After yesterdays (much deserved) defeat the Liberals are facing some very important decisions.
The most immediate is who will be leader. Costello was the obvious choice, but he has now declined the position. I think this is a smart strategic move on his part. He will let the next leader tackle the tough time ahead and after they lose the next election he will grudgingly accept the leadership (ala Beazley after Latham) and hope to be elected in 2012.
The current contenders are Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott and Alexander Downer. If they want to go moderate, maybe Brenden Nelson or Julie Bishop.
The broader question is whether the Liberals will continue to exist as they currently do. With no Liberal government in power anywhere in Australia there is no a good opportunity for the Liberals and Nationals to merge. I expect this to be promoted within the next 6 months, most especially by Queenslanders (where a merger is probably a necessary pre-condition of ever winning power in the State again).
Another option is that the Liberals and Nationals take more radically different paths. The Nationals have been on a slow but steady decline as more people move from rural to coastal & urban areas. They may take this opportunity to shift more explicitly towards the big-government NIMBY conservativism of Bob Katter and start pitching themselves as the compromise party between Liberal and Labor.
John Quiggin is predicting the end of the Liberals. While it would certainly be interesting to see a new party form out of the ashes of the old, I don’t think that is likely. I think they will continue, but the bigger question is which direction they will take. Will they continue with Howard conservativism (Abbott, Downer), shift towards the libertarian position (Turnbull) or take the UK Tories approach of going moderate (Nelson, Bishop)? How much influence will the religious right have in the new party? I don’t know… but it will be interesting to watch.
November 25, 2007 at 4:52 pm |
Bring back Dr. Hewson or Jeff Kennett.
November 25, 2007 at 5:30 pm |
Errr. Turnbull will be Australia’s David Cameron. I don’t know why you guys consider him Libertarian given his climate change enthusiasm (and solutions). Plus he is more likely to compromise for power on economic issues than a real dry like Downer. Malcolm came to liberalism very late in life – he was known to be asking around for a safe ALP Senate spot in NSW during the 1990s.
Also, Costello is not contesting the seat of Higgins at the next Federal election (likely 2010), so I doubt he will be able to grudgingly accept the leadership, if he ain’t in parliament…
And where’s this Kennett enthusiasm coming from Sam? He blasted the Coalition for its tax cuts in the first week of the campaign saying it would have been better spent on health, education or water.
November 25, 2007 at 5:48 pm |
Costello has indicated he wants to move back into the private sector, although what a politician says and what a politician does are two very different things.
November 25, 2007 at 6:05 pm |
G’day,
Can someone explain to me why Turnbull is regarded as some sort of closet libertarian? This is the bloke who wanted to ban incandescent light bulbs.
ta
November 25, 2007 at 6:12 pm |
It’s not hard to point to anti-libertarian things being done by people in parliament. Turnbull has consistently called for lower tax and was apparently a fan of my 30/30 paper. He is friends with libertarians (Peter Saunders, David Russell) who sugget to me that he is one of the good guys (relatively speaking). He also apparently agrees with gay marriage.
I know Costello said he was leaving. But as the Liberals go into the double dissolution election in 18 months there will be a call for more experience, more tallent and more unity in the Liberals. The leader (Abbott? Turnbull?) will ask Costello to come back to the frontbench… much like how Latham invited Beazley and Rudd invited Crean.
The Liberals will lose and continue to be out of favour… and a year later there will be complaints about leadership and Pyne/Hockey will start aggitating for Costello to be leader to take the Liberals back to their glory days.
November 25, 2007 at 7:58 pm |
The opportunity has presented itself for LDP (with whatever full name is decided) to collect a lot of disillusioned ex-Liberal supporters. Many of their members were JWH fans, so with him gone and Libs in the wilderness for several years (and fractured in the States), LDP membership base could expand. We have set down the base with our 2007 results, now we need to be building the structure for the registration process in each State, plus setting our sights on the ACT election.
November 25, 2007 at 9:18 pm |
A lot of libertarians seem to like Turnbull… I figured I was in the minority who didn’t. Character references aside, he’s yet to prove himself, IMO (though admittedly, he had a dog of a portfolio).
