Malcolm Turnbull quits politics. Tears. (1 Viewer)

[0bs3n3]

Turnbull would of been my vote for PM. Now all good things have come to an end...

Rudd or Abbot? It's time for the dummy vote.

Sigh. I don't get it. Everyone goes on about how amazing Turnbull was, but why were his preferred pm ratings so damn low?

 

[annabackwards]

Malcolm Turnbull does a backflip on going | The Australian

He has come to his senses... but i wish he'd just aim to be NSW Premier seeing as Fed politics is hopeless right now.

 

[Lentern]

Sigh. I don't get it. Everyone goes on about how amazing Turnbull was, but why were his preferred pm ratings so damn low?

Because he came to the leadership one year into a bright new premiership and two years out from an election. The Costello factor was also massive in undermining his leadership. Kim Beazley had similar figures in 1997 before opening up massive opinion poll leads over Howard in late 1998 which he carried with him until September the eleventh 2001 which understandably changed the dimensions of the political ballpark quite a bit.

 

[Lentern]

Lentern what do you think will come of his back flip? I can't see him getting the leadership again unfortunately.

I think in the liberal party that if you keep in the spotlight and doggedly keep building numbers and alliances and stuff eventually you can get another run so long as the party doesn't start winning. Eventually he would come to be seen as the preferable alternative the new leader wasn't cutting through but I don't know if he has the tenacity.

He's a very proud man, John Howard kept getting slapped down over and over again in his powerplays during the eighties and nineties: Lost a leadership ballot to Peacock in 83, won by default when Peacock resigned in 85, got thrashed in a general election in 87, got thrashed in a leadership challenge in 89, lost leadership challenge in 93 and pulled out of a nearly disastrous leadership bid in 94. I don't know if Turnbull really is interested in getting passed over for the leadership two or three more times before given another serious run and that's probably what it requires.

If Turnbull was to come to the leadership again it would probably require something like this: Abbott loses the election, resigns from the frontbench. Hockey takes over the leadership and calls a conscience vote like he promised to do, the ETS is passed that way. Turnbull enters the frontbench as spokesperson for finance, health, education, defence-he won't get offered treasury or foreign affairs. Hockey does ok in the polls but doesn't really get any real lead, after about 14 months in the job he is cut down as the conservatives install someone more palatable to them. My bet would be Bishop, if the government is still going strong and this new leader seems to be a bit out of their depth (as anyone but Bishop probably would be) and Turnbull is being his fabulous self on the frontbench some number crunchers might decide that he's worth another go 10 months out from an election.

If he doesn't get the leadership by 2013 it's goodbye for certain, he'll be too old.

 

[aussie-boy]

Sigh. I don't get it. Everyone goes on about how amazing Turnbull was, but why were his preferred pm ratings so damn low?

I reckon its cause there's a perception (probably true) that Turnbull would not be able to pander to the "working families" vote. He's too noble to institute BS populist vote grabbing policies + his ideas etc are difficult for your average uneducated man in the pub to understand

Also he's damn rich and low income earners love to cast off people from the Eastern suburbs as pretentious snobs

 

[ajn_sth_aust]

Gillard is full of the macho, cut through bullshit that gets glowing headlines, good approval ratings and awful voting intentions(and come election time votes). She like Tony Abbott and Mark Latham before them lacks the tactful subtlety of a Rudd or a Smith and would polarize the electorate.

Try telling that to Margaret Thatcher, LOL! I think terms such as 'macho, cut through bullshit ... polarize the electorate' are terms that could be very appropriately applied to the most electorally successful British PM of the 20th century (albeit Thatcher did have the good luck of having very unpopular political enemies during the 1980's).

I know it may be hard for many to envisage the idea of a Labor Left Prime Minister, but I think Gillard has fairly much designed the de facto 'heir apparent' to the Prime Ministership.

I'm an ALP 'rank-and-file' member and I know that there has been quite a lot of internal disquiet, not just among Labor activists, but also among Labor MP's about the excessively 'softly-softly' approach Rudd has taken to issues. Naturally all governments have to rule from the centre (to a greater or lesser extent), but Rudd has taken this to an extreme of almost political cowardice on many things.

This has caused a significant level of disquiet among some Labor MP's, who have taken consolation in the fact that 'it will all change when Julia takes over'.

Despite talk of 'Red Julia', Gillard is unlikely to be much more left-wing on economic policy. However, where she will be different is on social issues; Gillard is definitely a social progressive as opposed to Rudd being a social conservative. Gillard as PM is likely to pursue an updated version of a 'Keating agenda'.

