Has Costello assassinated Howard?
Posted by Christopher Sheil on Saturday, July 28, 2007
Watching Rod Cameron on Lateline last night brought home the watershed that we have just passed through in the history of the Howard government.
Effectively, it has come to pass that the personal credibility of the Prime Minister as an economic manager has been completely blown out of the water. Either that is true, or the Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, has no credibility as a witness.
|
The very person who the government must depend upon for public credibility as an economic manager has not only seized its entire reputation on this for himself. On his own word, he forged that very reputation despite John Howard, who couldn’t manage interest rates and always threatened ruin with profligate election spending.
In one foul biographical swoop, Peter Costello has robbed John Howard of his critique of Kevin Rudd on economic management, the only weapon left in the government’s armoury. Don’t take my word for it. Ask the Treasurer.
No doubt everyone on the government’s side of the political fence will mumble their way through this disaster, gesticulating about what punters think, growing weepy over the great political partnership, praying for rabbits, hats, and so on.
From where I sit, the only credible conservative political option in the wake of this disclosure is for Howard to retire for Costello. This would induce a honeymoon and tighten the race, which would, at the least, save some of the furniture.
Will Ratty go? How hard has the araldite set on the prime ministerial bottom? The sight of a besieged monarch fighting his way to the gallows would be ugly.
ShareThis
This entry was posted on Saturday, July 28th, 2007 at 12:55 PM and filed under Politics - national.
Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed.
Post a comment or leave a trackback.
Christopher, you ask: “Will Ratty go? How hard has the araldite set on the prime ministerial bottom? The sight of a besieged monarch fighting his way to the gallows would be very ugly.”
He’ll have to get the tap on the shoulder before he budges. When it comes to grasping power, Smeagol was an amateur compared to this bloke. Ironically, the poll that claims that $weets is more hated (yes hated, Michael Kroger) than he, may be one of the few trumps El Rodente has left.
Here’s a quick draft from Sir Henry on Harry’s blog recently.
“It was my intention to lead my party to the next election. But it would not be fair to my fellow Australians for me to continue unless I am 100 per cent,” he will say.
“I have consulted medical advice and I cannot say I have been given a clean bill of health. Therefore, I have decided to hand over to my successor, Mr Costello, so he can have a clean shot at the election and be elected by the Australian people to continue the Liberal Party’s program for Australia.
“I must put the Australian people first, I’ve always said that. This is what democracy is all about. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.”
Posted on 28-Jul-07 at 3:14 pm | Permalink[...] Club Troppo More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly. — Woody Allen « Has Costello assassinated Howard? [...]
Posted on 28-Jul-07 at 3:47 pm | PermalinkI’m not completely sure you fight your way to a gallows while araldited to a seat, but separately the metaphors were powerful.
I suspect Haneef has set fire to what was left of the Howard reputation. Howard’s been scaring the country witless with terrorists that go bump in the night for years, terrorists so terrible that only the Great and Powerful Hoz could protect us.
Suddenly the curtain’s gone and we’ve got a silly old man with a bullhorn muttering, yet again, that no-one ever tells him anything. That awful AFP, that awful DPP and that even more awful immigration minister keep doing stuff he doesn’t know about and certainly isn’t responsible for.
Posted on 28-Jul-07 at 4:16 pm | PermalinkChris, there is a third option for the Coalition (apart from Howard and Costello) - one that would be much more problematic for Labor. It is Malcolm Turnbull! I know many think he has under-performed in his current portfolio and is a little inexperienced but he he is a suave, articulate and charming person with plenty of potential Prime Ministerial talents, as well as being a ’small l’ liberal on some issues (certainly more so than Costello).
I think the odds on Turnbull are very low but if it happened, Rudd would have a very different fight on his hands.
Posted on 28-Jul-07 at 4:27 pm | PermalinkFred, I agree with you on Malcolm, who is in many ways an admirable Liberal candidate for Prime Minister. The bell has rung too early for him, however, for he is yet to master the requisite political skills. I would imagine Deputy Prime Minister or at least Treasurer, at best, with Nick Minchin to count the numbers.
Posted on 28-Jul-07 at 4:50 pm | PermalinkDoes the average punter care whether Mr Howard is or is not a good economic manager?
That is not a question in people’s minds. The issue that irks the customers is the palaver coming out of Costello’s mouth: `you’ve never had is so good, the economy is going great guns’… then a shower of ABS data follows.
Ahem. Punters look in their wallets incredulously. Nothing left in the kick at the end of the working week. When they hear $weetie do his routine, like a monkey on a stick, most sensible people would do their rag under the circumstances. And they have. Hence the polls have stayed constant in the shape of a palm with an upturned middle finger. Simple really. It’s $weetie’s raps on the economy that have buried the government’s chances at the coming election.
