How will the Howard-Costello stoush affect policy?
Among all the ongoing hoo-ha about non-challenges, smooth transitions and declaring of intentions, there’s been very little focus given to how this stoush might affect the outcomes of the government’s policy and political agenda.
It seems to have been forgotten, but less than three weeks ago John Howard was seen to be in genuine danger from brewing backbench discontent, especially over new anti-refugee laws and the gagging of Parliamentary debate on stem cell research.
I wrote then that “not only does John Howard have some backbenchers revolting against the new anti-refugee law, he has other backbenchers revolting against those who are revolting.”
Now that some serious frontbench revolt has blown all that off the front pages (and out of the newspapers all together), have the internal political dynamics changed?
Given that Peter Costello has kept his job, despite causing major political grief for the Liberal Party and calling the Prime Minister a dishonest person who doesn’t keep his word, it would seem rather absurd for people to continue heaping pressure on Liberal backbenchers like Senator Judith Troeth not to oppose the anti-refugee legislation because the disunity would hurt the government.
It is interesting to see Judi Moylan, one of the most high-profile backbench ‘dissidents’ on refugee and welfare laws, is being quoted as saying (in effect) that Mr Howard should stay in the job.
Maybe the Prime Minister’s refusal to hand over to Costello might prompt one of the Costello supporting Senators to oppose the government’s attempt to take over all Senate Committees? OK, that one’s probably just wishful thinking on my part, but as Mr Costello has shown, it’s amazing what a good dose of high dudgeon will do in making someone suddenly feel that they have to stand firm on what they believe in – especially if in so doing it really gets up the nose of the person they’re peeved at.
I believe one of the key reasons why Mr Howard has been politically successful has been because the extremely limited amount of open dissent there’s been over the life of his government – even though I think it has been unhealthy for democracy. Now that open, wilful dissent is being tolerated, will that change the whole situation?
8 Comments, Comment or Ping
Marilyn Shepherd
Here is the problem with Costello’s whole position though Andrew. Through all of Howard’s grotesque excesses and madnesses, through the cruelty to children, the bombing of Iraq, the IR shambles, turning away refugees, being a lickspittle for Bush and sucking up to Jakarta Costello has stayed utterly, utterly silent.
That alone condemns the snivelling coward. Does he seriously think that approval without having to say anything makes him any less a war criminal than Howard? Does he think that tortured refugees think he is kinder?
Humbug. The man is a charlatan and a fraud but it sure is nice watching these two morons eat each other as they try to take some high moral ground in the morass.
Jul 13th, 2006
Ron
Marilyn, what you’ve said about Costello’s silence applies to all Liberal politicians even though a few may have a made a little noise recently.
My local Liberal member portrays himself as an honest Christian caring man which, to me, is in direct contrast to being a high office holder in the federal parliamentary Liberal Party.
I don’t know how these people sleep at night.
Jul 13th, 2006
Deborah
My sentiments too Ron and Marilyn.
The Libs stink – as a party, they’ve all been tainted by the poison of a cunning, lying, deceitful Howard.
There’s no going back now and trying to become more human and representative of their constituents. They are forever condemned for their support, silence and inaction throughout the Howard years.
Jul 13th, 2006
Sacha
The unveiling of the tensions between Costello and Howard is interesting – I’ve enjoyed watching it.
Jul 14th, 2006
PJ
just another example of the larger political parties internal machinations being at the forefront and stifling true democracy … precisely why we need Andrew and the Democrats to keep focussing on what really counts – policies and their impact on the people and the environment in which they live
Jul 16th, 2006
ken
I must admit to being a bit amused by the strenght of sentiemtns and overwhleming moral piety in posts 1,2,3. Why aren”t these heroes lining up to migrate elsewhere – if they are so able to dish out the coward tag to those whose silence is condmened – then I can only assume some real action should be taken by themselves.
Jul 17th, 2006
Donna
I’ve taken action, well contacted a number of MPs anyway on a couple of different issues. I’m more furious after contacting them than before I did. They’re nice enough people, but mostly naieve and sheltered in their lives, and unwillingly to take action beyond begrudgingly accepting that policies do impact negatively on people’s lives. But dam these pesky people for bringing it to our attention. I’ll just forward it to the cabinet minister to give a perception of serving the people I represent, without putting myself out on a limb.
Ken, people can’t just pick up and leave family, friends, jobs, lives. If it was that easy, I’d be in Alaska tomorrow.
Jul 19th, 2006