This has risks of alienating the suburbs, however there is a fear in the ALP of losing inner-city seats to the Greens at the upcoming 2010 Federal Election. If this occurs, this will increase the chances of a move to the left on social policy by the ALP (and also increase the chances of Gillard being seen as a acceptable PM).

 

[yoddle]

Yay!

 

[Lentern]

Try telling that to Margaret Thatcher, LOL! I think terms such as 'macho, cut through bullshit ... polarize the electorate' are terms that could be very appropriately applied to the most electorally successful British PM of the 20th century (albeit Thatcher did have the good luck of having very unpopular political enemies during the 1980's).

I don't know a great deal about Thatcher's premiership but I would say that her electoral record by no means confirms her political ability. If someone was to call Howard the second most talented politician in our nations history they would be a fool. The man's record consisted of four electoral victories and two losses.

The first victory was against an extraordinarily unpopular Keating government. So long as he didn't project any aura of instability like Downer and Hewson had done victory was virtually assured in 96. Most governments are comfortably re-elected in their first attempt, Hawke and Fraser demolished their respective foes, as did Beattie, Bracks, Rann and Carr. Howard failed to win the majority vote and came perilously close to losing the 1998 general election despite a booming economy . The 2001 election was held under the shadow of 9/11, Beazley had dominated polling for so much of the second Howard parliament and there is nothing you can say that will convince me that the hysteria surrounding 9/11 would not have swung any election in favour of almost any incumbent. His final electoral victory was the only one I believe he clearly outplayed his opponent, it was also against the dumbest, most unelectable labor leader since Dr Evatt started going gaga.

This is by no means a reflection on Howard's ability to govern which I'm sure was substantial, but of his political abilities which were unexceptional.

I know it may be hard for many to envisage the idea of a Labor Left Prime Minister, but I think Gillard has fairly much designed the de facto 'heir apparent' to the Prime Ministership.

I'm an ALP 'rank-and-file' member and I know that there has been quite a lot of internal disquiet, not just among Labor activists, but also among Labor MP's about the excessively 'softly-softly' approach Rudd has taken to issues. Naturally all governments have to rule from the centre (to a greater or lesser extent), but Rudd has taken this to an extreme of almost political cowardice on many things.

This has caused a significant level of disquiet among some Labor MP's, who have taken consolation in the fact that 'it will all change when Julia takes over'.

Despite talk of 'Red Julia', Gillard is unlikely to be much more left-wing on economic policy. However, where she will be different is on social issues; Gillard is definitely a social progressive as opposed to Rudd being a social conservative. Gillard as PM is likely to pursue an updated version of a 'Keating agenda'.

This has risks of alienating the suburbs, however there is a fear in the ALP of losing inner-city seats to the Greens at the upcoming 2010 Federal Election. If this occurs, this will increase the chances of a move to the left on social policy by the ALP (and also increase the chances of Gillard being seen as a acceptable PM).

You refer to a fear that Gillard is 'too left' I don't think that's the problem at all, certainly she's not further left of the centre than John Howard was right. I think Lindsay Tanner and Tanya Plibersek are brilliant political abilities, far more capable than the current deputy prime minister and treasurer respectively.


For lack of a better word it is her style which is problematic. Two clear instances are vivid in my mind: One was a youth QANDA special with Turnbull in which he had the audience (and dare I say Tony) eating out of his hands by the end. She was left looking a little childish, very partisan and much less serious than Turnbull who by contrast served up a classic dignified and intelligent warmth.

A second occasion was when the opposition backed down over some education thingy, Come question time all the political capital that had been built up that day was squandered by mean and nasty Julia lampooning Chris Pyne as weak and a flip flopper and how pathetic it was that he was criticizing the policy on the doors before voting for it in the house blah blah blah.

As we saw in the debate, cheap, nasty sniping whilst sometimes an occupational necessity isn't well received. Yes politicians are in the business of making themselves look less bad than there rivals but you need to do it in a classy, dignified way, you need gravitas and Gillard doesn't seem to grasp that.

If you are inside the ALP you'd also know that the Latham experiment sewed some fairly deep seeds of hostility in the party and that Gillard nailed her colours fairly emphatically to Latham's mast. Any play she makes for the leadership will be greeted with some fairly ugly factional games, in particular from Senator Conroy.

I believe you are right in that Rudd hasn't really done much to build his own support base. Whilst he keeps winning/leading he'll be secure but once he loses popularity momentum for a challenge will build, and yes it will probably be Gillard who makes the initial play. But if Rudd is going down the rest of the party won't sit around and watch Gillard prior the job from his dead fingers, they'll make their own plays for it. I suspect Smith is the man who will lead that play but ever since he was elected I've thought there was something irresistible about the rise of this man.

 

[0bs3n3]

Gillard is a terrible speaker. She sounds like a kindergarten teacher.