I was discussing Costello’s prospects of making it into the Lodge last night, and it struck me that they were not very good. The only way Howard is going to falter badly enough to be sackable is if the economy goes sour, but then Costello will share the blame.
The optimal strategy, and also the standard one, does not seem to have been discussed as an option (feel free to correct me). If he wants the top job, Costello should resign from Cabinet, head for the backbench, and deliver a dignified speech about Howard’s shortcomings. In this scenario, a downturn in the economy hits the trifecta for Costello: his reputation as a masterful economic manager would be enhanced, whichever of his rivals took on the Treasury portfolio would be discredited and Howard would get the blame for alienating the only man who could run the economy properly[1].
If you look at Australia’s political history over the past 25 years, this approach has been pursued with success quite a few times: Peacock, Keating, Latham and Beazley all retired to the backbench to await the call, and none did so in vain, though only Keating (so far) has gone all the way to the Lodge.
fn1. I don’t think the correlation between economic performance and the competence of the Treasurer is all that great, but my opinions on this matter aren’t really relevant.
John Quiggin 
Ticker etc. II
Further rumblings about the Liberal leadership are all over the papers today. Rob Corr is right, I think:
The Liberal Party’s leadership stoush is under way, kicked off by John Howard’s comment in Athens that he is prepared to take on Kim Beazle…
Who cares really. Once upon a time I allowed myself to dream that Costello would cut through with new policies, but now I think he would just be same old, same old. Still, it serves to pass the time in the public arena until the hyenas get loose in July with the main event.
Having said it is just a sideshow, I am just as deep in the soap opera of disappointed ambition as anyone else. At the moment it is reframed as Costello v the Prime Minister, but I presume part of it is Costello v the other contenders. If we accept that Little Johnny King of the Heap doesn’t like his little friend Mr Simper all that much, then hanging him out to dry like this helps to line up the younger thugs for a go at the top job.
That should be much more fun. A papal fight sans Benny.
Hi John,
This comment is off topic:
The shading on the pic of you at the top of the new look blog makes you look very jewish when one casually glances over the picture. It makes one look twice!
Steve
I think Costello has spent too much time in the Treasurer role for his own good. I don’t think he has the faux-humility to step-back to a backbench role.
He would probably be too scared that Abbott would just end up stealing the prime ministerial limelight from under his fingertips.
Yes, John appears to be wearing a yarmulke.
Given that his supporters have very publicly put a stake in the ground around a March transfer, Costello will clearly have to move to the backbench if Howard continues on past that point next year. Whatever, he’s about to deliver his last Budget.
Costello won’t challenge.
He could have challenged Hewson in ’94, but didn’t have the stomach for it, and Downer challenged instead.
He could have challenged Downer in ’95, but didn’t have the stomach for it, and Howard walked into the vacant leadership.
Howard has made empty promises to Costello, broken them, taunted Costello, humiliated Costello and given Abbott the nudge nudge wink wink.
What’s Costello done about it?
Nothing.
If Costello’s anger is genuine and not for show, he’s demonstrated he’s a very poor judge of character.
It’s been obvious for many years that Johnny would only ever relinquish the levers of power when his cold, dead hands are prized from them – he’d prefer to still be PM when he turns 100. Costello should have understood this from the beginning no matter what Howard promised.
Yeah, its the cuckolded versus the impotent. Jack the Rat is playing with their minds.
Handing over the reins is a “non-core-promise”. Unfortunately for the Liberal Party, Howard would have presided over the death of the Liberal Party, if there is no clear succession planned.
My guess is that Costello is too timid to make such a principled resignationa and pre-emptive challenge, although full marks for Pr Q for spotting the opportunity.
The LIB parliamentary party members are also in the thrall of the Howard mystique which will hobble clear-sighted and cold-hearted appreciation of their political interest. Many of the most likely ministerial contenders, and back bench supporters, are already beholden to Howard for their positions. If Costello does make a challenge it will likely be too little too late, after the recessionary horse has bolted from the Treasurers shaky grasp.
I wonder if Howard will be to the LIBs what Clinton was to the DEMs: a successful leader who emasculated his deputy and disempowered his party.
You might be on the money there John. If Costello quits as treasurer and the economy goes into a spin like it likely will anyway, people will be saying “look what happened when Costello left” and he gets credibility back, giving him a better shot when the decision comes around. But he has no chance while Howard is still in, he wont challenge, it just wont happen.
If Andrew Bolt’s column is accurate, Howard didn’t say anything provocative in Athens. Considering the nature of the beast, Bolt’s description seems more plausible than any other account I’ve seen around so far. As to what the future holds, that’s another story. But it does seem a reprise of Harold Holt to have only one contender available for later, with no variety among contenders so that there’s a realistic choice between fair weather and foul weather PMs for when the weather itself can be discerned.
