Joe Hockey would probably make a decent Opposition Leader/Prime Minister. He is a convivial, likeable man. His passion for touch rugby over Dietrich Bonhoeffer makes him a far more palatable dinner guest than our current PM.
But reports that a move is underfoot to have him as the ‘unifying,’ ‘compromise’ candidate in a Liberal leadership spill likely at some point over the next few days are nothing short of bizarre.
Those who think that this debacle is the manifestation of tensions about an emissions trading scheme or leadership styles are wrong. This is a debate about the future ideological direction of the Liberal party. Will it be the classically liberal; will it be progressive? Or will the forces of neo-conservatism win out?
My money is on the latter. Which is why Joe Hockey would be such a bizarre choice. Hockey is classically Liberal. Hockey is further to the left than Malcolm on many issues. Hockey’s immediate predecessor in the seat of North Sydney was a maverick, left-ish independent – Hockey only managed to wrestle the seat back for the Liberals upon his retirement.
So, assuming Hockey runs for – and wins – the leadership, won’t the Liberals be in the same position they were in before? The result would be either (1) a party of conservative malcontents lining up behind a proper liberal leader, or (2) a leader betraying his principles and ideological beliefs so that he has a better shot at the premiership. Either result would be a disservice to the Australian people and to the detriment of Australian political discourse. History appears to be repeating itself before the tragic history of Turnbull's betrayal has been written. How odd.
I should not grumble too much. This cloud of a leadership spill does indeed have a silver lining: Julie Bishop’s going to get the boot.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Kevin 11. Almost.
Malcolm Turnbull triumphant, is the Liberal spin on today’s events. He was re-anointed, we are told, by a ‘convincing’ margin. The 48-35 victory over Kevin Andrews has the ostensible appearance of being ‘convincing’ – it is after all three times larger than the margin by which Turnbull defeated Brendan Nelson in the last spill. But closer investigation undermines the very fabric of the Liberals’ credibility as an alternative government.
Andrews’ fame and career, as I see it, is marked by three key events: the private member’s bill that overrode the Northern Territory’s voluntary euthanasia laws; WorkChoices; and his role in cancelling the visa of Mohamed Haneef. The last two issues were, to be blunt, poison for the Coalition in the lead up to and during the 2007 federal election. Therefore, it is unlikely Andrews could ever have been considered (even by Nick Minchin) as a credible, viable Leader of the Opposition. But with Hockey, Abbott and Robb all sitting this stoush out, Andrews was the only alternative proffered.
Yet fully aware of the fact that there was only one other candidate for the leadership and, presumably, cognizant of the electoral risk that the said candidate posed, only 48 out of 83 electors preferred Turnbull. In other words, 35 members would have preferred a leader that would have led them to electoral suicide over the continuance of Turnbull’s leadership. Furthermore, those 35 believed a failed minister, responsible for policies that failed the Coalition at the last election, would be a better Prime Minister than a man who, for all his failings, has demonstrated a sincere love and affection for the Australian polity. Those same 35 thought an ideological popularity contest to be more important than the survival of their own party at the ballot box.
We must question what aspects of the nation’s welfare, in the minds of those 35 men and women, could be justifiably sacrificed in the name of their ideological struggles and follies?
Suddenly Turnbull’s majority just does not appear so convincing.
Andrews’ fame and career, as I see it, is marked by three key events: the private member’s bill that overrode the Northern Territory’s voluntary euthanasia laws; WorkChoices; and his role in cancelling the visa of Mohamed Haneef. The last two issues were, to be blunt, poison for the Coalition in the lead up to and during the 2007 federal election. Therefore, it is unlikely Andrews could ever have been considered (even by Nick Minchin) as a credible, viable Leader of the Opposition. But with Hockey, Abbott and Robb all sitting this stoush out, Andrews was the only alternative proffered.
Yet fully aware of the fact that there was only one other candidate for the leadership and, presumably, cognizant of the electoral risk that the said candidate posed, only 48 out of 83 electors preferred Turnbull. In other words, 35 members would have preferred a leader that would have led them to electoral suicide over the continuance of Turnbull’s leadership. Furthermore, those 35 believed a failed minister, responsible for policies that failed the Coalition at the last election, would be a better Prime Minister than a man who, for all his failings, has demonstrated a sincere love and affection for the Australian polity. Those same 35 thought an ideological popularity contest to be more important than the survival of their own party at the ballot box.
We must question what aspects of the nation’s welfare, in the minds of those 35 men and women, could be justifiably sacrificed in the name of their ideological struggles and follies?
Suddenly Turnbull’s majority just does not appear so convincing.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
What Mike Rann does with his pinkbits.
Anyone who knows me well enough knows that I am easily irked.