Posted on 28-Jul-07 at 5:08 pm | PermalinkGee they’re in a tough place. I think the time for their lament is over, for not changing or at least even blooding a new leader earlier, so it surely has to be down to dealing in current reality. Perhaps their biggest hurdle is not so much Howard or Costello, as such, but that to go to Costello would open up the worst possibility: that Costello would only be a caretaker leader until the others rise and the new speculation and tussles begin.
But Costello is there, and publicly anointed by Howard (howsoever politically expedient).
Turnbull on paper appears a powerful contender, but as cs says, he’s politically green - which may suit the public? but not the party room - and yet he’s by no means a proven contender publicly. He may, in fact, embody much of what the public have grown to dislike about the Howard Government, being individualistic, though granted minus the continual ploymaking.
Because Howard is so embedded in the current system, and because thre is no logical successor politically, it’s not a “someone” who perhaps must take control of their dilemma, but a “something”. Would this point to a Howard tap, and a leadership ballot, so as to flush the whole thing out into the public and resolve it, hoping to cleanse the system? That’s two weeks of complete instability, but from that the positives may be able to be restated and the game off on a new tack?
My guess is that’s the only option for them - but that’s backroom power that has to step up, and that’s the unknown.
Alternatively, that backroom power stays with Howard, knowing it’s not good but a scrape-through situation on the back of the campaign proper and it’s throw-up unknowns (which conceivably would be worse for the new boy Rudd) and, that dastardly negative advertising yet to come against Rudd. The party room knows that’s coming, and it’s a whole new player to be admitted to this scenario.
That event, however, is no given positive for the Libs. If they keep Howard, and run the ads, and Rudd doesn’t break (but in fact appears stronger for not so), the reality might set in that the public just don’t want Howard, in which case they’re gone. In that scenario, the public will know the leadership fight is on anyway, and that surely is not a votewinner, and enough to lose an election. Again, it’s not just the leader the public will want to know - but the treasurer, cutting further into the “economic” credibility losses already there.
It’s a very gutsy thing to do, to bring that leadership wrangle forward, and it’s a gamble. Is it a further consideration is that under a new leader, and new treasurer, the need for the election to happen quickly can be extended somewhat?
Costello bringing those comments out has also diminished his natural right to the throne - it’s a poor reflection on him, so who knows where they go from here. Had Costello been judicious in his comments, he might have found himself obtaining a bit of warmth from the electorate for his forebearance, providing stronger reason to go the spill.
And another player yet to step in would be Rudd’s new policy announcements - these may be very attractive and invoke more of that freshness, making a still-there Howard very old indeed. Added to this, of course, are the Labor negative ads, and surely they’ve learned their lesson from last time, when the ads were timid and lame.
It’s a tough call. Had Costello not done the ugly public comment thing, I’d be backing a change to happen. Now, I’m not so sure. It could be that those comments will be forgotten, or could in fact be used to good effect, should he get a change give him the wheel. And on top of this is APEC. It could serve to solidify anti-Bush sentiment onto Howard, and it could give Howard the chance to lay out a swallowable vision as to “lead the world on Climate Change” - a significant rabbit if it’s there. Similarly, it could serve to embed and then promote a new leader smack into strong public regard and magnetise Australian votes.
Posted on 28-Jul-07 at 5:38 pm | PermalinkHad Costello not done the ugly public comment thing, I’d be backing a change to happen. Now, I’m not so sure. It could be that those comments will be forgotten, or could in fact be used to good effect, should he get a change give him the wheel.
Can’t see this, Robert. Howard’s economic management credibility has been blown away by the very source of the Howard government’s economic credibility, and everyone in politics knows it, no matter how much government members and supporters will mumble in public. Unless you can imagine him countering Rudd on economic management now, which I think impossible, for mine, Howard will have to step aside, or find some way to positively repudiate Costello’s claims.
Posted on 28-Jul-07 at 6:23 pm | PermalinkTaking your line further, Costello’s comments could morph into a positive for him to take the wheel. It could be (regarded), for instance, merely the first thrust. The go would be to let them bed themselves in, that is: the glossy stuff of Costello’s petulance and pain dies off, and the reality that, yes, Howard is profligate sets in. It is very good timing for this, coming on the back of a no-win from the budget, and with time still to change, including the APEC arrival.
Alternately, the counter is that Rudd doesn’t have any economic credentials at all. Nor Swan. How much power is in this, yet to realise in votes?
You could sway me on this. In the above two-position bout the tv ads will do a lot of the talking. Labor has been given very serious content for those ads. If Howard has lost ears, and Rudd hasn’t, and Swan beats Costello in the personality stakes even slightly, Labor’s spoken voice prevails as well.