Turnbull is a believer in whatever he thinks will get him votes.
November 25, 2007 at 9:24 pm |
Maybe LDP should issue an open invitation (ie, press release) to Liberals? (and maybe Deomcrats while we’re at it)
November 25, 2007 at 9:29 pm |
He also is (was) encouraging state governments to give up their water monopolies and has spoken on Meet the Press and other outlets about a free market solution to the water shortage.
November 25, 2007 at 9:31 pm |
I don’t believe in classifying someone as receptive to libertarian ideas if they are part of a populist centre party based on winning power at all costs. Unless Turnbull becomes an Australian Ron Paul and consistently votes against increased spending, or any Commonwealth intervention in a head of power not explicitly authorised by the Constitution, it’s all rhetoric. What’s his voting record? That’s all that counts.
The Liberals look great, on paper, have you seen their constitution? Fantastic stuff.
Politicians are all the same. Hawke implemented reform in the 1980s because of stagflation. What usually happens is there’s an economic crisis that forces mainstream politicians to change policy. Same thing happened in India in 1991. Until that happens, Turnbull, Emerson, Tanner, etc. will be happy to maintain the status quo of bigger government.
The important thing is that there’s a credible libertarian alternative (provided by Friedman in the 1980s) to the status quo when that crisis occurs.
November 25, 2007 at 10:28 pm |
John I think your Costello conspiracy theory is a bit far fetched. I think this can happen, but so many things can go wrong.
November 25, 2007 at 11:35 pm |
I think Fleeced’s idea is a good one, if a little cheeky.
A lot of Liberal supporters and members claim to lean libertarian, so let’s challenge them to put their money where their mouth is now that they’ve got nothing left to lose.
November 25, 2007 at 11:53 pm |
I watched ABC coverage of the election night with the panel consisting of Julia Gillard and Nick Minchin. I think Nick Minchin is very impressive. I wonder why he is not considered as possible leader? (I can’t stand Gillard because of the way she speaks).
November 26, 2007 at 6:54 am |
In a previous election, a couple of Libs told me that we represented what the origional Liberal Party stood for.
November 26, 2007 at 7:31 am |
Minchin is a Senator, unless he can force someone to resign their seat in the House it isn’t likely.
But Gorton did the same once assuming the Premiership.
Fleeced’s idea sounds good.
November 26, 2007 at 8:35 am |
The political philosophy of the party leader is certainly of significance in determining the direction of the party. However the leaders main role is to keep the tensions within the party in check and to ensure that the party works towards common goals. Is Turnbull pragmatic enough and talented enough to make this happen? And more to the point does Turnbull command the necessary loyalty within the party? The bonds of loyalty are frequently more significant than issues of personal merit when it comes to holding such organisations together. People frequently misunderstand the significance of loyalty, thinking it is some form of corruption that stands in the way of a meritocracy, however loyalty is a serious and significant organisational factor that when exercised wisely can give an organisation a serious strategic advantage.
November 26, 2007 at 9:37 am |
As Paul Kelly pointed out on Insiders, the Libs are in dire straits, as being out of power across the land means they have nowhere to “warehouse” their “talent”.
Re: Costello, Kennett is already accusing him of sookery, which I knew somebody would do sooner or later. I just feel so much pity for the guy – worked his guts out for the party under a misapprehension that he would be leader. Howard should have been straight up with him.
As a counter-point to Fleeced, I’d suggest this defeat might cause more supporters of free markets and small govt to go back to the Liberal party as their one hope of representation. Failing that, 10 years of Rudd-led Labor will.
November 26, 2007 at 9:50 am |
“As a counter-point to Fleeced, I’d suggest this defeat might cause more supporters of free markets and small govt to go back to the Liberal party as their one hope of representation.”
We can not get elected just fine right here.
November 26, 2007 at 10:05 am |
We need to encourage the small government free market supporters to come to us, not the Liberal party… in fact, with Labor in power – it’s more important to have someone like LDP hold the balance of power in the senate instead of socialists like Greens and Xenophon.