Another scenario which could be considered is that of the Howard Government overreaching itself in making use of its Senate majority to implement measures far to the right of what moderate public opinion will accept, Howard wearing the political opprobrium for the consequent backlash against the Coalition, and Costello taking advantage of this to promote himself as a socially liberal moderate who will be suited by the times.
Personally I think Howard is well aware of the risks associated with misuse of the Coalition’s Senate majority, and for this reason I think this scenario is unlikely, although it is not out of the question that Howard could be caused some grief by hard-right elements chafing at his refusal to indulge their ideological wet dreams (e.g. restricting abortion) in the Senate.
Of course the “rule of law” might return to Australia and have Howard, Downer and Hill tried for war crimes.
Costello for one has kept himself well separate from the Iraq issue. I’ve never heard him mention it even once! He’s still an accessory but as an ’emasculated’ deputy he’d be able to keep himself clear.
Although there are clear leadership tensions between Costello and Howard (and between Costello and Nelson/Abbott/Downer/Turnbull……) I figure the current leadership stoush is all show. There are two factors at play:
The budget is going to be nasty. The profligate spending of yesteryear will be wound back and with the economy looking a little shaky there won’t be too many sweetners. By making the leadership the issue, the Libs have kept the budget off the front page. Costello will deliver the budget and the press will ask, “What does this say about Costello’s leadership ambitions?” instead of picking over the economic/financial side of the budget. It’s a clever political tactic.
Alternatively, Howard has thrown the leadership issue into the public domain to test the public response. Leak a potential ‘policy’
and when the polls show the public don’t like it, scale it back. In this case Howard is testing the public mood about him sticking around. Rather than put a potentially unpopular Costello in the Lodge and lose an election, the Libs are gauging public opinion first.
The media need to stop taking the leadership issue at face value. The Libs are a tight ship and have a good machine keeping them in office. They don’t make stupid mistakes. Howard particularly doesn’t. I don’t think it’s as simple as Howard making a slip when in Athens. He picks his words carefully on all other occasions. There’s every reason to think he is being as careful this time.
Imagine if costello went to the bankbench.
would anyone apart from Andrew Norton notice.
As Dave ricardo says Costello has ticker problems
“Costello… a socially liberal moderate”??
I think not. He is a hard right bible basher who has already spread his legs up at Hillsong or to put it another way… “once a Baptist always a Baptist”.
And how good is he as a treasurer? I think today’s trade figures tell the story on that. Of course the Beeza is too good natured/useless to remind him of the truck he and JH had driven around the country before the ’96 election.
There is no hard evidence that Howard gave any undertaking to any in his party to retire this term. A vote for Howard being a vote for Costello was a figment of an Opposition’s imagination which was propagated by the MSM. With an aging population, the idea that Howard should retire at 65, is yesterday’s paradigm. Howard is a man for his times and has just reminded us all of that, if the Jim Bacons and Mark Lathams haven’t already impressed that on the electorate. That’s Costello’s problem too if he covets his bosses job right now. It has nothing to do with ticker but numbers for him, unless his boss gave him an undertaking a la Hawke and Keating.
I wish he was a hard right bible basher but the evidence is the other way.
He does go to St hillarys now so at least there he gains a better understanding of the bible quite remarkable in melbourne for anglicans.
The only verifiable fact from the last election was that a vote for Latham was a vote for Beazley. You know the bloke who would never stand for the leadership again.
Bob Carr backs Howard (to the hilt) but apparently he can be bought http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15186496-29277,00.html
I can’t help but wonder is Costello serious with most of his comments i.e. more liberal (left) of Howard or is he just playing populist politics.
Out of Nelson/Abbott/Downer/Turnbull I’d probably prefer Nelson.
I don’t think the back bench option would be a good one for Costello for a number of reasons.
Peacock, Beazley and Latham are hardly good role models for tactics. All three never got past being opposition leaders.
As for Keating, Hawke had promised the leadership but still reneged on this promise when the crunch came. As a result, Keating had a legitimate right to challenge Hawke and when that failed the first time he went to the backbench. The second challenge arose from the inability of Hawke to lead any serious response to Fightback. However, soon after Keating got to the top position and won the 1993 election he was a spent force, as is evident from Don Watson’s book.
I don’t think Costello lacks the ticker to challenge. Rather, he knows that he does not have the numbers and that a destructive battle for the leadership could end up in losing the next election. This will only change if Howard makes some serious blunders on the non-economic front. Costello should ask for an alternative high profile portfolio after this Budget, such as Foreign Affairs. (Howard could give Dolly some nice prestigious overseas posting.)
