Fight Night- Coalition Vs. Coalition
May 21st 2008 04:41
For a brief moment last week it looked as though things were on the up for the Opposition. Yet the devisiveness and lack of quality vision that has plagued the party post election has shown its ugly head once again.
Brendan Nelson's budget reply didn't shock the flock with great policy alternative or visionary brilliance, yet it did provide an adequate mix of liberal economic principles with a dash of populism. The proposal to cut fuel excise isn't an economically responsible policy, but given Nelson's standing in the polls it is not suprising he would propose such a measure.
However lacking in the economic how-to of the Howard years, the reply appeased the commentariat and was met cooly by the voting public. So for Nelson things looked okay for now. Except step in Malcolm Turnbull.
The leaked email has highlighted the exact problem the party faces federally and in the states, that being a lack of clear vision about what it stands for. As a policy measure, Turnbull was right to oppose the cut to fuel excise. It isn't a responsible economic move, pumping an extra $2 Billion into the markets. Hence from a classic liberal stand point it appears the opposition treasurer has his head switched on here.
Why would he agree with the policy? It is a populist grab for voters that can only make his leadership rival look slightly more appealing, and it is a basic betrayal of core liberal economic management in times of stress in the financial market.
What more could the opposition need to get back on the front foot? Labor has ignored 1.8 Million of the population by not giving anything to the pensioners, it has unfairly toyed with an us and them policy dividing Australians from the $150,000 wealthy to the lower income earners. How could it be fair that a family on such an income might be spending more than half of it on a mortgage and quite possibly be caring for a growing family and not recieve welfare benefits same as everybody else?
What about the risk that One Million people could opt out of private health insurance given the government rising the levy and thus making it more expensive? It seems that the days of economic reward and incentive for hard work are slowly dying in the days of this new labor 'golden age'.
The opposition aren't harvesting the fields of political crop that is being thrown at them. They have been largely silent on these issues, distracting the media and the voters with their own internal problems before addressing the many Australians who are going to be worse off under Labor's budget.
The Liberals need some stability if they are any chance of winning back the lost voters of November. They need it fast. As long as Turnbull and Nelson are tooing and throwing, acting in their own abitious interests rather than the parties; the focus will be on who's going to lead the party rather than what the party will stand for.
I will make a prediction now. Nelson will not remain as leader until 2010. Yet it is likely he will last out the year given no-one would want to leap into the leadership of a party so disenchanted and uninspiring at the minute.
Whether Turnbull is the right man for the top job is a tough one. It is impressive that he was able to put economic responsibility before a populist grab for votes by opposing the cut to fuel excise, however stupid it was to put his protest in writing. He does possess a suave factor that may endear him to the people more than Dr. Nelson, who seems to lack the required charisma and likeability so needed in today's world of politiics.
Time will tell. Because no doubt Turnbull will get his chance. The sooner he does, hopefully all the speculation and in fighting will stop and the party can get on with creating an alternate vision for Australia's future that looks highly uncertain under a Rudd government that has proven to be good on spin but lacking in substance.
Brendan Nelson's budget reply didn't shock the flock with great policy alternative or visionary brilliance, yet it did provide an adequate mix of liberal economic principles with a dash of populism. The proposal to cut fuel excise isn't an economically responsible policy, but given Nelson's standing in the polls it is not suprising he would propose such a measure.
However lacking in the economic how-to of the Howard years, the reply appeased the commentariat and was met cooly by the voting public. So for Nelson things looked okay for now. Except step in Malcolm Turnbull.
The leaked email has highlighted the exact problem the party faces federally and in the states, that being a lack of clear vision about what it stands for. As a policy measure, Turnbull was right to oppose the cut to fuel excise. It isn't a responsible economic move, pumping an extra $2 Billion into the markets. Hence from a classic liberal stand point it appears the opposition treasurer has his head switched on here.
Why would he agree with the policy? It is a populist grab for voters that can only make his leadership rival look slightly more appealing, and it is a basic betrayal of core liberal economic management in times of stress in the financial market.
What more could the opposition need to get back on the front foot? Labor has ignored 1.8 Million of the population by not giving anything to the pensioners, it has unfairly toyed with an us and them policy dividing Australians from the $150,000 wealthy to the lower income earners. How could it be fair that a family on such an income might be spending more than half of it on a mortgage and quite possibly be caring for a growing family and not recieve welfare benefits same as everybody else?
What about the risk that One Million people could opt out of private health insurance given the government rising the levy and thus making it more expensive? It seems that the days of economic reward and incentive for hard work are slowly dying in the days of this new labor 'golden age'.
The opposition aren't harvesting the fields of political crop that is being thrown at them. They have been largely silent on these issues, distracting the media and the voters with their own internal problems before addressing the many Australians who are going to be worse off under Labor's budget.
The Liberals need some stability if they are any chance of winning back the lost voters of November. They need it fast. As long as Turnbull and Nelson are tooing and throwing, acting in their own abitious interests rather than the parties; the focus will be on who's going to lead the party rather than what the party will stand for.
I will make a prediction now. Nelson will not remain as leader until 2010. Yet it is likely he will last out the year given no-one would want to leap into the leadership of a party so disenchanted and uninspiring at the minute.
Whether Turnbull is the right man for the top job is a tough one. It is impressive that he was able to put economic responsibility before a populist grab for votes by opposing the cut to fuel excise, however stupid it was to put his protest in writing. He does possess a suave factor that may endear him to the people more than Dr. Nelson, who seems to lack the required charisma and likeability so needed in today's world of politiics.
Time will tell. Because no doubt Turnbull will get his chance. The sooner he does, hopefully all the speculation and in fighting will stop and the party can get on with creating an alternate vision for Australia's future that looks highly uncertain under a Rudd government that has proven to be good on spin but lacking in substance.
| 48 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Comments (1)
Add Comments
Read More