Maurice Newman nails the problem of Malcolm Turnbull AND it is a problem. He’s just a scandal or a heart attack away from opposition.
“…Since last September and with each passing day, the parliamentary Liberal Party’s folly in dismissing its sitting prime minister is on display.
That 54 insiders voted for a leader who, apart from his own seat, had never won a popular election was always naive and risky. It reveals how blind ambition and an amateurish reading of opinion polls can ignore first-hand experience and memories of years in opposition.
It is likely the election outcome is a tangible validation of the gap between the party’s understanding of the electorate and what most voters really think. Had Malcolm Turnbull’s predecessor not built such a substantial buffer, his party would now be in opposition. And for those who argue Tony Abbott would have fared worse, we know that he was an effective, indefatigable campaigner and that many conservative voters abandoned the party emotionally and financially precisely because he was dumped.
Successful leaders have empathy and a common touch. They are appropriately humble and are willing to bury the hatchet. They manage expectations and inspire trust. Good leaders can handle pressure and are even-tempered.
Above all, they are deliberate and their judgment is invariably sound. They know when to hold and when to fold.
Turnbull’s experience in business appears not to have prepared him for the sheer scale and complexity of politics, particularly government. He seems to be erratic, egocentric and divisive.
The treachery and misjudgment behind the leadership coup, compounded by the disastrous election outcome, have left the party wounded, distrustful and culturally divided. Its direction remains confused and ad hoc. Its leader’s personality and life experience ill equip him for the massive task at hand. Something will have to give…” Erratic, egocentric, divisive: Turnbull not suited to leadership
FULL COLUMN BELOW
“…Since last September and with each passing day, the parliamentary Liberal Party’s folly in dismissing its sitting prime minister is on display.
That 54 insiders voted for a leader who, apart from his own seat, had never won a popular election was always naive and risky. It reveals how blind ambition and an amateurish reading of opinion polls can ignore first-hand experience and memories of years in opposition.
It is likely the election outcome is a tangible validation of the gap between the party’s understanding of the electorate and what most voters really think. Had Malcolm Turnbull’s predecessor not built such a substantial buffer, his party would now be in opposition. And for those who argue Tony Abbott would have fared worse, we know that he was an effective, indefatigable campaigner and that many conservative voters abandoned the party emotionally and financially precisely because he was dumped.
While “would have fared worse” is just speculation, what lingers are doubts about this Prime Minister’s temperamental suitability for leadership. Although during his business career he accumulated significant wealth, it was not from building large, complex organisations but more from high-profile transactions and investments. Much admired for his intelligence, energy and versatility, he also gained a reputation for being aloof, perfidious, impetuous and at times prone to temper tantrums: qualities not normally associated with leadership.
Successful leaders have empathy and a common touch. They are appropriately humble and are willing to bury the hatchet. They manage expectations and inspire trust. Good leaders can handle pressure and are even-tempered.
Above all, they are deliberate and their judgment is invariably sound. They know when to hold and when to fold.
Turnbull’s experience in business appears not to have prepared him for the sheer scale and complexity of politics, particularly government. He seems to be erratic, egocentric and divisive. His supersized ministry suggests people-management issues. His vacillation over Kevin Rudd’s UN candidacy is symptomatic of a chairman not in command of his cabinet. When careful reflection is needed, he finds a television program all that is required to immediately order a royal commission into juvenile detention in the Northern Territory.
Personal qualities aside, there is the further complication that this Prime Minister is a “progressive” liberal in a party that traditionally has been centre-Right, when the country desperately needs a fundamental change in philosophical direction.
His beliefs on climate change are similar to Labor’s, with billions of dollars being promised to the cause. His uncompromising line on taxing “wealthy” superannuants, largely supported by Labor, does not align with conservative values of independence in retirement. He champions old-fashioned Labor industry assistance policies, by agreeing to build overpriced submarines in Adelaide using taxpayer money to featherbed inefficient industries and to entrench South Australia as a mendicant state. For reinforcement, the Prime Minister has surrounded himself with career politicians, many of whom show little appetite for smaller government and demonstrate reluctance to strongly prosecute any case to constituents that advocates spending cuts.
The treachery and misjudgment behind the leadership coup, compounded by the disastrous election outcome, have left the party wounded, distrustful and culturally divided. Its direction remains confused and ad hoc. Its leader’s personality and life experience ill equip him for the massive task at hand. Something will have to give.
If the Liberals were not in government and Turnbull not the Prime Minister, this would be a political curiosity rather than a serious threat to the nation. But, in all the circumstances, the decision to call a double-dissolution election was flawed and has resulted in a parliament where governing is now problematic. With the seat of Herbert now Labor and with the need to provide a Speaker, the government may lose its voting majority. So much for the reinstatement of the building industry watchdog, the stated reason for the double dissolution.
Having gone to the polls with slogans promising “jobs and growth”, “a national economic plan” and “continuity and change” ringing in their ears, Australians are entitled to think budget repair is more or less a formality and jobs and growth all but assured.
But although we enjoy the best growth rate among the G20 advanced economies, balanced budget deadlines continue to be pushed back. Not only is government debt growing but Australian households are now the world’s most indebted. It is easy to play down the predicament with upbeat doorstops and saying how it has never been more exciting to be an Australian. But this sends mixed messages when we need a common purpose and immediate spending restraint.
It is sobering to realise we cannot grow in isolation and that, in the real world, growth is slowing fast. The latest US statistics show an economy at stall speed. Europe’s second quarter gross domestic product growth has fallen from 0.6 per cent to 0.3 per cent while France is down from 0.7 per cent to zero. Our Asian trading partners are all under pressure and desperately are trying to turn around their economies. But our political class is unaware, deluded or being wilfully misleading.
Whatever it is, Australia is unprepared for a global economic recession, something not lost on the credit rating agencies. Two of the three have us on negative watch.
Politicians baulk at any financial restraint unless it is “fair”, painless and targeted at the rich. This is preposterous. Tinkering is no longer an option. Nothing short of urgent, serious, structural reform will save our children’s future. What is missing is political leadership and political will.
When the 54 members of the parliamentary Liberal Party decided to dump Abbott in favour of Turnbull, they let a genie out of the bottle that won’t go back…”