Turnbull hangs on

[Gozu]

"Hockey will lead the Liberal Party to disaster":

"While he’s not the goose that Alexander Downer was in 1994, the possibility of a Downer-style flame-out can’t be ignored. That would leave the party to turn to Abbott, which is what Minchin and the conservatives may want in the long term, but it would also leave them a laughing-stock. Well, more so than they currently are."

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/30/hoc ... -disaster/

[Gozu]

No link for this one as it's from the Crikey subscription email but thought some might find it an interesting read.

Mungo: why Turnbull is an uncomfortable fit

Mungo MacCallum writes:

The trouble with Malcolm Turnbull, said an old and wise friend of mine, is that he’s in the wrong party. Well, apparently; but the real trouble is that there is no right party for him to join.

My friend’s implication was that Turnbull really belonged in the ALP, and it is true that he agrees with much of what Kevin Rudd is trying to do. Apart from the ETS, Turnbull is an environmental activist, a nationalist impatient with the general incompetence of state governments, a strong advocate for Australia’s involvement in international issues and, last but definitely not least, a staunch republican. Last week he even described himself as a progressive. From a policy point of view he would not be out of place in today’s ALP.

But on a personal level he would find it intolerable. He has shown himself incapable of massaging the fuzzy and largely impotent factions within the Liberal Party; his attempts at domination have proved totally ineffective, and finally counterproductive. Obviously he would find the far more robust democratic traditions and the intractable stubbornness of Labor’s heavyweights too much for his notoriously low tolerance level. After all, they induce the odd brain snap in Rudd, and he has been virtually brought up in the culture. Turnbull would self-destruct in about a week-and-a-half.

But more importantly, he could never achieve his ambition, which was and is the top job. Turnbull is in politics to be prime minister; no lesser post will suffice. But the party elects the leader, and even the modern, non-socialist ALP has not got to the point where it would contemplate placing its future in the hands of a millionaire merchant banker from Vaucluse. For Turnbull, the Libs were always his only chance and he knew it.

But he has always been an uncomfortable fit, and not only on policy grounds, although as the above list shows, his wish list -- and particularly his republicanism -- is hardly designed to appeal to a party that over the past 15 years has been moving slowly but remorselessly to the right-hand edge of the political spectrum.

To achieve his avowed aim of modernising his party and dragging the Libs into the 21st century was always going to be a tough job, and one requiring immense reserves of tact and patience. It needs hardly be said that neither quality is among Turnbull’s many strengths. Thus the schism, part policy, part personality.

Some breathless commentators have described it as a "battle for the soul of the Liberal Party", which is frankly hogwash. The Liberal Party is a purely pragmatic body formed with just one purpose in mind: to oppose the Labor Party.

Until 1909 the conservative forces in Australia were split into two warring groups: the Free Traders and the Protectionists. But with a vigorous Labor Party on the rise, the sworn enemies united in a pact against the common threat. The recriminations were so severe, even violent, that they killed the speaker, Sir Frederick Holder, who fell from his chair with a cry of "Dreadful! Dreadful!" This was the inauspicious start of the Liberal Party Mark I, whose centenary was celebrated a few weeks ago.

When the first of the great Labor rats, Billy Hughes, joined them in 1916, the name was changed to the National Party. When the second of the great Labor rats, Joseph Lyons, came aboard in 1931 the name changed again, this time to the United Australia Party. Hughes and Lyons were given the post of Prime Minister; rewarding treachery is a long-standing tradition in the anti-Labor ranks, proving yet again that power trumps policy every time, with "soul" finishing nowhere.

The UAP became impotent and irrelevant during the war years but in 1945 Robert Menzies cobbled together a motley group of anti-Labor leftovers to form the Liberal Party Mark II, which endured in its current incarnation until last week. Like all its predecessors, its sole purpose is to keep Labor out of power, or at least unable to implement its policies. Where it has policies of its own (the GST, WorkChoices) these are more often that not arrived at by looking at what Labor would do and then proposing the reverse.

Turnbull, a genuine liberal (as opposed to Liberal) is an exception, and it is not surprising that he has been targeted by some of the most unpleasant relics of his party. Nick Minchin, the sinister minister, the conspirator senator, is an ageing factional warlord who has long since abandoned his party’s interests for those of himself and his cronies. Kevin Andrews, the sea green inconceivable, is more concerned with the welfare of the Vatican than of Australia. His fellow Catholic Tony Abbott has taken as his model the Vicar of Bray, elevating political pragmatism to a total lack of principle.

And on the sidelines they are egged on by the likes of Wilson Tuckey and Alby Schultz, both barking mad. This is supposed to be a contest about the soul of the Liberal Party? The arsehole, perhaps. In retrospect, Malcolm Turnbull must be wondering why he ever bothered.

