29 August 2012

Honourable zombies gnawing at Tony Abbott!

The Howard government now looks like it created a golden age of prosperity which is lost ... Our task, to which we are wholly and solely dedicated, is to recreate those great days for our country and we will.

- Tony Abbott, address to the South Australian Division of the Liberal Party, 18 August 2012
Zombies have made a resurgence in popular culture, and economists such as John Quiggin and Jessica Irvine have titled their books to catch the prevailing pop-culture winds. Also interesting are the political zombies that stagger through Australian politics; the Coalition seem more beset with them than Labor.

Liberals believe that John Howard had found the political El Dorado of a political constituency that represents a majority of Australian voters in a majority of electorates that is sustainable over time. The last two elections seem to put the lie to that, but they can be explained away by a) Liberal exhaustion and b) the comforting notion that Rudd was like a rejuvenated Howard (2007), or lies (2010). Nobody blames Abbott's missteps in both campaigns for them being out of office now. I think this interpretation of history is bullshit and that they are kidding themselves, but to be a Liberal is to believe this; or at the very least, to maintain the facade. A loss in 2013 (made all the more bitter by the evaporation of all those if-an-election-was-held-today wallopings, like holding a heap of scrip in a stock that has soared and crashed) would shatter the myth of that the Howard Restoration was possible or even desirable.

Abbott has been all about the restoration of the Howard government as fully as possible. This has required the Liberals to crack down hard on any dissent.

Firstly, this is what Howard did; the habit is so ingrained they could not imagine doing politics any other way. Howard paid lip-service to the idea that Liberals were free to speak their minds, but MPs who did so were ostracised (e.g. Petro Georgiou). It was John Howard who preached "disunity is death", practicing it as fervently as any lifelong rank-and-file trade unionist.

Secondly, it was the price that Liberals paid for not having to rethink what it means to govern Australia from first principles. The Liberals spent more than a decade doing that, squabbling among themselves until the intellectual direction of the party was taken away from the parliamentarians; initially within the organisational ranks, where enforcers like Michael Kroger and Nick Minchin removed Liberal preselection from troublesome free-thinkers. This was then outsourced to wide-boys like Grahame Morris and Mark Textor, who bluffed many into thinking they were better at the thinking-and-perspective business than MPs, whose role was reduced to relaying pre-packaged and simplistic messages, bums-on-seats and fundraising.

The reward for all this self-censorship (and putting up with unelected drill-sergeants like Peta Credlin) is political success. Clearly, the mirage of polling will satisfy many but actual electoral victory trumps all and soothes all. No leader can maintain strict discipline in the face of declining polling, and as polls plunge the leader will demand line-toeing and loyalty all the more, and get it all the less.

John Howard knew this. He went through low polls and high ones, not despairing at the depths nor getting carried away at the heights. He isn't a candidate for the 2013 election, but for many Liberals a non-Howard election is unthinkable. What he wants is vindication, and the Liberal Party wants badly to give it to him. However, it is starting to bristle at the price to be paid for handing its strategic direction over to history.

What John Howard wants from the 2013 election is vindication. If he had gone to the election without having introduced Workchoices, would he have won? Would he have beaten Rudd in 2007 and then outflanked an inexperienced Gillard in 2010, beating Menzies' record and chewing through a generation of Labor leaders? We will never know, but an old man may be forgiven his dreams.

Howard worked hard to overcome both his race-based conception of Australian identity and Queensland-based rural protectionism. Like Peter Costello he was not going to see his legacy trashed by a bunch of yokels dragging the Coalition up a known dead end. If you're going to return to The John Howard Way, then nobody should be surprised that John Howard will tolerate no deviation from it. You cannot have Falstaff and have him thin.

Abbott has no choice but to accept Howard's admonitions and amend Coalition policy accordingly. It is unsustainable for him to claim that there is no going back, that Howard was two PMs and three Liberal leaders ago; Malcolm Turnbull might have swept Howard aside like that, so might Hockey have, but never Abbott. For Abbott to repudiate Howard, however gently, would be a breach of public perceptions about him as great as Rudd squibbing "the greatest moral challenge of our time".

