Julie Bishop for PM

[Julia]

How soon can she start.

Good post.

Agree. But won't there be resistance to a female leader from the hard Right?

She is savvy, answers questions but within her own limits, articulate and calm.
Everything Mr Abbott is not.

 

[basilio]

The interesting thought about Bishop vs Turnball for PM is ... how certain everyone is that Tony Abbott will go. Dumping Phillip Ruddock as Whip was just another couple of days of furious grave digging for tones.

When the Liberal Party get around to replacing Tony the comparative merits of Julie Bishop and Malcolm Turnball will get a close analysis. As I see it currently

1) Politically Malcolm Turnball is worth at least another 4% over Julie Bishop. A Turnball led government would attract a big swag of centre votes and probably keep them a lot longer than Julie Bishop

2) Malcolm would probably be a better negotiator of Parliament than Julie Bishop. There would be a better chance of getting legislation through. More significantly if the Senate did stay bolshie he could call a double dissolution with the realistic probability of getting a total mandate. That would fundamentally strengthen his hand and make him more likely to be successful in negotiations

3) Objectively Malcolm has better skills as a PM than Julie Bishop. He is a better thinker, more articulate and probably more strategic. I think Julie Bishop would probably agree. Most political observers would also acknowledge this.

Of course none of this means that Malcom will become leader. There is plenty of evidence to show that the Liberal party as a whole does not seriously want an intelligent, articulate and inclusive centrist leader. For a start it would then become very difficult to defend a raft of current policies that would not stand up to serious critique.

 

[SirRumpole]

The interesting thought about Bishop vs Turnball for PM is ... how certain everyone is that Tony Abbott will go. Dumping Phillip Ruddock as Whip was just another couple of days of furious grave digging for tones.

When the Liberal Party get around to replacing Tony the comparative merits of Julie Bishop and Malcolm Turnball will get a close analysis. As I see it currently

1) Politically Malcolm Turnball is worth at least another 4% over Julie Bishop. A Turnball led government would attract a big swag of centre votes and probably keep them a lot longer than Julie Bishop

2) Malcolm would probably be a better negotiator of Parliament than Julie Bishop. There would be a better chance of getting legislation through. More significantly if the Senate did stay bolshie he could call a double dissolution with the realistic probability of getting a total mandate. That would fundamentally strengthen his hand and make him more likely to be successful in negotiations

3) Objectively Malcolm has better skills as a PM than Julie Bishop. He is a better thinker, more articulate and probably more strategic. I think Julie Bishop would probably agree. Most political observers would also acknowledge this.

Of course none of this means that Malcom will become leader. There is plenty of evidence to show that the Liberal party as a whole does not seriously want an intelligent, articulate and inclusive centrist leader. For a start it would then become very difficult to defend a raft of current policies that would not stand up to serious critique.

Good post, especially the last paragraph.

The Liberal Party's attitude to Turnbull is similar to the Labor Party's attitude to Rudd. They don't particularly like him or his philosophy (like not cow towing to the Gina Rineharts of this country), but they can't ignore his electoral popularity.

If Turnbull became PM, Bishop would likely stay in Foreign Affairs where she has impressed, and Morrison would become Treasurer. Is that a better setup than Bishop as PM and Turnbull as Treasurer ? Turnbull has better qualifications to be Treasurer, but it's obvious that he has his eyes on the top job, so maybe he would decline the Treasury if Bishop became PM.

Meanwhile Abbott is doing the "tough on terrorism" routine, the last refuge of a scoundrel.

 

[drsmith]

I see in parts of the media this morning, the MT cheer squad is in full swing again after his appearance on Q&A last night. It's that same cheer squad that would then turn to tearing him down should he become Liberal party leader.

Let's not forget that MT as leaded on his first attempt divided the party. He also showed poor political judgment.

 

[Julia]

I see in parts of the media this morning, the MT cheer squad is in full swing again after his appearance on Q&A last night. It's that same cheer squad that would then turn to tearing him down should he become Liberal party leader.

Let's not forget that MT as leaded on his first attempt divided the party. He also showed poor political judgment.

+1.
Above we have the predictable preference of basilio for Mr Turnbull, echoed by Rumpole, both Left sympathisers, presumably on the basis that Turnbull reflects much of the Left philosophy and would be much more likely than Julie Bishop to accede to agreement with Labor proposals.

Mr Turnbull would likely be overall less acceptable across the broad Coalition, partly because the conservative Right would be against much of what he stands for, and partly because of his previous failure as leader, as drsmith points out above.

 

[Tisme]

The original Liberal Party doctrine was non reactive progressiveness ...how does Malcolm Turnbull not fit that ethos? How is the present Liberal Party not an imposter to Menzie's ethos? The last true Liberal Party PM was Fraser, the last two have been Manchurian Candidates of sorts, like it or not.

 

[Logique]

Agree. But won't there be resistance to a female leader from the hard Right?
She is savvy, answers questions but within her own limits, articulate and calm.
Everything Mr Abbott is not.

She's to the left of Tony Abbott! Poor opinion polls and the risk of losing your seat can do wonders for a backbenchers political tolerance.

The Libs have to win back the conservative core to have any chance next time around. They've seen M.Turnbull in action as PM.