However, there was some cheering news last week with the release of the Senate privileges committee report on the capers of Godwin Gretch. Emails from his time in Treasury reveal that he saw himself as the centre of a vast secret network, which included not only Turnbull and other active politicians, but background figures such as the Liberals’ bagman, John O’Sullivan, of Credit Suisse, who received special, and possibly corrupt, favours from the Gretch.

But best of all, he was an endless font of ideas for O’Sullivan’s wife, Janet Albrechtsen. How pleasing to find that The Australian’s resident dominatrix is actually Godwin Gretch’s ghost writer. Of course, with her inspiration and source now "undergoing treatment", as it euphemistically described, the Libs might have to send around the hat to buy her a new set of alphabet blocks. They need all the help they can get.

[Psyber]

But the party elects the leader, and even the modern, non-socialist ALP has not got to the point where it would contemplate placing its future in the hands of a millionaire merchant banker from Vaucluse.

How about a millionaire French clock collector, and pig farmer, from Rose Bay?

[redandblack]

Fair point, Psyber

[Jimmy_041]

He didn't hang on anymore..............

[redandblack]

If he can only win a spill motion by 48 to 35, he's history.

Only rigged votes are declared won be huge margins - democracy brings about free voting and closer calls.
That's actually why I joined the Liberal Party rather than another back in the days when I though all our major parties were moving too far to the right.
You get to express your opinion without being suppressed. Even if the majority disagree with you at the time, you can try again later.
And you can be involved in debate that may change your own mind about issues, rather than be told to toe the line or get ejected.
[I argued not a few issues with the Members for electorates I lived in, Mayo, Higgins, La Trobe, without any animosity arising.]

Once again I have no problem with any of that, Psyber. The realpolitik of this, though, is that a successful spill motion where the opposing candidate would be Kevin Andrews should have been laughed down with him having trouble finding a seconder. The result shows a deep and serious divide. I haven't commented on Turnbull's leadership until now (as far as I can remember), but this spells huge trouble for him, especially when the real candidates (Hockey in particular) are keeping their powder dry until better times arrive.

Calling for unity now is a plaintive cry.

They're out to get him and they will.

Excuse the indulgence

[Psyber]

Once again I have no problem with any of that, Psyber. The realpolitik of this, though, is that a successful spill motion where the opposing candidate would be Kevin Andrews should have been laughed down with him having trouble finding a seconder. The result shows a deep and serious divide. I haven't commented on Turnbull's leadership until now (as far as I can remember), but this spells huge trouble for him, especially when the real candidates (Hockey in particular) are keeping their powder dry until better times arrive.

Calling for unity now is a plaintive cry.
They're out to get him and they will.

Excuse the indulgence

I thought you were right about that and I had mixed feelings myself.
I feel strongly that we should be reducing our pollution, by putting money into developing less polluting options, rather than introducing a tax on ongoing pollution that will be passed on to the end user - the general public. So, I felt supporting the taxing compromise was not wise, but I am not sure whether any of those who opposed that will embrace the real pollution reduction alternative either...

Although I am a supporter of reducing our pollution output on principle, I am not convinced the global warming we are seeing is substantially generated by man's activities.
It may yet prove to be a return to warmer times as part of the normal cycle after the transient cold snap between 1100 AD and the late 19th century...
But lets play safe and actively fund the move to cleaner fuels anyway rather than just tax the old ones as they linger on.

[Jimmy_041]

Turnbull fell for Rudd's ETS con
7:56 AM, 1 Dec 2009 Robert Gottliebsen

Editor's note: This commentary was published before Tony Abbott won the Liberal Party leadership vote.

The real reason why Malcolm Turnbull is in so much trouble is that he agreed to a bad emissions trading deal which pleased nobody, except the Rudd government who used the legislation to drive their opponents into the dust.

The proposed scheme is so bad that there are circumstances that could arise where it will increase carbon emissions. No other major country in the world would do such a silly thing. But for the Rudd government it was not silly because, by convincing Malcolm Turnbull to support a bad deal, the government destroyed the opposition.

If we want to reduce our carbon emissions how do we do it?

While switching to energy-saving light bulbs and turning off lights will help, the only way to achieve sustainable carbon reduction on a large scale is to invest in plants that emits less carbon. The biggest item is electricity generation, but there are many other areas that require new plants.

China, our main trading partner, is engaged in a massive carbon reduction investment program and how we have fallen behind was underlined by Alan Kohler yesterday and Giles Parkinson today. So how does the Rudd/Turnbull emissions trading scheme measure up on this criteria?

Well, it fails completely. As I set out yesterday, the Rudd/Turnbull ETS is about redistributing wealth rather than erecting new plants. You can see this by following the money.

Rudd and Turnbull estimate that on the basis of a $26 per tonne carbon price (it could be closer to $35) the government will raise around $114 billion between 2011 and 2020. That’s money that Rudd and Turnbull plan to extract from the business community which will give businesses less cash flow to erect carbon reduction plants.