By cleaving to the certainties of the past, Abbott avoids the thorny questions of the future. The absence of such questions makes for the kind of calm assuredness that conservatives, and journalists, crave. By departing from those certainties you open up a whole lot of questions that have no clear, vote-winning answers. You also accept that some of the measures that Rudd and Gillard put in place are irreversible, anathema to people who still can't accept they were ever in government at all (and that they are there at their expense).

If you're going to depart from The John Howard Way on Chinese investment and workplace relations, where does it end? Abbott has saved the Liberals considerable heartache by mandating that any disputes are to be settled in favour of whatever the Howard government did. He has, however, made a rod for his own back; one he had borne proudly until recently.

Tony Abbott was the most moderate of Howard's four Workplace Relations Ministers. I actually believe him when he says he wants to make minimal changes to the relevant legislation. I do not believe, however, that he is strong enough to beat off Abetz and the other gimlet-eyed fanatics who believe that Workchoices didn't go far enough in nailing the unions.

As someone who has worked on contract for the better part of 20 years you can imagine my surprise at Peter Reith's assertion that there is no legal framework for individual employment contracts. Abbott might be fooling the more gullible members of the press gallery about the purity of his heart on this issue, but nobody with an appreciation for red-in-tooth-and-claw power will give his mewlings the time of day. All Abbott's talk about forming a committee or whatever is just buying time; he hasn't given workplace relations any in-depth thought at all and resents being pressed on any matter that isn't his Issue Of The Day.

Howard is not the only political zombie reaching out to Abbott, in order to hold him back rather than help his quest for government. Peter Reith and Amanda Vanstone have each stuck their oar in; each has their beef with Abbott. Abbott promised Reith his support for Federal Presidency of the Liberal Party (a role that would enable him to hobnob once more with the big end of town, which is not available to underemployed consultants) and then went back on him. Abbott was junior minister to Vanstone early in the Howard government; he went over her head to Howard and she was dumped from Cabinet. They don't want to tear Abbott down (or be seen doing so) but they want him to feel the heat that the media have spared him.

What do Reith and Vanstone want? Vindication is part of it. Like all ex-pollies they assumed there would be this raft of board positions and other honoraria following their years in politics, and like all but a handful this hasn't happened for them. They keep seeking publicity even though they have run out of things to say.  Part of their problem is a failure of the model of younger, machine-made politicians, who end up in middle age becalmed and not much use to anyone: look upon these people, Josh Frydenberg and Tony Smith and Laura Smyth and Jason Clare and Sarah Hanson-Young, and see your future.

Nick Minchin rises from is crypt whenever the far right are feeling rattled. Since 2007 there has never bee a time when Minchin and Abbott disagreed on something, and Abbott prevailed. Minchin just wants to be the Australian Cheney, freed from accountability while making the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party accountable to him.

Grahame Morris (the only one named here not to stumble through life with the prefix "The Honourable ...") was one of the wise heads in Howard's office who tempered the enthusiasms of people like Abbott, now he's a strategist. After calling for the Prime Minister to be kicked to death, and confusing a capable interviewer with a cow, there is serious doubt over the value of this man's strategic advice: you can read equal or better on Twitter, or on the walls of public toilets, for free. He is like Barry Humphries' Les Patterson, and shows that such a character could never be elected today. A man his age should have the feet up, but Morris has teenage children to put through school and no other talents to draw upon. One can understand how flattered he feels when media producers seek his time.

The mistake that Malcolm Turnbull made as leader was to assume that the 2007 election result really was a repudiation of Howard, and to start the process of rethinking what it meant to govern Australia in order to it (us?) to embrace the challenges of the future. At first the Liberals wen along with this, hoping a Turnbull victory would vindicate and ameliorate all and give a corner of public policy that they could shape in their own way. When Turnbull could not credibly promise victory in 2010, they bristled at the repudiation and replaced the man who was Howard in all but name.