November 26, 2007 at 11:01 am |
Abbott has challenged. He’d be a good opposition leader, but I wouldn’t want him as PM.
I think Turnbull is probably the only Lib that could do 3/6 years as Opposition leader and still have a shot at PM. Abbott doesn’t have that kind of charisma.
November 26, 2007 at 6:33 pm |
The demoralization and current confusion of the Liberals, surely gives a real opportunity to the LDP. The people who have indicated that they wish to lead the Liberals are about as grim – and as un-libertarian – as one could get. It seems to me that we should think about ways in which publicity can be given to the LDP and its concern for principle, as it looks as if the next three years may be a principle-free zone. What might be done is to consider bumber stickers, press advert templates etc which could be purchased/sponsored cheaply, so as to build up a network of contacts which we can grow between now and the next election.
November 26, 2007 at 10:09 pm |
Lets bring the ex-liberals over to LDP. I already had a call today from someone who ofered to bring a whole branch of Liberal party over to LDP!We just need to spend a little time getting them used to the idea of true libertarian ideals, plus how we have “moderated” them for current Australian political situation.
Please be reminded that we have already had calls from ex-Democrats and ex-Greens who are impressed with the style and substance of LDP.
November 26, 2007 at 10:32 pm |
That Malcolm Turnbull might be a libertarian is very optimistic and exciting indeed.
Howard conservatism I believe is disgusting, especially his objection to gay marriage. But he is gone and from the ashes libertarianism may find expression through the Liberal party.
Expressing libertarianism through a major party will be a lot easier than expressing it through a minor party.
November 27, 2007 at 8:21 am |
Peter, that is fantastic.
November 27, 2007 at 10:10 am |
Turnbull IS looking good, promising to steer the Libs back to the path of true liberalism, small govt and focus on individual freedoms. If he gets it, I hope he has the stomach for a long spell in the shit seat. Might do alright after a few terms of the kind of ”third-way” balderdash the Labor states specialise at. Too bad people only consider liberty as an abstract concept unless theirs is under direct threat.
November 28, 2007 at 1:13 am |
Turnbull may as well have been a Labor member. His Australian Republican Movement was pushing the Republican model preferred by the Labor Party, which was to have a person holding the office of President in a Constitution virtually unchanged from the (potentially dictatorial) powers granted to the Governor General! At least the governor-general, acting notionally as a representative of the Queen of England, has a customary limitation to his powers!
As for making an issue of someone’s opposition to “gay marriage” as “disgusting,” that is only going to drive away the much larger percentage of people, who may think that the IDEA of gay ANYTHING is disgusting! Just shut up about it. When marriage laws (which are a state issue anyway) are revised according to libertarian ideals, then they would simply be deleted, with the explanation that this is none of the government’s business! Problem solved! You’d never need to mention, whether you secretly want to legalise gay marriage, or plural marriage. Are you going to call people opposed to animal-human marriage disgusting? Or marriages involving pre-teens? Why advocate FOR any practice that people are generally universally opposed to, when “shall not make any law relating to” would be a good policy for government? Doing so merely makes you represent the kind of radical that people associate with the Greens, with left-wing Democrats and ALP crazies, and with hippies in Nimbin.
Now, as for advocating for murdering defenceless little babies? Don’t get me started on that!
I’d never join or associate with a party advocating such things! I’d join the Liberals, or start MY OWN libertarian party before doing such a thing!
November 28, 2007 at 5:33 am |
Marriage is not a state issue. The constitution makes marriage a federal issue.
November 28, 2007 at 8:15 am |
I’d never join or associate with a party advocating such things! I’d join the Liberals, or start MY OWN libertarian party before doing such a thing!
It would be misleading and deceptive to call it libertarian in that case. Reactionary might be more accurate.
But don’t let us stop you. We’ll even give you feedback about where you went wrong.
November 28, 2007 at 11:22 am |
Or you could all join the Liberal party and fight the good fight inside the party to make it more libertarian. Party members, especially active ones, have much greater influence in opposition.
November 28, 2007 at 11:34 am |
Why would I want to join the Liberal party? I am a libertarian.
