d be getting ready to put a celebrity candidate in Abbot’s seat (or perhaps encourage a high profile Independent). Actually on second thoughts, that’s probably not necessary.
On another completely unrelated matter, how can Tony Abbot be a Roman Catholic (in the staunch sense), and yet support the British monarch, who by the very nature of the British constitution (or whatever law applies), can never be a Roman Catholic? In fact, why does Australia have a defacto official religion (Anglicanism), by virtue of our head of state, when the Constutution actually prohibits that?
Cavitation
You don’t want to read those emails. They type with one finger and with their tongues poking out – usually at the behest of Alan Jones or some other unhinged shock jock. The grammar and spelling is usually as appalling as the sentiments expressed. This is a rallying of the ‘base’ in the literal sense of the word. As one moderate Liberal said the other day ‘have you seen the kind of people who turn up to local branch meetings’. Well they’re having there last day in the sun today. Abbot is the one hope for a return to the kind of populist exploitative politics of the Howard era. As Sheehan said today, quoting Alan Jones, they see in Abbot a politician capable of exploiting some of the more ‘visceral’ everyman issues like immigration and tax. Ready yourself for the revolt of the troglodytes, mark 2.
Despite the tone of the above comments, I have some trepidations.
Abbott can rely on some powerful media support via Murdoch press and the shock jocks combined with the push polling approach to developing a scare.
How many times have I heard ‘massive new tax’ today?
See Paul Kelly in today’s Australian for the type of wishful thinking that follows Abbott’s belief that he will create a “real contest”.
Abbott will soon find out that trying to create a noisy argument does not translate into a real contest. It appeases the cranky but otherwise achieves nothing. Most will find it tiresome, irrelevant and annoying.
Did any of you catch Abbott’s interview with Grimshaw last night? The ‘hyperbole’ band-aid he had plastered over his “absolute crap” climate change position was ripped bare with her retort, “Hyperbole means to exaggerate for emphasis, so does this imply you think that climate change is only half crap?”.
The sting was palpable, and for the briefest moment, I could see an instinctual snapping counter punch flash across his eyes. But the boxer was muzzled, and the living spirit of Howard was channeled through Abbott, complete with contrived stammers to give the impression of humility.
Although he lost by a slim margin, Turnbull will not be back. In the big picture, he was just as unelectable in the public’s eye as Abbott.
As has been said many times, he’s not a natural politician, and sitting on a backbench will soon bore him to tears. My bet is that he’ll exit politics at the next opportunity.
You shouldn’t underestimate the vulnerability of Rudd to a true populist willing to play the wedge, dog whistle, scapegoat, polarise and victimise. The hard right have been pining for this kind of politics ever since Howard played his last miserable wedge and Abbot will be rehearsing his lines as we speak.
Rudd is a bureaucrat in the worst sense of the word – that is that his obsession with process, his addiction to systems and networks and his muddied techno talk has immunised him, to a certain extent, to the ‘real world’. His ETS is a good example of the kind of deformed, compromised and perverse policy that is the product of this. Rudd seems not to have noticed the travesty of a policy that for all its reassuring talk will do nothing other than Lock Australia into a carbon emission trajectory that far exceeds the volume that scientific consensus tells us will avoid catastrophe. As long as its framed in reassuring techno babble, you know ‘detailed program specificity’ talk, he doesn’t seem to notice anything much.
In the broader sense his timidity in relation to any policy that, as a litmus test, is going to upset the editorial at the OZ is further evidence of the kind of managerial vacuity of the guy. In another age he would have fitted in as a eunuch courtier.
My view is that the ‘leader’ as manager kind of template wears thin eventually – particularly when things start getting harder. Its at that time that the opportunistic populist can step into the breach. Howard did that in 96 when keatings economic reforms and failure to offer a compelling political narrative were starting to show.
On that basis I wouldn’t dismiss Abbot in the short term.
In the long term however he will simply get steamrolled by the sheer gravity of the effects of climate change and the strengthening of world consensus in relation to the matter. We simply wont be able to afford a descent into the kind of political bullshit and manipulative populist games of the Howard/bush era.
“…How many times have I heard ‘massive new tax’ today?…”
Calling it like it is.
Do you have a problem with the new rhetoric?
Most peculiar Mama your brain works in a most peculiar way. It is great how the right-wingers can use spin and call it truth, but are fast to accuse Labor of constant spin.