Today, Turnbull is not crafting the big visions but stuck selling a zombie policy, crafted in the 1990s with technology that has since been superceded; as though it might be good enough for an ambitious people, as though the NBN was not a superior solution.

Chris Pyne's response to Gonski on schools funding is more zombie policy. It reads like one of his On Dit screeds from the late 1980s, or the stale farts of a shock-jock (even Alan Jones avoids this topic these days, as it only brings up his own teaching career and turns listeners away). It does not even address actual issues like the imminent mass retirements of teachers or the needs to embrace technology, mathematics, personal health and Asian languages within the curriculum at all, let alone show evidence of grappling with solutions.

Abbott will almost certainly survive as leader until the next election, even though his heart is increasingly not in it (Pyne and Julie Bishop have taken on the attack-dog roles in Parliament that seem to bore Abbott these days. For the government, this must be like the experience of encountering a couple of pampered yappy dogs while doorknocking). His leadership would only become untenable under either/both of these circumstances:
  • His lack of popularity, as I've said before, is a prophylactic against the election of a Coalition government. Gillard's popularity only has to rise to about 40% and he's in trouble.
  • He explodes, and reveals some aspect of his character that just confirms people's worst suspicions about the guy.
In that case, the next leader of the Liberal Party would be Julie Bishop. She'd negate the gender issue and has a hint of steel, but is not deft enough or deep enough to parry with Gillard. She would not go back to first principles and rethink things, as Turnbull would, and she would put up with the clowns that preselectors have foisted upon her better than Turnbull would.

Labor has its old hands but they tend to stay out of the way. Hawke and Keating seem largely content both to let Gillard chart a path they would never have charted (but which builds on their legacies to some degree), and to recognise that the impending passing of Whitlam will overshadow them both for a time. Kristina Keneally is doing her time in community service and Anna Bligh is spending time with her family, and even "Media Mike" Rann is keeping his head down. Peter Walsh and Bill Hayden have retreated to vast acres. Richo is the exception that proves the rule.

It is Coalition figures, with political standing but no political future, who won't return to give Abbott such old-time magic as they have and nor will they shut up and leave him to get on with it. Abbott doesn't have a program and he doesn't have the substance or the temperament to develop one; but the zombies don't have sufficient substance to fill the void, either. Abbott has assumed that everyone enjoyed the Howard government as much as he did, without realising that you can enjoy a memory while also accepting that it's over.

The honourable zombies show that using the Howard government as your platform is not the bed of roses it might have appeared to Abbott and his supporters, and that there isn't really an alternative as far as dealing with our country's future is concerned. The next election is about the following three years, not the last ten, and people will vote accordingly.

29 comments:

  1. Interesting that you mention Laura Smyth.
    Any reason in particular for her name to come across your radar?

    ReplyDelete
  2. chrispydog29/8/12 4:48 pm

    "Laugh? I nearly shat..." as the inimitable Dudley Moore once sang.

    Minchin was dragged out of the crypt to muster the Minchiviks against Turnbull and put any policy evolution for conservatives right off the menu for as long as possible. Howard's doppelganger,(what else is Abbott?) is now stuck in a past he can't get to, and one he may not even want. Oh, the irony. One trick Tony's playing out a rather sad Greek tragedy here, and as you say, too lazy to think his way out, and corralled by the zombies if he even tries to break out.

    As for the media freak shows Reith and Morris, I tried to remember either saying anything memorable of late that wasn't egregious claptrap and couldn't. Morris knows he has to say something so utterly beyond the pail that there will be an outcry, otherwise the oblivion of indifference stalks him. The ABC gives Reith the odd airing for the comedy they call 'balance' but really, does anyone give a toss about anything he says?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ahem.... Dudley Moore and PETER COOK!

      Thanks for the reminder of this song :)

      Delete
  3. Thanks for this, Andrew. I know your distaste for polls, outlined again here, but I've felt that you were seeing Abbott most clearly for some time now and it's good to have the rest of Australia start to catch up.

