Extract from The Guardian
The prime minister can no longer avoid glaring differences of opinion
in the Liberal party. In the long run, a frank conversation will
benefit everyone
Tony Abbott’s decision to stay in parliament
has widely been seen as a bad thing for Malcolm Turnbull and the
Liberal party because it might be destabilising, because there might be
dissent. But that same process could have an upside for voters, by
making it more difficult for Turnbull to fudge his position on key
issues and by forcing the party to debate and decide where it stands.
The central dilemma for Turnbull’s prime ministership was obvious from the start. The public liked Turnbull because he seemed different to Abbott, but his colleagues voted for him because they were eventually persuaded he would be – in essence – pretty much the same. But to make an informed decision at the next election, voters need more than a reassuring change in the tone of the debate. They need to know whether, and exactly how, the new prime minister has changed both policy and substance.
We now know his predecessor will hover, as one commentator put it, as the “eagle-like symbol of conservative empire” – presumably pouncing on deviations from his government’s line. Or as a “senior source close to Abbott’ told the Daily Telegraph, “his intention is to be a standard-bearer for the conservatives” with “the problem for the Liberal party” being “if it is seen as a centre-left party rather than a centre-right party”.
The eagle eyes of the conservatives will make it more difficult for Turnbull to be all things to all people, or to skirt around issues where internal differences of opinion might make avoidance an attractive option.
And while many wouldn’t see it that way right now, and there are all the obvious political dangers of an angry former prime minister waiting in the wings as a focus for dissenting opinion, in some ways this could be a good thing for the Liberal party in the longer term.
The party has always had to find an accommodation between its liberal and conservative views, even though the lines of ideologically based factions have blurred during years of conservative dominance and positions once viewed as clearly small l Liberal are now seen by some in Coalition ranks as crazy left.
It could be in Turnbull’s, and the party’s interests, to have a frank conversation if that accommodation is to be revisited, despite the obvious pain involved and dangers that legitimate differences of opinion are often immediately elevated in the political debate to irrevocable “splits”. Turnbull’s popularity, and Abbott’s lack of it, would provide the new prime minister with political protection during the process.
At the moment the Coalition is straddling a range of positions where Turnbull’s rhetoric and record sit very uneasily with the policy reality.
The central dilemma for Turnbull’s prime ministership was obvious from the start. The public liked Turnbull because he seemed different to Abbott, but his colleagues voted for him because they were eventually persuaded he would be – in essence – pretty much the same. But to make an informed decision at the next election, voters need more than a reassuring change in the tone of the debate. They need to know whether, and exactly how, the new prime minister has changed both policy and substance.
We now know his predecessor will hover, as one commentator put it, as the “eagle-like symbol of conservative empire” – presumably pouncing on deviations from his government’s line. Or as a “senior source close to Abbott’ told the Daily Telegraph, “his intention is to be a standard-bearer for the conservatives” with “the problem for the Liberal party” being “if it is seen as a centre-left party rather than a centre-right party”.
The eagle eyes of the conservatives will make it more difficult for Turnbull to be all things to all people, or to skirt around issues where internal differences of opinion might make avoidance an attractive option.
And while many wouldn’t see it that way right now, and there are all the obvious political dangers of an angry former prime minister waiting in the wings as a focus for dissenting opinion, in some ways this could be a good thing for the Liberal party in the longer term.
The party has always had to find an accommodation between its liberal and conservative views, even though the lines of ideologically based factions have blurred during years of conservative dominance and positions once viewed as clearly small l Liberal are now seen by some in Coalition ranks as crazy left.
It could be in Turnbull’s, and the party’s interests, to have a frank conversation if that accommodation is to be revisited, despite the obvious pain involved and dangers that legitimate differences of opinion are often immediately elevated in the political debate to irrevocable “splits”. Turnbull’s popularity, and Abbott’s lack of it, would provide the new prime minister with political protection during the process.
At the moment the Coalition is straddling a range of positions where Turnbull’s rhetoric and record sit very uneasily with the policy reality.
- Turnbull’s peace deal with his party means he has to retain Direct Action as his climate policy, even though the Paris agreement makes it even less tenable as a long-term way to reach Australia’s greenhouse gas reduction targets. At some time Turnbull will have to confront the reality that a credible climate policy cannot be driven by conservative climate sceptics and that his policy is not tenable for a leader with the record on this issue that he has.
- Very early in his prime ministership, Turnbull said “fairness” would be at the heart of any economic changes he made. But he and his treasurer Scott Morrison appear convinced the central goal of their tax policy – probably the most important thing they will announce before this year’s election – is boosting growth by reducing company and personal taxes. That’s a fine goal, but it leaves out of the equation the need to fix the looming hospitals funding crisis. That is a practical problem given the need for state government agreement for any changes to the GST and a social problem, since – as South Australian premier Jay Weatherill has noted – an unfunded hospitals system is incredibly unfair for low-income earners. One reason the government is hoping it can skirt the premiers’ desire for a tax rise/spending trade-off with competition payments or short-term “transitional schemes” is a fear of the internal backlash against simply raising taxes to fund more spending. There really should be better, publicly debated reasons for that kind of decision.
- Turnbull has pledged to retain the plebiscite on same-sex marriage – which he argued against as a member of Abbott’s cabinet. He has not yet said whether he will take up backbencher Warren Entsch’s suggestion to pass legislation before the election to allow same-sex marriage, which would come into force with the successful passage of the plebiscite afterwards. Despite the plebiscite being Abbott’s own stated policy, this idea has been attacked by conservative ex-minister Eric Abetz as an “ambush”.
- Turnbull has not clarified where he stands on Abbott-era policies sitting orphaned by the hostile Senate and even more hostile public opinion. The December budget still included almost $14bn in “savings” from Abbott’s first budget that have been rejected by the Senate and the electorate – including the higher education reforms and the revamped, and for the most part re-rejected, cuts to payments for low-income families.
No comments:
Post a Comment