But in all honesty, the currently fiasco involving our media-savvy Premier really is simply too much, and has raised my ire to the point that I must do that which I swore I never would. I shall blog.
For those of you unfamiliar with recent developments in South Australia's political scene, here is a brief summary. Premier is beaten with a magazine by the estranged husband of a woman who once worked at Parliament House. Everyone wonders why. Woman goes on television and claims to have had a love affair with Mike. Mike denies it.
If we believe Mike then certainly there has been no wrong. "Premier befriends waitress and develops a flirtatious relationship" is the headline, reminding me of Edina Monsoon's imagined scandal "Woman caught showing ankle to chimney sweep shock". So if this IS the case, why the fuss? This is not Saudi Arabia. This is not Iran. Men and women are free to interact. Men and women may, within the bounds of legality, morality and good taste, flirt. Ergo, no case to answer.
If we believe Ms Chantelois (am I the only person who thinks her name sounds like that of a brothel madam?) they had a sexual relationship which, for the purposes of my argument has two marked characteristics: (1) passions which often manifested themselves within the walls of our great, grey Parliament, and (2) it occurred after the estrangement from (or at the very least great tension with) her husband.
I find Rann's version of events more believable. The likelihood of someone being able (or intelligent enough) to conduct a torrid love affair in Parliament is so minute. The likelihood of Rann doing so mere metres away from a horde of Liberals is even more so (and surely being that close to a Liberal would most feeling "limp"). But EVEN IF (and it's a very big "even if") the Chant was verily sinned against on North Terrace, "coitus parliamentarius" might be in poor taste, but it's hardly a crime against the state or against democracy.
Furthermore (and again this is an "even if"), this was a woman who was estranged from her husband. Given that man's recent behaviour and demonstration of ill-temper, it's hard to imagine that man being anything but estranged from any woman. Rann was single. So a single man had sex with a woman in (at best) a dysfunctional marriage. What a horrendous crime! Woe! Alack! Come on, people: even Benedict XVI would probably just give them both a few Hail Marys to say and sent them on their way!
I cannot, for the life of me, ascertain the nature of the objectionable behaviour here.
Thus I can come to only one conclusion. South Australia must have become such a bastion of social conservatism that the public and media now demand that any person occupying high public office must remain celibate during their tenure unless they are married. And fucking in a bed.
I can feel the ground tremble as Don Dunstan turns in his grave.
But in all honesty, the currently fiasco involving our media-savvy Premier really is simply too much, and has raised my ire to the point that I must do that which I swore I never would. I shall blog.
For those of you unfamiliar with recent developments in South Australia's political scene, here is a brief summary. Premier is beaten with a magazine by the estranged husband of a woman who once worked at Parliament House. Everyone wonders why. Woman goes on television and claims to have had a love affair with Mike. Mike denies it.
If we believe Mike then certainly there has been no wrong. "Premier befriends waitress and develops a flirtatious relationship" is the headline, reminding me of Edina Monsoon's imagined scandal "Woman caught showing ankle to chimney sweep shock". So if this IS the case, why the fuss? This is not Saudi Arabia. This is not Iran. Men and women are free to interact. Men and women may, within the bounds of legality, morality and good taste, flirt. Ergo, no case to answer.
If we believe Ms Chantelois (am I the only person who thinks her name sounds like that of a brothel madam?) they had a sexual relationship which, for the purposes of my argument has two marked characteristics: (1) passions which often manifested themselves within the walls of our great, grey Parliament, and (2) it occurred after the estrangement from (or at the very least great tension with) her husband.
I find Rann's version of events more believable. The likelihood of someone being able (or intelligent enough) to conduct a torrid love affair in Parliament is so minute. The likelihood of Rann doing so mere metres away from a horde of Liberals is even more so (and surely being that close to a Liberal would most feeling "limp"). But EVEN IF (and it's a very big "even if") the Chant was verily sinned against on North Terrace, "coitus parliamentarius" might be in poor taste, but it's hardly a crime against the state or against democracy.
Furthermore (and again this is an "even if"), this was a woman who was estranged from her husband. Given that man's recent behaviour and demonstration of ill-temper, it's hard to imagine that man being anything but estranged from any woman. Rann was single. So a single man had sex with a woman in (at best) a dysfunctional marriage. What a horrendous crime! Woe! Alack! Come on, people: even Benedict XVI would probably just give them both a few Hail Marys to say and sent them on their way!
I cannot, for the life of me, ascertain the nature of the objectionable behaviour here.
Thus I can come to only one conclusion. South Australia must have become such a bastion of social conservatism that the public and media now demand that any person occupying high public office must remain celibate during their tenure unless they are married. And fucking in a bed.
I can feel the ground tremble as Don Dunstan turns in his grave.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