    I struggled to understand why Howard, who's intelligent enough to know his comments will be reported, would bring WorkChoices back to haunt Abbott, i think this piece explains that pretty well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was an off-the-record speech that the Fin was really naughty about and published. It seems Chatham House has burned to the ground.

      Delete
    2. Andrew (Not-Elder),
      I agree with Andrew (Elder)'s analysis: Zombie Howard retains the certainty that Abbott exists only to collect and venerate the bits that occasionally fall off his master's corpse.

      Delete
  4. The nostalgia for the 'Howard years' is not for the man, or even much of his policy work (such as it was) but rather a nostalgia for the easy credit that allowed the working class in this country (yes, Virginia, there is a working class) to maintain, even increase, their standard of living not through increased wealth (household incomes fell markedly as a proportion of GDP post the Accord) but through increased indebtedness.

    The growth of easy credit fuelled the housing price rises of the last twenty years that so many investment and home property owners are banking as a long term source of economic security. Whether property prices rise, fall or flatline is a moot point, as servicing the debt that sustains it all will be a far more challenging activity in the tightened credit environment we live in. Especially if Asia slows (as is looking likely) and the job market gets as loose as a goose.

    People are nostalgic for the nothing-down-nothing-to-pay for yonks deals that defined the 'boom' of the latter part of the Howard years. The low-doc loans and increasing your credit card limit over the phone lifestyle that disappeared when Lehmann Brothers walked into a lift shaft.

    That said, I received some junk mail today from Retravision offering...nothing down and nothing to pay.

    Oh frabjous day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I agree.

      I have no problem with the 'golden age' as a political tactic. As you say, many people remember it fondly as a time of easy money (debt).

      The problem - for the bazillionith time - is the uncritical reporting by the mainstream media. If you want zombies, look no further than the Canberra press pack!

      The 'golden age' was driven by a mining boom, a housing boom and a credit (debt) boom. (Our level of private debt reached record highs during Howard's 'golden age', something the Libs seem to overlook for some reason.) Of these, only mining is still delivering the goods, and even that it easing off as we know.

      The fact is that house prices are no longer doubling every ten minutes and as a nation we're paying down a big chunk of our debt. Both of these are actually good for our economy in the long term, but naturally lead to a completely different mood, a more subdued one. This is especially true for those parts of the economy struggling with this stage of the cycle.

      There's also the little matter of the GFC, that cataclysmic and ongoing event the Libs want to pretend didn't happen: the one that saw Lehman Brothers disappear, the near collapse of the American auto industry, European governments continuing to go into debt to save their banking system etc.

      Again, as with the 'golden age' nonsense I don't have a problem with the Libs denying the severity of the GFC, that's politics. The problem simply lies with the mainstream media letting them get away with such pathetic and obvious lies.

      A simple question would be: Mr Abbott, how do you plan to recapitalise the European banking system?

      Oh, and should you return us to the 'golden age' can you please not piss it away again?

      Delete
  5. Thanks Andrew.

    The people will indeed vote about their concerns for the future, and not a Howard Restoration that the opposition front bench will bring them.

    Talk about zombies walking among us; all that the liberals are setting themselves up for is a few terms in the wilderness while such talent is winnowed out.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bushfire Bill29/8/12 10:42 pm

    Simply a brilliant post.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Some great observations here Andrew, however, have you perhaps changed your mind on Abbott's similarity to Howard?

    Andrew Elder 31/7/12 5:18 PM "However easy it might be for you to imagine, there is no basis for Abbott as Howard II, none at all."

    29 August 2012 "Abbott has been all about the restoration of the Howard government as fully as possible... When Turnbull could not credibly promise victory in 2010, they bristled at the repudiation and replaced the man who was Howard in all but name."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. Abbott says that he wants to deliver Howard II, but it's an impossible task even if he really, really wanted to do it. To quote the old Chinese saying, you can't step in he same river twice.

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry, I don't see your logic, as I wasn't speaking to what he can and cannot deliver.

