In an article in the Herald this week, the Liberal Christopher Pyne called for his party to be more centrist and to lead the debate on carbon reduction.
But his fellow South Australian, Senator Nick Minchin, a conservative frequently at odds with the moderate Mr Pyne, has taken the unusual step of expressing his differences on the subject in a letter to the Herald.
"It would seem that Christopher Pyne is advocating a significant move to the left, rather than to the centre," Senator Minchin writes.
Mr Pyne appeared to want the Liberal Party to become a greens party, "which is not consistent with its history and philosophy … and is not a particularly sensible recipe for returning to government", Senator Minchin adds.
Ok so public dissent from the party line is bad ?
Senator Minchin said it was reasonable for the Nationals Senate leader, Barnaby Joyce, to argue against an emissions trading scheme.
"I don't think Senator Joyce's remarks should be seen as anything more than an appropriate contribution to the debate on how the Coalition as a whole should respond to the Government's so-called carbon pollution reduction scheme."
Maybe not. One calls for action & is reprimanded with the harshest possible political slur to parliamentary liberals "greens party", the other says lets do SFA and is praised.
The media may be billing it as a battle of idea's about the coalitions future direction, but watchers have to be impressed/depressed by the cohesion the Nelson/Turnbull opposition have displayed to the Howard Legacy. Despite the humiliating and comprehensive loss in 2007 (which if it hadn't been for the newspaper polls would have taken all cabinet leaders by complete surprise), there has been almost no real debate. Recent books by academics and political writers trying to get the Liberals talking have turned up the lack of interest any of the major members have in such a debate.
Likewise, for every instance of someone like Pyne creating some waves, you get a dozen articles like this urging all to hold the Howard Line, and the retirement of two voices of conscious(well...) from the Liberal party in Petro Georgio and Judith Troeth at the next election.
Under Turnbull I had hoped the party would have a real debate, not necessarily because I thought they would return to their liberal roots (they wont), but at least to clear out the dead wood opinions from the 1970's & 80's that dominated Howards vision and term in office. Things like the importance of the resource sector compared to the High Tech industries, or the economic and social importance of higher education. But instead (perhaps out of weakness of Turnbull's own position, or lack of a philosophical mind) we have had no real debate, no real thought other than claiming to still be the same party that voters so resoundingly kicked out just over a year ago.
There's a possibility this could work, as the Howard Government defeat had more to do with the leaders and work choices than the general alignment of the party. But much more likely, they will be defeated at the next election comfortably, and any freshness they have now will take on a very stale smell, very quickly.
Labor fell into the same trap after 1996. Beazley admirably held the party together, but never really allowed debate about their view of the world (and turned his back on Keatings more ambitious goals). What looked stable and came close to working in 1998, was boring and unacceptable by 2001 for Labor. The Liberals if this keeps up are heading down the same road.
One final thought. Unremarked in much of the press, was the introduction of several young new members into the Howard government in 2001 and 2004. Guys like Ciobo, Dutton, Keenan, Lamming, Johnson, and Wood.
Where are their public contributions ? Where indeed is their involvement in the party? I have to admit I was never too impressed with any of them when I saw them during my time in Parliament, usually being the most loyal Howard defenders. But if there is to be a liberal party revival, it needs to come from energy at the top in the likes of Turnbull and Bishop, and from hard work in the public glare at the bottom from the young guns. Otherwise with the dead wood of former cabinet ministers now slowly retiring, we may have to add the young sycophants elected in 2001/2004.
No comments:
Post a Comment