Also note that if Howard did not step down until 2010, Costello would still be younger than Howard was when he became PM.
Not Nelson! If you extrapolate the level of regulation he’s introducing into the universities to the entire economy… well, it doesn’t bear thinking about.
ab
Weren’t Nelson and Costello both members of the ALP at one time or another during their early days? Perhaps there will be a Labor PM sooner than everyone thinks! Mwahahaha…
Howard will probably put the question to the caucus in march 2006, do you still support me and want to keep on going? Or do you think it’s time? I don’t think he will voluntarily retire this term unless he loses significant support from the party. Exactly what he says “I will remain leader for so long as my party wants me”. So Costello either has to wait patiently, possibly until next term so early 2009 or he has to fight for it. But his petulent and ‘the world owes me one’ mentality must stop otherwise he will be considered a joke.
Has anyone done a count of the number of small ls in the party to BIG Ls? I am guessing that the odds are massively stacked in favour of conservative liberals as opposed to liberal conservatives.
Benno makes a distinction between “conservative liberals as opposed to liberal conservatives”
What’s the difference? I thought the odds were mainly stacked in favour of conservatives as opposed to liberals.
MU, Keating never had any legitimate right to insist Hawke give him the succession – it wasn’t Hawke’s to give. The whole point of this sort of system is to remind politicians that they are not in charge and have no sort of ownership, they are merely representatives.
PM Lawrence, one could equally argue that Hawke never had a right to be Prime Minister since he was only elected as the representative of a single electorate (conceded that he was the party leader at the time of the election). The fact is that the party which forms government decides on who is to be the leader and hence the Prime Minister. If Hawke and Keating made an agreement which resulted in the ALP putting Keating in the Lodge then the agreement is perfectly valid and Keating has every right to insist the agreement be carried out. That’s the way Australian democracy works.
Lets consider that Keating and Costello both served as Treasurer for long periods and in doing so contributed to the successes of their respective parties and the successes of Hawke and Howard. Both can legitimately claim that their contribution ought to be recognised and ought to be recognised by the party and leader they supported. They can legitimately claim that they should lead the party.
Sure, politicians are representatives. But they are also members of their parties and can legitimately claim ownership of their party’s successes and policies. Keating ‘owned’ a lot of what Hawke-Labor did. Costello ‘owns’ a lot of what the current government has achieved. And, frankly Treasurers and Deputy Leaders are ‘in charge’. They’re in charge of the parties and governments that they help run.
PM Lawrence, you need to distinguish between utopian democratic fantasy-lands and what happens in practice.
Yes the consensus is that Costello hasn’t got the ticker . He’s been a useful and faithful servant to Howard but Howard hasn’t got him destined for the top job. Part of his usefulness to Howard has been the “promise” that he will get the top job , but history doesn’t always conform to a pattern. You have to have ” the ticker” fpr the top job . As usual Howard wasn’t sorry for his comments about his intentions to lead the Liberal party into the next election he regretted them in his typically psychopathic manner .
I don’t undertand this notion that Costello does not have “the ticker” to be PM. I think he wants the job pretty badly, but cannot see a way of mounting a successful coup against Howard.
G o F, distinguishing between fantasy and fact was precisely what I was doing. I know very well how things really work, and I was pointing out how spurious that claim to “right” was in this particular instance since issues of right and wrong do not come into this particular area. I was pointing out that things are not like that.
None of that exonerates politicians in their other aspects of course, though it does suggest how they get so amoral, playing so much in that particular sandpit.
PML, the point I was making was not so much on Keating’s right or entitlement to challenge Hawke but the clear difference between the Hawke/Keating conflict and the Howard/Costello “tensions” (which are mainly a press beat up).
Whereas Hawke had agreed to step down (in front of an independent witness) at a certain time and then reneged on that agreement, no such agreement has been made between Howard and Costello. The fact that Hawke had made such a promise strengthened Keating’s claim and there was no serious third option as a successor.
Howard has consistently maintained that he will stay as long as the party wants him – and there is no reason for them getting off a winning horse. And Abbott is a serious alternative to Costello. So it would be a big risk for Costello to run a challenge that he knows he will lose.
Andrew Bolt has been running the interesting line that Costello has been deliberately undermining Abbott, including withholding the resources needful for commitments he made on behalf of the government – and so forcing him into being a liar when he had no reason to suppose he was making an unsound commitment.
buy ephedra diet pill
You can also take a look at some information about bontril diet pills