In the latest issue of Spectator Australia, the leading article lambasts the Australian Liberal Party for trying to remove Prime Minister Tony Abbott:
The determination by many in the media, even among conservatives, to hasten the demise of Tony Abbott’s prime ministership is as pointless as it is reckless. Pointless not because they will or they won’t succeed, but pointless because such an outcome would merely herald the beginning, rather than the end, of a long period of Coalition instability and in-fighting.
Make no mistake: it is not Tony Abbott the man who is deeply unpopular (although his poll figures are, at present, nothing to write home about). It is the measures he is somewhat clumsily attempting to implement that are at the root of the hatred towards him. A spoilt and pampered electorate see no reason why they should give up any of the perks a host of politicians from both sides have glad-handed them over the years.
Yet one way or another these or other painful measures must be taken in the near future if Australia is to avoid careering down the well-trodden euro-path of ever-decreasing living standards, high unemployment, declining manufacturing and crippling state debt. The feeble-mindedness of Mr Abbott’s foes is as baffling as it is infuriating. To their way of thinking, all that is required is a better ‘presenter’ of the tough measures required and somehow or other the public will meekly lie down, open their wallets and happily hand back those bloated entitlements to which they have become so accustomed. Dream on.
The absence of a serious challenger to Mr Abbott is not a coincidence. A serious challenger will only prevail if he or she can offer a compelling alternative vision or popular changes in policy direction. In other words – sell their soul and pander to the twitterverse.
The reason Mr Abbott challenged Malcolm Turnbull in 2009 was over the fundamental principle of climate change and the vexed issue of pricing carbon, not because he thought he was a better opposition leader – even though he turned out to be just that. Today, other than prattling on about princes and PPL’s, Mr Abbott’s opponents have not pointed to any fundamental conceptual or ideological differences in approach to that which the Coalition have already embarked upon. Yes, the Abbott-Hockey team failed spectacularly to ‘sell’ their budget last year, as we were among the first to point out, but other than dancing around individual items such as medical co-payments, none of Mr Abbott’s critics are offering an alternative approach to the budget – only to the salesmanship of it. In essence, they are arguing for a more appealing front-man or woman to act as Avon lady to the existing unappealing grab-bag of budget policies, or similar initiatives. Good luck. As John Lennon once sang, ‘a pretty face may last a year or two, but pretty soon they’ll see what you can do’.
There are no eager challengers because they all know they don’t have any significant or discernible alternative approaches with which they could successfully market themselves.
Take the obvious candidate, Malcolm Turnbull. Leaving aside the antipathy he inspires in many conservatives (think climate change) and his obvious shortcomings as a leader (think Godwin Gretch), even the most adoring Q&A audience would soon find themselves hissing and booing ‘their Malcolm’ if he attempted to sell the austerity measures our ever-declining economic situation demands. In fact, it is easy to imagine Fairfax, the ABC and their twittering buddies turning on Turnbull with an unprecedented ferocity once they realized he had ‘betrayed’ their trust. Which only leaves the other option for a Prime Minister Malcolm: to swing dramatically to the left and become a slightly more adult version of Labor. Either route spells massive, ongoing upheaval for the Coalition and almost certain disaster.
Which brings us to both Julie Bishop and Scott Morrison. This magazine has been full of praise for the two of them in their respective ministerial roles. Their day will come. But to march headlong into the Land of Gillard (full of promise but fatally unprepared) would finish either of them off before you could say ‘stop the boats’. Again, how would they chart a different course to Mr Abbott? Mr Morrison would no doubt approach the task more aggressively than Mr Abbott, but, as was seen with Campbell Newman, such a hard-nosed approach from a leader is the last thing the public wants. Mr Morrison is brilliant at following and implementing orders, but as leader there is no reason to suspect he would be any more successful, or popular, than Mr Abbott. Ms Bishop, on the other hand, would no doubt be incredibly popular in the short term, but she has no proven skills in the key battleground of the economy.
In this issue, we look at some intriguing aspects of the Knights and Dames fandango, as well as taking a close look at David Walsh, owner of MONA and a famous billionaire gambler. If the Coalition choose to wilfully bury their current leader, they will be taking a gamble even Mr Walsh would probably wince at.
Comments