 

[SirRumpole]

+1.
Above we have the predictable preference of basilio for Mr Turnbull, echoed by Rumpole, both Left sympathisers, presumably on the basis that Turnbull reflects much of the Left philosophy and would be much more likely than Julie Bishop to accede to agreement with Labor proposals.

Mr Turnbull would likely be overall less acceptable across the broad Coalition, partly because the conservative Right would be against much of what he stands for, and partly because of his previous failure as leader, as drsmith points out above.

If the supporters of the Liberal party want to stay with or elect another leader who is unacceptable to the electorate, that's fine by me.

 

[moXJO]

The original Liberal Party doctrine was non reactive progressiveness ...how does Malcolm Turnbull not fit that ethos? How is the present Liberal Party not an imposter to Menzie's ethos? The last true Liberal Party PM was Fraser, the last two have been Manchurian Candidates of sorts, like it or not.

If the supporters of the Liberal party want to stay with or elect another leader who is unacceptable to the electorate, that's fine by me.

Surprisingly I agree with the above two. In the current political climate I don't think Bishop will float. The only way the libs will win is by a move back to the center. Right now the country needs bipartisan cooperation from labor and libs. Tbull is more likely of achieving that.
My issues with Malcom are:
Has he learnt from his previous failures and arrogance.
Will he listen to all factions within liberals.
Will he drag liberal too far left of center.

The other thing is that Abbott would have to step down from leadership (yeah good luck). Abbott will have to achieve another massive stinker to be shaken out. For now he looks safe. Credlin needs to be ditched asap.

 

[SirRumpole]

The other thing is that Abbott would have to step down from leadership (yeah good luck). Abbott will have to achieve another massive stinker to be shaken out. For now he looks safe. Credlin needs to be ditched asap.

Sacking Ruddock was another stinker.

Blaming the Chief Whip for his own autocratic style which distanced him from his backbench was arrogance.

Doesn't he ever talk to his backbench personally ? If he did he would have known that there was dissatisfaction on the backbench and he could have headed it off (if he had the political skills to do this which he obviously has not).

 

[Tisme]

. Right now the country needs bipartisan cooperation from labor and libs. .

Holy crap! I agree with you

Do you think they are grown up enough to argue, bend and compromise for the good of the nation?

 

[Tisme]

Doesn't he ever talk to his backbench personally ? .

He's quite affable to his own tribe, which can compromise people talking frankly about goals and outcomes. No one wants to burst his bubble overtly.

 

[SirRumpole]

Holy crap! I agree with you

Do you think they are grown up enough to argue, bend and compromise for the good of the nation?

No. Neither side.

When you have Labor opposing the savings it introduced and the Libs bringing in silly policies like the co-contribution that does nothing to fix the Medicare imbalance, it doesn't give much hope that they have "grown up".

 

[moXJO]

Sacking Ruddock was another stinker.

Blaming the Chief Whip for his own autocratic style which distanced him from his backbench was arrogance.

Doesn't he ever talk to his backbench personally ? If he did he would have known that there was dissatisfaction on the backbench and he could have headed it off (if he had the political skills to do this which he obviously has not).

The libs having to run everything through credlins office must have caused some waves. Realistically, he seems to be insulating himself or being micro managed by his minders from reality similar to Rudd.
Ruddock being fired reeks of a power move to control the room. But I don't think Ruddock will be his lynch rope.

 

[Julia]

She's to the left of Tony Abbott!

Well, you could say the same for 99% of the population. Mr Abbott has never properly represented the Liberal party. He should more correctly run on a 100% Conservative ticket.

The Libs have to win back the conservative core to have any chance next time around. They've seen M.Turnbull in action as PM.

Tricky, isn't it. Abbott can't capture the centre small l liberals, and Turnbull - unless he develops some special quality hitherto not evident - won't be able to capture the conservatives.

Sacking Ruddock was another stinker.

Blaming the Chief Whip for his own autocratic style which distanced him from his backbench was arrogance.

Doesn't he ever talk to his backbench personally ? If he did he would have known that there was dissatisfaction on the backbench and he could have headed it off (if he had the political skills to do this which he obviously has not).

I suspect Mr Ruddock was the fall guy for the blow Peta Credlin should have taken. From all I've heard and read it's she who blocks access to the PM.
Seems yet another example of how Mr Abbott is misreading not just the electorate but his own colleagues.

I might be quite wrong, but I think the sacking of Ruddock and the appointment in his place of the outspoken, unknown supporter is a much greater indictment of Mr Abbott than the silly Knighthood of Prince Philip, or any of the other so called captain's picks.
And that he could only a day or so before say that there would be more consultation, that there would be no more captain's picks, then he goes and sacks Ruddock demonstrates someone who has truly lost the plot.

 

[SirRumpole]

The Libs have to win back the conservative core to have any chance next time around. They've seen M.Turnbull in action as PM.

I'm just wondering who these "Conservatives" are and what they actually believe in, if anything, apart from maintaining their own status quo, and how widespread they are in society as opposed to in the Liberal Party ?

 

[noco]

I'm just wondering who these "Conservatives" are and what they actually believe in, if anything, apart from maintaining their own status quo, and how widespread they are in society as opposed to in the Liberal Party ?

They are probably Green/Labor party infiltrators posing as conservatives..LOL

 

[SirRumpole]

They are probably Green/Labor party infiltrators posing as conservatives..LOL

Absolutely Fabianous !