Extract from The Guardian
To be fair, at the level of political messaging, there were signs of improvement.
If you compare the story Malcolm Turnbull told about his government’s agenda during the long winter election we all want to forget, and the story he told on Wednesday at the National Press Club, it was sharper, more anchored in the every day preoccupations of voters – it showed signs of lessons learned.
But in the specific, if you look at content, the ellipses and contradictions piled up quickly.
Let’s just take two obvious examples.
Turnbull told us he was in favour of more continuous disclosure of political donations – except apparently his own, to the Liberal party, during the election.
That one will be disclosed in accordance with the law he’d just said he’d like to change, which, in the real world, means close to two years after the fact.
You are either in favour of continuous disclosure sufficiently to lead by example, or you aren’t, in which case what are you are talking about?
Theoretical continuous disclosure. By someone else.
Then there was the vexed matter of the “political opportunists” who wanted to turn Australia inward – people “doing nothing more than playing on the fears and hardships of those in our community who feel they have not shared in the benefits of globalisation and technological change”.
Turnbull thought these people needed to be resisted and it was clear he believed what he said. It was a rousing piece of truth telling in a time where truth telling is distinctly out of fashion in politics.
Except when it came to actually walking the walk.
Turnbull was asked whether the West Australian Liberals should preference One Nation in the forthcoming state election.
The journalist asking the question pointed out if the WA Liberals preferenced One Nation this would be the first time since 2001 that any division of the Liberal party had not put Pauline Hanson last.
It will be a consequential act, in other words.
If the state vote goes the way the polls suggest, it will bring a micro party very much into the political mainstream. Quite apart from the obvious matter of whether preferencing One Nation is the right thing to do, it will make life harder for the National party. It will make life harder for regional Liberal MPs who are at the frontline of the backlash against major party politics.
The journalist asked Turnbull: “Could you outline for us how [Pauline Hanson’s] views might have evolved in the last 15 years that make her any less offensive when she was when John Howard put her last? And if you should be spared to lead the Liberal party at the next election, where will Senator Hanson be on your how to vote cards?”
Well the prime minister couldn’t outline that, actually, because he’s not a commentator, and preference deals are a matter for state divisions.
The prime minister was a void. A no comment.
Last May, Pauline Hanson was, according to Malcolm Turnbull, “not a welcome presence on the Australian political scene.”
Presumably that’s a true expression of his actual view.
But realpolitik means you have to mute your values.
Once again, at the podium, at the opening of the political year, with the nation watching on, we encounter the incredible shrinking prime minister.
If you compare the story Malcolm Turnbull told about his government’s agenda during the long winter election we all want to forget, and the story he told on Wednesday at the National Press Club, it was sharper, more anchored in the every day preoccupations of voters – it showed signs of lessons learned.
But in the specific, if you look at content, the ellipses and contradictions piled up quickly.
Let’s just take two obvious examples.
Turnbull told us he was in favour of more continuous disclosure of political donations – except apparently his own, to the Liberal party, during the election.
That one will be disclosed in accordance with the law he’d just said he’d like to change, which, in the real world, means close to two years after the fact.
You are either in favour of continuous disclosure sufficiently to lead by example, or you aren’t, in which case what are you are talking about?
Theoretical continuous disclosure. By someone else.
Then there was the vexed matter of the “political opportunists” who wanted to turn Australia inward – people “doing nothing more than playing on the fears and hardships of those in our community who feel they have not shared in the benefits of globalisation and technological change”.
Turnbull thought these people needed to be resisted and it was clear he believed what he said. It was a rousing piece of truth telling in a time where truth telling is distinctly out of fashion in politics.
Except when it came to actually walking the walk.
Turnbull was asked whether the West Australian Liberals should preference One Nation in the forthcoming state election.
The journalist asking the question pointed out if the WA Liberals preferenced One Nation this would be the first time since 2001 that any division of the Liberal party had not put Pauline Hanson last.
It will be a consequential act, in other words.
If the state vote goes the way the polls suggest, it will bring a micro party very much into the political mainstream. Quite apart from the obvious matter of whether preferencing One Nation is the right thing to do, it will make life harder for the National party. It will make life harder for regional Liberal MPs who are at the frontline of the backlash against major party politics.
The journalist asked Turnbull: “Could you outline for us how [Pauline Hanson’s] views might have evolved in the last 15 years that make her any less offensive when she was when John Howard put her last? And if you should be spared to lead the Liberal party at the next election, where will Senator Hanson be on your how to vote cards?”
Well the prime minister couldn’t outline that, actually, because he’s not a commentator, and preference deals are a matter for state divisions.
The prime minister was a void. A no comment.
Last May, Pauline Hanson was, according to Malcolm Turnbull, “not a welcome presence on the Australian political scene.”
Presumably that’s a true expression of his actual view.
But realpolitik means you have to mute your values.
Once again, at the podium, at the opening of the political year, with the nation watching on, we encounter the incredible shrinking prime minister.
No comments:
Post a Comment