Further, the question of a proven negative against an unproven positive would play into Labor’s hands. But the Libs are much better at the negatives, and it’s no given that they will make the personal attack as crude as before.
Some further consideration of how those comments will resolve in the next week is required, perhaps.
Posted on 28-Jul-07 at 6:41 pm | PermalinkChris,
Your theses that Howard’s economic credibility, which is based on over 10 years of relative economic prosperity, has been destroyed by Costello’s commentary on a position held by Howard 30 or so years ago, confirms for me what others have been saying for some time: you are delusional. And seriously out of touch with the electorate. Do you even look cursorily at the polling figures re: economic management? Please do your homework before you publicly (and embarrassingly) subject others to your unhinged political fantasies.
Howard to step aside on the basis of economic management issues? Good grief.
BBB
Posted on 28-Jul-07 at 6:50 pm | PermalinkSuit yourself, Bingo.
Posted on 28-Jul-07 at 6:56 pm | PermalinkCome on, Chris. Do you really believe what you wrote: that this is a disaster for Howard on economic management grounds? Do you really think the punters care about Costello’s assessment of Howard circa 1980?
BBB
Posted on 28-Jul-07 at 6:59 pm | PermalinkBingo, I quote my post:
No doubt everyone on the government’s side of the political fence will mumble their way through this disaster, gesticulating about what punters think…
Can you get in front of the curve?
Posted on 28-Jul-07 at 7:02 pm | PermalinkThanks for highlighting that part of your post, Chris. It’s amusing that you pre-empt the correct approach, but refuse to actually adopt it. Christ know why not. If Rudd is smart he will not spend any time banging on about this; it’s just taking the fight back on to Howard’s turf. Rudd will get much more mileage out of his cost-of-living diversions, which are proving to be incredibly effective.
Cheers
Posted on 28-Jul-07 at 7:09 pm | PermalinkBBB
I bow to you Bingo, Distinguished Professor of Punterology and Telling Kevin Rudd What To Do If He Is Smart. We have been honoured by your visit.
Posted on 28-Jul-07 at 7:13 pm | PermalinkCostello would have to have the numbers to mount a challenge and I doubt that at this point in the proceedings he has. Howard has a well known profile as being as fit as a flea so standing down now, on health grounds seems fairly improbable.
I think given the ‘book’ revelations, it would be an ignominy too great to bear for Howard to end his inglorious rein by handing over to someone he is apparently, personally contemptuous of. I believe that Howard is the only real driving force behind the coalitions’ desire to win this election, he is clearly the one with the un-ending ambition, although Malcolm Turnbull is clearly keen too. His party room colleagues however are undoubtedly beleagured (fully) by an eleven year grind of being mean and tricky and I think that they are by and large probably looking forward to a few years nodding off on the benches in opposition. Howard will lose and then retire. Or he will win and remain PM for three more years, in which time old-timers’ will possibly have taken hold. (more fully)
I think Sir Henry is right about the average punter not being too concerned about Howard’s ability as economic manager. Indeed I think these recent eruptions have gone way over the heads of the average punter, who is at best incredulous about the Haneef affair, because it means “all the other real terrorists are getting away”.
Posted on 28-Jul-07 at 7:40 pm | PermalinkI agree that the biography revelations mean nothing to the tabloid audience - until the ALP deploys them just before the election in negative advertising.
Which must be worrying the Liberal strategists.
But I suspect the ALP will decide that all this ammunition just creates too much smoke on the battlefield. And will stay on message with a kind of empty wallet image - Howard says the economy is grouse but look in your wallet.. followed by the age mantra. As he comes under pressure he will look more and more like Mr Magoo, and these are the images and lins which could be swept into the advertising.
The age thing will not be deployed until near the end, when it will be a serious suckerpunch.
Posted on 28-Jul-07 at 8:39 pm | PermalinkDavid raises nuanced points there with the ads. Not wishing to paraphrase, but expanding on some ideas raised: Firstly, WorkChoices/earning power (itself nuanced) diminished. Secondly, look at your empty wallet. Thirdly, Treasurer has lost faith in Prime Minister/Prime Minister is profligate.
“Make ‘em laugh or cry but don’t make ‘em think” comes to mind. The question of individual earning power diminished requires the response from the Libs to place that arguement within the ‘greater’ picture: a job is better than not, and we’ve placed Australia in that position, for you, for the future. The immediate loss of earning power carries emotional punch, the other is a national narrative that gets lost in words (the Libs must rue Howard’s dumbing down of the national debate now). Also, WorkChoices has been brilliant as an ad campaign, but will face the full force of negative ads re unions against it, and will suffer at the power of equally abominable images and emotive ideas tendered.