      Whether Abbott can deliver on being Howard II isn't really the point. As outlined above, the fact that he wants to deliver on it is the salient measure. He is either "Howard in all but name" or he is not. As with everything about Abbott, this issue doesn't have very many levels of complexity.

      Regarding the old Chinese saying: hard conservative politics is defined by attempts to continually step in the same river - over and over again. It's about repudiating progress unless said progress advantages the upper echelons of society at the expense of all others (whilst hoodwinking "all others" into believing that the social or economic reforms are for the betterment of all).

      For Tories who aren't moderates, going back to the past (or at the very least, maintaining the status quo) will never seem like an impossible task.

      Delete
    3. You insist that conservatives must be taken on their own terms; that they will have a Liberal government because they want one, and that an Abbott government will be like the Howard government because they want it to be that way. I disagree, and the fact that Abbott can't deliver goes directly to the question of whether or not he'll actually become Prime Minister.

      Delete
    4. "You insist that conservatives must be taken on their own terms; that they will have a Liberal government because they want one, and that an Abbott government will be like the Howard government because they want it to be that way."

      Not for the first time, I have been taken out of context. Obviously, I didn't insist that the Tories must be taken on their own terms. My assertion was that there seems to be a change in your analysis of Abbott within the space of a month.

      The Coalition themselves insist upon being taken on their own terms - with an enormous helping hand from the MSM. Whether he can or cannot deliver on what he (and the MSM) want should be debated prior to the next election - but I predict it will not be a strong thread of conversation due to the extreme media bias. However this isn't the only important aspect of whether or not he will become PM.

      The Gillard govt has a very small minority. They need to retain every single one of their current seats, and gain more seats, if they are to win the 2013 election. Now, prior to saying "you misunderstand how democracy works" the fact is that even if the current independents retain public office after 2013, there is no guarantee that they will support Gillard for a second time. I recall you saying on Sunday Extra that you feel Windsor can retain his seat, but I think that this position is extremely optimistic.

      "I disagree, and the fact that Abbott can't deliver goes directly to the question of whether or not he'll actually become Prime Minister."

      If we had a proper, balanced system of MSM, this would be a very important point. Currently, however, it's not as important a point as it should be. This, combined with the fact that Gillard has made elementary errors as a leader which have been pounced on by the MSM, much to the detriment of her policy achievements.

      I think we can agree on one thing though - we would both like Abbott to lose the next election so his political career can devolve to the point where it can be compared to the way Abbott himself described WorkChoices - dead, buried, cremated.

      Delete
    5. Your assertion was wrong. This is my blog, I determine what the context is and if you don't like it start your own.

      On Sunday Extra I pulled up the lazy assumptions that Windsor is done for and is making policy on that defeatist basis. I did not claim then and do not claim now that I have any inside knowledge of what might or might not happen next year.

      We don't have a balanced MSM but cheer up, it's less impotant than it's ever been. You seem unable to determine whether the MSM is crucial, or not important at all, depending on what point you're trying to make. It's very amusing but it doesn't give you the consistency you like to accuse me of lacking.

      Yep, we can agree that it would be a good thing if Abbott never became PM. I hope you will come around to the idea that the evidence for my assertion in the blog title is growing by the day, rather than some unattainable fantasy on my part.

      Delete
    6. "Your assertion was wrong. This is my blog, I determine what the context is and if you don't like it start your own."

      My assertion was based on the facts as presented. You said two different things on two different occasions. This differs from you telling me something akin to if I don't like your whimsical changes of context, I should go and find another blog. Not very astute, or helpful to either party (ie you or I).

      You have taken me out of context on at least two occasions now. Disagree with me - fine. We live in a liberal democracy. Properly explain why you disagree - even better. But please, don't twist my words or quote me out of context and then pretend that you haven't. It's unbecoming, and frankly quite unflattering.

      My opinions on the MSM have been outlined quite clearly. I think that the MSM are still vitally important here in Australia, although the influence is on the decline. I have said that the print media in Australia still sets the tone of the political debate and news cycle. I have also said that this MSM bias is not the only reason why Gillard will lose the next election. Her ineptitude as a leader will also be to her ultimate detriment.

