Extract from The Guardian
They could have gone after his ‘more of the same’ policy dilemmas, but instead Labor attacked Turnbull personally
Prime minister Malcolm Turnbull talks to Labor leader Bill Shorten
during question time in the House of Representatives, Canberra, Monday
19 October.
Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian
Malcolm Turnbull
had two possible political weak spots when he became prime minister,
which left Labor with two strategic choices. They picked the wrong one.
The first was the weakness that brought Turnbull unstuck the first time he was Liberal leader – an impetuousness, a perceived arrogance which, in the minds of Labor strategists, could be morphed and moulded into the charge the new prime minister is out of touch with the lives of ordinary voters because he is rich, that he lives in a universe where normal people’s rules don’t apply.
The second was the dilemma evident from the moment Turnbull took charge. The public liked him because he seemed different, but his colleagues voted for him because in key policy areas he promised to be pretty much the same.
Despite some strong internal dissent, after a half-hearted initial foray on the policy front, Labor began its efforts to take the “gloss” off Turnbull by attacking the man, rather than his obvious policy dilemmas.
It readily conceded it had no evidence of wrongdoing or illegality, but spent a week targeting Turnbull’s investments in offshore managed funds registered in the Cayman Islands. The point was to paint the new prime minister as “not one of us”, because “we” don’t have a lazy million to pop into a Cayman Islands investment fund. Turnbull himself called out the real attack by week’s end – that he was rich.
Some Labor strategists continue to insist in the long term, and despite what they complain is the press gallery’s “starry-eyed” position on Turnbull, this was a good idea – that in the minds of voters anything registered in the Cayman Islands equates to dodgy.
But two clear indicators suggest otherwise, and other senior Labor figures concede this. One is Monday’s Fairfax Ipsos poll, which showed both the Coalition’s two-party-preferred vote and Turnbull’s personal popularity soaring. It’s just one poll, and we need a few more to ascertain a clear trend, but the general direction of the major parties’ fortunes is obvious. The other is Labor has now dropped the Cayman Islands attack.
Instead it used question time on Monday to demand the Coalition back Labor policies on things such as higher education, multinational tax regulation and tax breaks for high income earners’ superannuation, most of which Turnbull swatted off.
Some questions he deflected to treasurer Scott Morrison, who largely stuck to the former Abbott government’s script – for example, trotting out the increases in commonwealth spending on health and education instead of answering a question about the $80bn cut from forward projections in the Abbott government’s first budget. Others he deflected to environment minister Greg Hunt, who managed to skate past a question about whether any industrial emitters will have to reduce their greenhouse pollution by launching an extraordinary attack on the reputation of an analytical firm.
But since he has asked for rational, evidence-based policy debate, things get harder for Turnbull the deeper the opposition dives into policy. It would be difficult, for example, for him to explain how his own climate policy could possibly meet Australia’s greenhouse targets, if he could be forced to take the question. Or why he is continuing with a legally unnecessary plebiscite on marriage equality he previously argued against. Or how he can justify a water policy that does not take into account the impact of climate change on long-term water availability. Or how it makes sense for ministers to hypothecate a specific unpalatable budget cut with possible new spending when everyone knows there are many options available to reduce spending.
Turnbull has changed the tone of the political debate quite quickly, and in a way Australians seem to like. That meant Labor’s Caymans attack jarred and looked all the more tawdry by comparison with the new prime minister’s reasonableness.
But it will take him longer to change some of the Coalition’s policy substance, with the wary Liberal conservatives and National party hovering as a constant constraint. If Labor targets these policy dilemmas, Turnbull’s own promise of rational debate might finally force him to answer in uncomfortable detail.
The first was the weakness that brought Turnbull unstuck the first time he was Liberal leader – an impetuousness, a perceived arrogance which, in the minds of Labor strategists, could be morphed and moulded into the charge the new prime minister is out of touch with the lives of ordinary voters because he is rich, that he lives in a universe where normal people’s rules don’t apply.
The second was the dilemma evident from the moment Turnbull took charge. The public liked him because he seemed different, but his colleagues voted for him because in key policy areas he promised to be pretty much the same.
Despite some strong internal dissent, after a half-hearted initial foray on the policy front, Labor began its efforts to take the “gloss” off Turnbull by attacking the man, rather than his obvious policy dilemmas.
It readily conceded it had no evidence of wrongdoing or illegality, but spent a week targeting Turnbull’s investments in offshore managed funds registered in the Cayman Islands. The point was to paint the new prime minister as “not one of us”, because “we” don’t have a lazy million to pop into a Cayman Islands investment fund. Turnbull himself called out the real attack by week’s end – that he was rich.
Some Labor strategists continue to insist in the long term, and despite what they complain is the press gallery’s “starry-eyed” position on Turnbull, this was a good idea – that in the minds of voters anything registered in the Cayman Islands equates to dodgy.
But two clear indicators suggest otherwise, and other senior Labor figures concede this. One is Monday’s Fairfax Ipsos poll, which showed both the Coalition’s two-party-preferred vote and Turnbull’s personal popularity soaring. It’s just one poll, and we need a few more to ascertain a clear trend, but the general direction of the major parties’ fortunes is obvious. The other is Labor has now dropped the Cayman Islands attack.
Instead it used question time on Monday to demand the Coalition back Labor policies on things such as higher education, multinational tax regulation and tax breaks for high income earners’ superannuation, most of which Turnbull swatted off.
Some questions he deflected to treasurer Scott Morrison, who largely stuck to the former Abbott government’s script – for example, trotting out the increases in commonwealth spending on health and education instead of answering a question about the $80bn cut from forward projections in the Abbott government’s first budget. Others he deflected to environment minister Greg Hunt, who managed to skate past a question about whether any industrial emitters will have to reduce their greenhouse pollution by launching an extraordinary attack on the reputation of an analytical firm.
But since he has asked for rational, evidence-based policy debate, things get harder for Turnbull the deeper the opposition dives into policy. It would be difficult, for example, for him to explain how his own climate policy could possibly meet Australia’s greenhouse targets, if he could be forced to take the question. Or why he is continuing with a legally unnecessary plebiscite on marriage equality he previously argued against. Or how he can justify a water policy that does not take into account the impact of climate change on long-term water availability. Or how it makes sense for ministers to hypothecate a specific unpalatable budget cut with possible new spending when everyone knows there are many options available to reduce spending.
Turnbull has changed the tone of the political debate quite quickly, and in a way Australians seem to like. That meant Labor’s Caymans attack jarred and looked all the more tawdry by comparison with the new prime minister’s reasonableness.
But it will take him longer to change some of the Coalition’s policy substance, with the wary Liberal conservatives and National party hovering as a constant constraint. If Labor targets these policy dilemmas, Turnbull’s own promise of rational debate might finally force him to answer in uncomfortable detail.
No comments:
Post a Comment