Re: If Peter Costello became the leader of the opposition,could he win the next elect
I think Turnbull deserves this term and this election. Hell, probably deserves two. He's not put a foot wrong, made some brave moves, the right moves in opposing the handouts. He's really done nothing wrong, and when he does get air time, he looks good, he's strong in every respect, you can't fault him. There's talk his silvertail background will be a Turnoff for voters, but the softly spoken, mandarin speaking Rudd, comes across as far more of a wanker imo. Rudd's no Beazley.
Opinion polls this far out from the election mean nothing, there'll be a strong swing come election day, election campaign will get the wise and moderate face of Turnbull out there, the right man to lead Australia through this crisis.
Costello would be destabilising imo. He's a shell of a man, hasn't shown a hint of backbone or courage in months, his ascension to leader of the opposition would come across as a plum gift based on entitlement, rather than real merit at this point. He had his chance. Costello is really infuriating, he should fuck off to some hole and be clear in his intentions.
I really do pity Costello and feel he might suffer greatly from a deep seated affection they have for Howard and a subsequent disliking of the man who along with Kim Beazley was the alternative prime minister of Australia for most of the Howard government.
One charge allways laid against Costello is best summised I think by the most emotion Kevin has ever shown in Parliament. "Captain courageous over there, the would be prime minister without any intestinal fortitude whatsoever. "
More here ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdGKX4HAgFA.
I think the suggestion that Costello chickened out when Downer became leader and rather than run himself Costello negotiated the leadership transition is nonsense. Costello was then only thirty nine, he'd only been in parliament for four years. No pm younger than 50 has been elected from opposition in post war history.
That he didn't nominate against Howard in 95 is also not a sign of cowardice. Indeed for an aspiring pm it was probably quite sensible. To cause divisions at that time would have been very individualist, putting the party second kind of stuff, Howard was a man he respected who had alot more clout in the party and Costello had been promised a leadership handover within two terms.
The 1996 election was a landslide to the liberals, what that meant for Costello is that whereas he may have before had a good shot at the leadership, two dozen bright eyed bushy tailed mp's had their dreams recognised on the coat tails of John Howard. Costello did make occsasional enquiries through the whips and it was allways clear Howard had the numbers.
Challenging Howard would had damaged the government. Some have suggested damaging the government would have meant short term pain long time gain as they would eventually be forced into a leadership change despite Costello's failed bid like Keating. Too problems with that idea is that there was no guarrantee after he had inflicted that damage that the libs would get rid of Howard in time for the new leader to turn things around. The other from a purely Costello point of view is that there was no gurantee that the dry libs, furious at what he had done wouldn't try and help one of the other apsiring pm's take Howard's job. I suspect Nelson was the big if but there was also Abbott, Downer and for a time Peter Reith.
Post-government I believe Costello had the ability to foresee that whoever took on Kevin Rudd in his first term would be badly damaged. Far worse than Peacock or Beazley. Turnbull thus far has managed himself brilliantly and is going to get owned badly in an early election(he won't make it to a late one). Probably a good comparison to make is that Peacock won only 66 seats two years after Hawke was elected, he won the popular vote when the government was seven years old.
He served Howard diligantly for 12 years, I believe it is fair if he thinks he deserves a chance to contest a federal election himself, more so than a man who bought himself into parliament just five years ago or "I've never voted liberal in my life" Nelson. He is not a grub or a coward for waiting around until a better time arrives. Should he serve on the frontbench? Maybe but to put it simply, it'd be a bit weird for him to hold a portfolio after twelve years in the highest ministerial position. Bit like if Senator Evans had become the shadow minister for education.
Costello has some charm, albeit not as much as the average politician, he is a powerfull, skilled debater/orator, he is clever, damned clever and has seniority in parliament. In the right circumstances he would be a formidable opposition leader and having resigned myself to the fact that ten years or so we will have a liberal government in Australia I would really prefer it is him to some of the other mugs in his party. Especially
this man
