Howard should have gone
It looks like Howard is going to stick around for the federal election. Dennis Shanahan gives the full sorry story. The short version is that Howard asked Downer to check the opinions of senior Liberals. Many thought that it would be best to shift to Costello. Downer reported this to Howard, but Howard decided not to walk and none of the Liberals wanted to push him. So he stays.
Some conservatives in the media, such as Andrew Bolt and Janet Albrechtsen, have read the situation correctly and want to see Howard step down for Costello. Though it’s not clear that Costello really wants to take the leadership now. Kim Beazley predicted that Costello would be Prime Minister for 2 months.
The best move for the Liberals would have been to change leaders a month or two ago, let Costello go into APEC and 2 sitting weeks in parliament as the Prime Minister, and build some credibility. A leadership change will let the Liberals delay the election to late November or ealy December without looking desperate.
It’s true that Costello doesn’t get a better mention in the polls, but all leaders get a honeymoon period. Even Downer did during his months as Liberal leader. Rudd has seen his fortunes improve massively since taking on the leadership. Hawke rode into the Prime Ministership while on his honeymoon period, having taken the leadership a month before the election. Keating was able to build a leadership profile and more supporters after he took over from Hawke — and then won the unwinable election. The same boost would happen with Costello.
The problem with Howard is he looks like yesterdays leader. I think he looks noticably older now, hung up on the past and almost certainly not staying until the 2010 election. The Rudd-Howard debate seems like it’s almost over. The only way to re-open the contest is by changing the contest. Costello would still be the underdog, but at least he would be in the race.
For the power of a leadership change, just look at the amazing success currently enjoyed by Gordon Brown in the UK. His position is identical to Costello’s having been involved in all aspects of government for the past ten years. Yet somehow he has been able to present himself as a fresh face.
Comment by pommygranate | September 12, 2007
Yes, but he has had time to do that- anyone taking over now will only have a short time to do anything! If Costello had taken over last year, then we might now have a favourable impression of him- especially if he withdrew troops from Iraq. If the Liberals lose, then Costello might be elected leader, and do them some good.
Of course, if Howard DOES win the election, just give him the title deeds to the lodge and Kirrabilly House- Howard would be here to stay forever!
Comment by nicholas gray | September 12, 2007
Morris Iemma is another example. Although if Howard is going to go it really must be this week. This idea of transition has suddenly got legs and it will be hard to put it back in the box. Events are overtaking Howard and staying on is suddenly going to look like being an ego driven spoiler. A change of leader will also let the Liberals dump unpopular positions and cast them as having belonged to the old guy. I’m guessing we will see Peter Costello in the top job shortly, followed by an announcement softening some aspects of IR reform and laying down a strategy for dealing with CO2. Then I’m hoping (but less certain) that we see a round of income tax cut announcements going into the election (with Turnbull as treasurer). And I’m sure that the media will remind us that Peter Costello was one of the few Liberals that marched on Sorry day and that he is instictively nicer to Aborigines. Changing the leader changes the story. But damn they are going to be cutting it very fine if they intend on winning.
They say a week in politics is a long time. Howard blinked and old dogs should not blink when they are running lame.
Comment by Terje (say tay-a) | September 12, 2007
Personally I can’t stand Costello or his brother.
But I also don’t think he’d make a popular PM.
I tend to believe the polls on the question of Howard vs Costello.
Does the honeymooner effect always work? I think it could go the other way, that the Liberals could get even less popular. (If only Labour would get less popular at the same time).
Is Gordon Brown actually popular? What is wrong with people? The same guy who had those policy U-turns on pension funds and the guy that lost England 4.8 billion dollars selling off gold at the bottom of the market? From the little I’ve seen of him, he also seems to have no charisma.
If Costello was the only option, then I don’t think it was a viable one. And it’s now too late for a leadership change. It would look desperate.
Comment by Tim R | September 12, 2007
I would definitely prefer to see Turnball as treasurer.
Comment by Tim R | September 12, 2007
Nicholas, I don’t see how Australian troops in Iraq is as polarising as the decision to go to war in the first place or the deployment of 20+ US army divisons plus marines, air force and navy personnel.
It just doesn’t angry up my blood. A lack of cruise missile capability from air and sea platforms does however. As does the decision not to buy the British Merlin for ASW, etc…
Comment by Mark Hill | September 12, 2007
True enough, Mark, but in Britain it was polarising, and this could be where Mr the Left Honourable Brown got his popularity.
Tim R., Howard aint going, and nobody actually seems to want the job. Costello is not taking Howard on, so Howard will be with us until the election. I don’t know if this is good or bad for the libs. We may yet be calling Howard “Lazarus with a quadruple bypass!”.
Comment by nicholas gray | September 12, 2007
If Howard quit last year, or even early this year, it might have worked out for Costello - but changing leaders now would be an absolute disaster for the Libs (more so than if Howard remains).