The new rhetoric you mention is patently wrong and grossly misinformed. The politics of fear is never far behind the right-wing bandwagon, is it?
Abbot’s speech just now on SKY is already full of holes and lacks credibility — if he thinks he can make up a workable ETS in a couple of months without it costing anybody anything he really is is living in Lala land!
Sean, if you are going to discuss populism then you need to broaden your focus. Abbott creates a visceral dislike (especially among women) among a much wider group than Howard ever did. A populist to be successful must be popular and likable across a broad swathe of the population. Abbott is very broadly unpopular and is not a political genius and will therefore be unlikely to change substantially the way he is perceived.
In the Australian context a populist must be ‘a great bloke, the life of the party’ (Hawke) or the ‘ordinary hard-working good bloke’ (Howard’s adopted persona). He can’t be an argumentative and confrontational crank like Abbott. At social gatherings the first two types attract others and the last type is avoided and so it goes also in popular politics.
Abbott will never be a successful populist – but he will wear himself out trying.
Cavitation: You say “…my jaw dropped at the Liberal base sending so many emails… Who knew they could email?”, followed by a long para of laboured humour in the same vein…
I’m all for creative insults and bad taste, but what’s the point of patronising/putting down great swathes of the population like this? If it had some sociological veracity, it might seem less ageist, but the elderly are often voracious emailers- not surprising given they’re retired, email their dispersed offspring etc etc.
David
I hope you’re right but I think you’re conflating ‘popular’ with ‘populism’ and thats not necessarily how it works.
Don’t forget, Howard wasn’t liked in his early incarnations. He wasn’t popular in his first term and was looking down the barrel in 2001. It was only when he started scapegoating and pandering to the Hanson crowd around the time of Tampa that he really started gelling. In other words when he amped up the ‘argumentative and confrontational’ side of his personality.
Populism is primarily a political strategy, rather than something necessarily dependent on the personality of the politician themselves. It works by successfully generating a conception of the antagonistic ‘other’, and playing on peoples fears and anxieties. Only poltiicians who are essentially lacking in confidence and self esteem (like Howard) descend to that level – and they’re not usually seen as ‘good blokes’ – though I acknowledge that Howard did everything possible to simulate being a ‘good and average bloke’ – (though he usually ended up looking like a silly old fool on the make).
That aside people liked howard when he was ‘tough’, the ‘man of steel’ and all that crap, nudging and winking about the unemployed, immigrants, aboriginals, the ‘elites’, terrorists etc. That’s where his true political capital was made and where Abbot will focus his attention. I acknowledge however, he’s less likely to succeed, not cos he’s cranky etc but because the instability of his character is more obvious with him that it was with Howard. Get the right wedge going though, and as Howard found, anythings possible.
Sean, I am not conflating popular and populism. What I am saying is that to be a successful populist, in the Australian context, you must have popular attributes. Abbott largely lacks this.
While you (and I) disliked Howard it is a mistake not to recognise that Howard did successfully create a popular persona that a large swathe of the population accepted to some degree.
If becoming a successful populist meant just picking up and using some wedge tools and using them then we would be overrun with successful populists and Bronwyn Bishop would be PM.
Also, I do not see any evidence that Abbott is an unstable character in any way. It is easy to abuse pop psychology in this way but it is very unconvincing.
@ jenauthor
The ETS IS a MASSIVE NEW TAX.
What part of that statement do you struggle with?
“…The politics of fear is never far behind the right-wing bandwagon, is it?…”
Remind us again the members of which political persuasion who keep shreiking “we’re all gonna boil/drown/fry/starve” if we DON’T DO SOMETHING NOW!!
Anyway, thanks for the laugh.
So, let’s see who the “Priest” is going to put on his front bench…
Human Services: Sophie Mirabella (she knows a lot about demons)
Environment and Climate Change: Barnaby Joyce (he wants to improve the lot of rich landholders)
Sport & Recreation: Joe Hockey (yeah, he looks really sporty)
Immigration and Homeland Security (a new super-ministry): Kevin Andrews
Internal Affairs and Information (a new ministry): Nicholas Minchin
Attorney General and Family Services: Bronwyn Bishop (she used to star in “Divorce Court”)
Defence: Alby Schultz (I know nothing…I see nothing…)
Treasurer: Peter Dutton (as a ex-cop, he might know something about money and how to earn it)
Science, Industry, & Technology: Wilson Tuckey (He’s so smart, and up-to-date with the latest thinking).