Rudd and Turnbull will give about 47 per cent of that $114 million or $54 billion, to 4.3 million Australian households who are on low or middle incomes. This huge proportion of the population will therefore have no incentive to reduce carbon because they are fully protected. Indeed 2.6 million of the households will receive assistance equal to around 120 per cent of their overall cost increases so they are better off. In other words Rudd and Turnbull are using the ETS legislation as a massive income redistribution exercise to boost the income of lower income people. Many in the community would say that boosting lower income levels is a good thing and that’s fair enough. But to make that a central part of the carbon legislation is just plain stupid.

The rest of the money is sprayed around industry in accordance with their lobbying influence over Rudd and Turnbull. Clearly the amount to be distributed is less than that which has been raised, so we have lots of losers. Exporters must buy permits, so making their products less competitive. Importers do not have to buy permits so it makes sense to make goods in countries that have no ETS laws.

Back to our new plant test. We can fund new power stations and other carbon reduction plants via taxpayers but, in fact, we need the private sector. However, the private sector has been drained of cash so it has less money to fund carbon reduction investment. Worse still Rudd and Turnbull surgically attacked the major power generator investors based in Japan, China and India by changing the rules to reduce the value of their existing Australian power investments. These giants are telling the world that Australia is unsafe. Three superannuation funds were also minced and they are telling their mates how dangerous power investment has become in Australia.

Much of the losses, but not all, are in the Latrobe Valley and the government appears to be planning to insulate Victoria for the resulting power chaos by guaranteeing $7 billion in Latrobe Valley bank loans and the agreements that protect retailers like Origin and AGL. The only way to repay those loans is to the belch out as much carbon as possible from the Latrobe Valley.

Rudd and Turnbull effectively blocked a plan to erect a gas fired generator that would have reduced carbon. Turnbull was conned by a political genius and it looks like costing him his job – as it should.

[Jimmy_041]

Abbott's Chinese power challenge
7:03 AM, 2 Dec 2009 Robert Gottliebsen

The vast majority of Australians want carbon emissions reduced and, whether we like it or not, we are headed for some form of emissions trading scheme. But what most Australians still do not realise is that the Rudd/Turnbull emission trading scheme is a very poor way of achieving lower emissions and theoretically might even back-fire and not achieve anything like the emission cuts being targeted.

The Liberals are in disarray and will not find it easy to put forward any coherent policy. It’s a long shot, but if Tony Abbott could actually get his act together he could put forward a carbon reduction policy that was far more effective and far less painful to Australia than the Rudd/Turnbull scheme.

I have written two commentaries which set out how this politically driven scheme was designed to take money from business and distribute it to lower and middle income groups; plus, how it will destroy some of the sources of capital required to erect low-carbon power plants; and how the Commonwealth could be forced to guarantee $7 billion in bank loans to brown coal power stations which may encourage a much longer period of brown coal power generation than is sensible in a carbon constrained world. (Turnbull fell for Rudd's ETS con, December 1; The carbon horror show, November 27).

Because the Rudd/Turnbull scheme was all about politics, few of the actual measures being proposed were debated. Assuming the legislation is stalled, Tony Abbott should book himself a trip to China and schedule it after Copenhagen. Abbott should examine the Chinese plans and then, with advisers, begin to synchronize Australian carbon reduction with our largest trading partner.

But there is help available from other quarters. China, Japan and India have major utilities that would be prepared to invest in Australia and help us reduce our carbon emissions if there was regulatory certainty and if they had not been virtually run out of town by the Rudd/Turnbull ETS scheme. The Victorian government put a whole series of options to Kevin Rudd which would have transformed the ETS but they were ignored – at least until the last minute.

If Abbott does his homework and seeks help, at the next election we might even have a real debate.

Rudd may still win the election but if he was forced to defend the flaw-riddled Rudd/Turnbull scheme against a properly devised alternative, the election would be a lot closer than anyone currently imagines.

But don’t hold your breath. There are a large number of Liberals who believe that carbon emissions are not creating global warming. They may be right or wrong, but that is not the view of a majority of Australians.

The majority of Australians want carbon reduced so the Liberals need a workable scheme that will achieve that goal – this kind of task is never easy in opposition and is even harder when your party is so divided.

[fish]

Rudd and Turnbull estimate that on the basis of a $26 per tonne carbon price (it could be closer to $35) the government will raise around $114 billion between 2011 and 2020. That’s money that Rudd and Turnbull plan to extract from the business community which will give businesses less cash flow to erect carbon reduction plants.

I would have thought that any increase in costs to business (due to the introduction of a price for carbon) would simply be passed onto the consumer, thereby maintaining cash flow and profit for the business?

[Gingernuts]

Good article about Turnbull's exit on the abc website:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/02/2759775.htm

[Jimmy_041]

I cannot see how anyone can deny that we have a problem (just fly into any city in China on a good day and you go through darkness for around 5,000 feet at noon) but is the current proposal the right response?

I still dont know enough about all of this - but have started reading a few articles - good bedtime stuff I might add