Bolt and friends have done a great disservice to the Libs with their late campaigning for a leadership change… it’s much too late, but the dithering on the issue will be the final nail. I’d previously thought Howard (and the Libs) would make a comeback, but after these events…
Some time in opposition might do the Libs some good in the long term… but I’ll be sorry to see workchoices go, and will have a hard time listening to more of Gillard’s voice *shudder*
Comment by Fleeced | September 12, 2007
I’m looking forward to John Hunt the Coward losing the election and his own seat. It will be a fitting end to the authoritarian, tax-eating little turd. Workchoices is the only thing I’ll miss and it’s a pretty mixed bag anyway.
Comment by DavidLeyonhjelm | September 12, 2007
Hearing Swan on TV, I fear he’d make an extremely incompetent treasurer. That man has some funny ideas on taxation that even a non-economics person like me recognises as crazy.
Comment by Fleeced | September 12, 2007
What is actually making me resent the Coalition is that their usual vote buying campaign is so utterly blatant this time around.
What has Howard been doing to protect me from the world and myself? He has been cracking down on:
Drugs
Divorce courts
Internet porn
Child abuse in remote Aboriginal communities
The possibility of lower taxes
His failure to sell IR reform
Depression amongst farmers
Satirical, Government-funded comedians
Terrorists the AFP is too incompetent to prosecute or non terrorists they were pressured into investigating (if the latter is true, sorry guys!).
Men who beat up on women and are about two decades behind of “appropriate” social attutudes.
Howard has felt that advertising most of this will make him more electable.
Who feels safer and more prosperous?
Comment by Mark Hill | September 12, 2007
Do go on Fleece. Did he say “current account deficit” “tax cuts lead to inflation” or some other words that economists should only mutter with utmost care? (Like paradigm, for one).
Comment by Mark Hill | September 12, 2007
Costello and Howard have been given a very good write up on the Adam Smith Institute blog last week. Their record is good compared to other OECD governments.
Re an ALP victory - i think this could be potentially very damaging for the ALP in the long run. The world’s financial system is in turmoil and it is clear that the golden days of a strong US economy, a credit boom and the Chinese exporting deflation are now long gone. If the world heads into recession over the next few years, Australia will surely follow. The ruling party (ALP) will inevitably carry the can through no fault of their own.
After ten years of economic growth, the electorate may come to associate Labor with a weak economy.
The next three years will be a good time not to be in power.
Comment by pommygranate | September 12, 2007
I can’t find the exact interview, but he basically implied that if we give away the surplus in the “good times” through tax cuts, that you’d have to raise them again later.
Comment by Fleeced | September 12, 2007
The ultimate Ricardian.
Comment by Mark Hill | September 12, 2007
Pommygranate- you could do us all a favour if you could convince the ALP to lose the next election! Now how would you go about doing that?
Comment by nicholas gray | September 12, 2007
So who’s predicting a Liberal win?
Comment by Tim R | September 12, 2007
The best I’m hoping for is a hung parliament- I’ll supply the rope!
Comment by nicholas gray | September 12, 2007
Nicholas
I’ll present the case to them both that a world-wide recession is a near certainty and that it won’t look good for either of them. I will then graciously make an offer for the LDP to step in to handle things in the meanwhile.
Comment by pommygranate | September 12, 2007
The Greens’ campaign of terror has begun with attacks on my now marginal seat of Macquarie. This morning there were placards up all over my local railway station, as well as two Greens members handing out some kind of newspaper. I let them know how I felt about them. The reply I received from a middle aged man who was handing out these newspapers was “We have to do something, and if we don’t vote Greens, we are all going to die.”.
Luckily, I had to get my train (seeing as I actually HAVE a job).
Comment by Dan | September 12, 2007
The above was meant for discussion. Oops.
Comment by Dan | September 12, 2007
Pommygranate- I hope your first LDP order of business will be to simplify the tax system, and reduce the number of taxes. Then you could cut back on red tape of all kinds. And you could give up some Federal powers to the shires and counties, bypassing the states.
In your SECOND week in power, you could REALLY get down to business!!!
Comment by nicholas gray | September 13, 2007
Howard has now said that he will more than likely step down “well into his term” if he wins the next election, naming Costello as his “logical successor”.
Has this changed or effected the way anyone will be voting?
Comment by Dan | September 13, 2007
I have always been more likely to vote Liberal over Labor, any day, any year, and I am not too swayed by personalities- I even voted liberal when Fraser was the leader! I think I will put some worthy small parties first, then Lib, then Lab, this time around. AND LDP to rule the Senate, of course!
Comment by nicholas gray | September 14, 2007
Hasn’t changed the way I’ll vote (LDP), nor has it changed the major party I’ll likely preference (Lib). However, unlike other issues that have arisen, I think this will sway other people’s votes - especially in Howard’s own electorate (he should probably come out and promise not to cause a by-election… even if poeple don’t believe it, it will neutralise ALP campaigning on the subject)
A week is a long time in politics though, and there’s many more weeks to go before the election.
Comment by Fleeced | September 14, 2007
nah - costello is unelectable…
they should have put up turnbull…
Comment by c8to | September 14, 2007
And Lazarus rises again! apparently last week’s poll was an aberration- the numbers are back to the normal dismal results. They must have been interviewing a distorted sample, or something.
Comment by nicholas gray | September 18, 2007