      The centre-left media is less important than it has ever been, purely by virtue of the fact that Murdoch controls 70% of the print media. That, and of course, the incredible rise of social media.

      There is nothing inconsistent or vexatious about making these claims. The only problem with what I have said is that it seems to be inconsistent with your views.

      When you were on RN you intimated that you disagreed with the widely held notion that Windsor will be "done for" at the next election. Your exact words were:

      "I question whether Tony Windsor really is bound for the exit at the next election Jonathan..."

      To my ears, that sounded like a quasi-prediction.

      I'm glad my posts cause you such amusement. Yet, let me assure you, that this is not the intent behind them. If it helps you to laugh at someone who doesn't agree with you, then it only serves to make your arguments weaker, in the same way that the shock-jocks yell over those opines that aren't identical to their own.

      Delete
  8. Surely IR has to come up again before the election?

    Grattan bent over backwards to paint Abbott's comments as a wholesale rejection of Howard's IR policy (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-consigns-howard-to-the-ir-dustbin-20120827-24wpm.html) ... surely Abbott's supporters in the party and business would never forgive him if he left it off the table.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a test of his leadership. Business donations will dry up if he mucks about, and if he does a we'll-say-one-thing-before-election-and-do-another-afterwards, it will kill his credibility (look how Gillard's has suffered after the carbon price - but she has plenty of policy to fall back on).

      Delete
  9. Dennis Hopper telling like it is on Zombies:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbGUlR-0BSs

    ReplyDelete
  10. Great post Andrew, but better still I now have a visual of Pyne and his response to Gonski smirking, eyes shining as he breathes deeply on those stale shock-jock farts.

    ReplyDelete
  11. [Quote]
    Grahame Morris (the only one named here not to stumble through life with the prefix "The Honourable ...") was one of the wise heads in Howard's office who tempered the enthusiasms of people like Abbott, now he's a strategist. After calling for the Prime Minister to be kicked to death, and confusing a capable interviewer with a cow, there is serious doubt over the value of this man's strategic advice: you can read equal or better on Twitter, or on the walls of public toilets, for free. He is like Barry Humphries' Les Patterson, and shows that such a character could never be elected today. A man his age should have the feet up, but Morris has teenage children to put through school and no other talents to draw upon. One can understand how flattered he feels when media producers seek his time.
    [End quote]

    (Blogspot, WHY YOU NO allow blockquotes, you silly thing?)

    This is a gorgeous example of what Tigtog of Hoyden about Town calls Well-Crafted Scorn.

    Almost makes you feel sorry for the man...

    ...almost.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or to put it another way, "contempt is a powerful seasoning for one's words".

      Delete
  12. OT I know, but every time I see Morris he looks like he is trying to be a Howard impersonator. The mannerisms, even the way he speaks. Or maybe Howard was a Morris Impersonator.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Brains, brains... we need brains."

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hey Andrew

    Would love for you to tutor me on this stuff

    Consider going down the Uni lecture avenue??

    Great blog

    ReplyDelete
  15. Andrew -
    I've been mulling over this idea, in the event of Abbott exploding:

    "In that case, the next leader of the Liberal Party would be Julie Bishop. She'd negate the gender issue and has a hint of steel, but is not deft enough or deep enough to parry with Gillard."

    I just can't see Bishop happening, but how about Costello trying a Newman-style tilt at the prime ministership from outside Parliament? What chance he'd be stupid enough to try it? (Biggest stumbling block is probably his lack of intestinal fortitude, mind you)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Andrew so. You sti



    ll have the belief abbott will not be pm,
    Hopefully you do. Why is mr turnbull staying on i wonder
    Hard to imagine. Julia and julie
    Imagine the cartoonists
    Cannot imagine the liberals electing a lady as their opp. Leader
    I thought morrison, i use to think turnbull
    Ract my brains trying to think of others.

    ReplyDelete