Can’t think of any more at the moment, but it’s fun speculating!
Cheers!
Ah David
Easy there brother. Accusing me of abusing pop psychology! My god!
No doubt you fancy yourself as more rational and empirical in your approach, though you might need to reconsider, since you dont seem to understand the meaning of populism. Bob Hawke was not a populist, he was popular. Right. If you can’t work that out then its hard having a debate with you.
Howard went out of his way to be a ‘good average bloke’ (all politicians do, Abbot will too) but his political capital came from his negative politics. That was texbook stuff, employed throughout history by an array of ugly, cranky and obnoxious despots and political charlatans and to good affect. Abbot can do the same. As someone in todays’ Crikey wrote quoting Mark Texta: the punters will take hate over hope every time.
If you don’t think that Abbot is widely viewed as unstable then you haven’t been looking. What does “mad monk” mean to you?
It is a basic misunderstanding to think that populism only comes from the right. Hawke was a centre-left populist which was a frequent source of frustration for Keating who was nevertheless capable of populism when electoral circumstances demanded it.
“Mad monk” is not a reference to Abbott’s psychological stability. It is a reference to his extreme hard right/’hard’ Catholic views. There would not be a single press gallery journalist who believes that Abbott is psychologically unstable and they see enough of him to be able to come to a reasonable judgement.
“Massive New Tax” – GST? Funny to see the Libs on their high horse about ‘not being a party of new taxes’.
David
My reference to populism is in reference to the well known political strategy that involves the creation of political capital through the scapegoating of minority social groups. There’s a wealth of literature on it.
You seem to be coming at it from the Pop psychology angle (ie popular equals populism), which is ironic cos thats what you accused me of.
No one would classify Hawke as a populist. In fact he was the opposite – he was a consensus politician, inclusive and progressive. He did not seek to create and exploit social antagonisms. He was popular yes, he wanted to be liked and strove to be popular, but he didn’t go anywhere near the viscous divisive populist politics that Howard would later adopt. Enough said.
Tony Abbott’s 18-year-old daughter description of her dad: as a ” lame, gay, churchy loser” Top that! Regards Richard Ryan.
Plenty would describe Hawke as a populist and there is nothing wrong with that per se. Your definition of populism is sectarian and limited and if you could be bothered to do the research you would see that left-populism is a well-understood concept – except by you.
I think we need to get used to the Liberal leadership changing regularly for the next few years. The Liberals always have rivalries between Wets and Drys, or Moderates and Conservatives, and neither half of the party can bear to let to let the other half run the show.
What is intersting is that there remains half a party opposed to Abbott. I know he is divisive and extreme, but Howard seemed to force most of the moderates out of the party while in Office.
They either went to sleep under a rock for the last 10 years, or Abbott is so extreme than even some of the Right can’t stomach him. Maybe it’s both.
Julie Bishop will need to expand her wardrobe if she wants to continue with a different colour scheme at the photo shoot with each of the newly elected Opposition Leaders over the next decade.
I suppose it’s a bit early to tell how bad a leader Abbott will be, but his first efforts haven’t been particularly good. Saying what sounded like he was in favour of bringing back work-choices and now trying to bring back nuclear. As I recall Howard tried that one (not seriously, just as an attempt to wedge the ALP) and it came back and seriously bit him on the bum.
If Abbott does try the nuclear one on, all the government has to do is point out that nuclear is only ever going to be competitive with either massive government subsidies, a carbon tax or……. an ETS….
I know it’s been said, but blocking the ETS was a really, really dumb thing to do. They’ve pretty well ensured that climate change will remain a big issue from now until the election and it’s an issue they can’t win. Far better for them would have been to have passed the ETS and gotten the issue off the front pages. You can be pretty sure the government will make sure it stays an issue. I will be fascinated to see what Abbott actually does come up with.
I think it’s clear that The Liberal Party’s days are numbered.
They were confronted with the choice of either being a party of the future (under Turnbull) or retreating to the halcyon days of the hard right under Abbott and Minchin.
In their infinite wisdom they have chosen the latter.
Minchin was apologetic that WorkChoices in its original form didn’t go far enough last time around, which I discuss here; http://guttertrash.wordpress.com/
What on Earth makes Abbott think they are suddenly on to a vote-winner this time?
Next we’ll see Abbott and Minchin doing the retirement home circuit preaching to the converted and trying to rally support before their entrenched base carks it.
In saying that, it all makes for great entertainment. Can’t wait until question time!