I may as well join the ALP and try to make it more libertarian.
November 28, 2007 at 3:05 pm |
Or join the Greens and try and make them economically literate.
November 28, 2007 at 4:16 pm |
On Reading that GA article, it seems the author is more concerned with minor parties and independents in general rather than the LDP specifically.
November 28, 2007 at 4:19 pm |
Ian,
With all due respect, do you think that we should really be wasting our time with someone of your persuasion?
As David rightly said; by all means, go ahead and start your own party if you must. We’ll stay here with the LDP and work with what we have.
Kind Regards,
Steve
November 28, 2007 at 10:51 pm |
Well if so, then the democracy part of the party name is meaningless, or mere deception, and you’d be wasting your time hoping for ANY ex-Liberal, economic libertarian types (anarchocapitalists, if you like) to join.
You may as well rename the party “anarchist”, even the word “party” would have to be dropped, as hoping for agreement amongst anarchists is just like trying to herd cats.
Anyway, a result of reducing government is to reduce legislation, so you’d get your anarcho-socialist results anyway, so long as you didn’t promote the kind of behaviour that would result in the general populace calling in revulsion for reinstatement or protection of the traditional laws. The democratic side of the coin demands that the changes you are pushing for need to be palatable for the mainstream, otherwise there is no hope for peaceful change.
November 28, 2007 at 11:01 pm |
One thing concerning me about Malcolm Turnbull is his now apparent rejection of Work Choices. Mind you I have heard that second hand through the media, but if true I’d wonder on what grounds he holds that position? Work choices was one of the few issues that I sided with the Liberals on.
I am beginning to wonder what Turnbull’s real values are. He was weak spined as a Liberal minister (to be fair they all seem to be) and right now I’m getting the impression he’s taking a position he thinks will get him elected.
Having said that, I can’t think of anyone else in the party I’d prefer as leader. I would vote Turnbull as the lesser evil in an election… I don’t think I could be brought to vote for an Abbot or a Nelson.
Someone said bring back Dr. Hewson… if only we could, one of the few politicians I genuinely respect and a damn shame he never got elected.
November 28, 2007 at 11:24 pm |
WorkChoices was bad. It was re-regulation, not deregulation. It was a poorly-disguised blow against the unions. It forbade more than it allowed. The imposition of the ‘fairness test’ made it Labor-lite.
Looking back, I’m astonished the Liberals attempted a big shift in workplace relations while hobbling it and then bungling it, when they could have continued to implement small, targeted changes like they had been doing. I guess getting the Senate majority went to their heads.
Mr T (as his HTV-hander-outers had it on their shirts) is the best of a bad lot. Good luck to him.
November 28, 2007 at 11:49 pm |
Ian,
I disagree with the idea that we have to appeal to the mainstream. I accept that we need to operate within the confines of democracy. There is no contradiction in this.
Regards,
Terje.
November 29, 2007 at 7:32 am |
Turnbull played a ‘John Hyde’ like role by his setting up a ginger group in the Libs to push for lower, flatter taxes. I think we can at least say he believes in that.
As for WorkChoices, if he pushes for it to be scrapped and replaced with NZ’s labour laws, that would be great!
November 29, 2007 at 10:05 am |
Out of curiosity… how much of the ALP’s policies should the Libs support?
I think they’ve pretty much got to allow workchoices rollback, and support kyoto – whwther they like these things or not, they’ll be accused of being obstructionist if they don’t. Turnbull (and others) have already indicated they would, but there’s a chance ALP will group these things with other legislation – trying to force Libs into rejecting it.
Anyway, I’m not as fussed about workchoices as I am with unfair dismissal laws… they were a pain!
November 29, 2007 at 2:53 pm |
Hi Ian,
We don’t promote these activities you are steamed up about. We call for the law to allow them, however that is different from promoting them.
We don’t promote homosexuality or homosexuality. We don’t promote shooting or pacifist pursuits. We don’t promote assisted suicide as an action, nor do we promote a patient suffering.
I appreciate that our policies may appear as such, but that doesn’t mean we ditch them because some have misconceptions.
Kind regards,
Steve