The empty wallet is a powerful emotive: poorly offset, again, by words lost in the mash, but it also has to face the question: what would Rudd do which is better? Rudd’s response gets lost in words, too. I agree with David on the power of that take, yet I wonder also about how Rudd would answer the call on his economic credentials to prove his case would be otherwise: that he would fill the wallet. Labor may not want to go there. Productivity is gone, and education is words, lost.
Not yet fully formed of thoughts on this, it would appear that it is more potent to go the third: the Treasurer has lost faith in the PM, as a cut through, simple stake to the heart.
On top of this is a matter of weight. How often and of which ad does Labor run? Too much is too much, their power lost. The safe solution is the third: simple, doesn’t need the frequency, and goes unanswered as far as we can establish here.
It therefore provides a safer Labor negative, doesn’t reflect on Labor poorly, and is perilously potent.
The Libs, too, have to consider weight when advertising negatively. But their case is very strong, and simple, too: what credentials does Rudd Labor have to run the economy? It also goes unanswered.
I guess when and how the debate(s) happens will have a bearing on this - Howard has had his way on these before, somehow I think Rudd could with current public poll backing set up a different debate scenario this time around and claim much of the campaign then. However, Labor as with the Libs may not want this. Just as much as Howard will be forced to answer questions - and on this, I imagine Howard would prove much more dangerous than he has before in debates, holding a greater focus, greater need than before, and that he has to take Rudd on unlike Latham and Beazer and would be given points for doing so, and that he can restate his all-aussie bloke image as stable and ‘the future is secure as step by step with me’ - Rudd also will be forced to answer questions, and he may not have persuasive answers other than “i can do it”.
In all of this, the thing which is causing immediate threat and therefore attendance are the Costello comments. Everything else has time to be assessed and settled: the Costello stake to the heart doesn’t. I think there is more to go yet, with them.
Posted on 28-Jul-07 at 9:35 pm | PermalinkPunterology rules!
The basics are this. Myth or not, the strongest point by all agreement that John Howard has hitherto had over Kevin Rudd’s claim to being a credible prime ministerial applicant is that he is a superior economic manager. The most credible source on this earth going to Howard’s credentials as an economic manager has now blown this point to smithereens. If Kevin Rudd had no credentials as an economic manager, as of now, he would still be as qualified on these grounds alone as John Howard to be prime minister.
Kevin is actually pretty literate on economics, but that’s beside the point. The argument over which candidate is the superior economic manager is, as of now, one upon which Howard personally can no longer stand, - unless he impugns the credibility of his Treasurer, upon which he relies for his government’s wider credibility as an economic manager. The trap is deadly.
There is, as Robert has pointed out, a residual argument about Wayne Swan; which goes something like this: “I, John Howard, might very well be a hopeless economic manager. In fact, I completely stuffed it when I was Treasurer. I have nearly stuffed it quite a few times as Prime Minister. Shucks, to be frank, I wouldn’t know if my arse was on fire when it comes to economic management. Hyuck, hyuck. But I should be re-elected because I have a better bitter and twisted underling who does all that pointy-headed shit-boring stuff for me than Kevin Rudd has doing it for him”.
Great argument. A treat with the punters.
Posted on 28-Jul-07 at 10:01 pm | PermalinkPunterology over grammar and spelling any day..
Two things not yet covered fully. Firstly, Howard has had a lot of “luck”, born of his commitment and dedication and work effort, and loss of focus and commitment and purpose in his opponents. Howard’s luck has deserted him; I’ll make the point that these Costello comments have rescued Rudd: that Rudd has been lucky with them. Rudd has reframed the economy to bring it back down to home, yet that at this stage appears to have been an expedient political convenience - he may change that, with consumable erudition on policy commitment later, however. Still, for now, what could have been eaten up by commentary has been changed for him to be very much in his favour. He can take credit for this luck for his own commitment and effort, and his opponent’s failings. But that timing for those Costello uppercuts was pretty.
Secondly, the issue of whether Howard will go or not has not been conclusively punterologised. What’s happening in the back room of the Libs? Has Sinodinas phoned in to Howard yet? Is there more to what Costello said than gloss, to be working away within Liberal HQ?
Is Howard waiting, daily now, for that gloss to die down, for the reality to hit home: for him to choose a moment when he appears to have taken the bullet like a man and, ANNOUNCING, accepts reams of footage and accolade to bid farewell.
Bracksy, by the way, changes everything. That provides, available in a short time, media momentum to set up camera on board ship for the last very happy hoorah, heaping pictures to music as it sails off into the sunset taking you those few days with them.
Bit chilly, back home in the Libs, after that. But that wouldn’t bother Jack.
Posted on 28-Jul-07 at 10:24 pm | Permalink