All this political commentary in the press ("A Leader out of his League" is the ridiculous heading given in The Age to Michelle Grattan's musings) about Malcolm Turnbull's (well, actually, his whole party room's) decision to oppose the governments latest stimulus is just silly guff in my opinion. (It's his "suicide note" according to Mark Bahnisch, who likes to complain about commentary that concentrates on the political game instead of the policy substance, except of course when he thinks the game is running Labor's way.)
I can see no substantial risk to Turnbull if, as appears likely, the government will get the Greens and independents on side in the Senate with some relatively minor variations to the package. The Opposition's opposition is not going to delay it for long. A week or two, maybe? Big deal.
Furthermore, if, as just about everyone from the PM down expects, the economy really tanks and a lot more action is needed, that's further debt on its way. This package alone may not be scaring too many economics commentators with its future debt implications, but the next stimulus might make them more hesitant.
At which point, Turnbull can say "see, I told you not to spend quite so much on the last stimulus, and to target it better."
Besides which, I reckon Rudd just looks like a fake actor when he tries to do "outrage" in Parliament. Just because Howard was able to make hay out of Beazley's delaying tax cuts, the dynamics are quite different now, and people are not going to be readily sucked in to believing all the self-serving ideological dressing on the economic crisis Rudd spent his Christmas holidays apparently dreaming up.
Finally, I see that Kerry O'Brien is continuing the same pandering tone with Kevin Rudd this year. His approach in a Rudd interview is always along the lines "help me to understand why what you say is right." But when it comes to the Liberals it's "clearly you are wrong. Confess!"
UPDATE: Andrew Bolt points out that there are indications that the public is not uniformly rushing to condemn Turnbull's caution, contrary to what most commentators predicted.
2 comments:
I'm sure you are right that there is little wrong politically with Turnbull digging his heels in over this. If the package helps he'd get no praise for bipartisan support and if the stimulus is too much or too little he gets to crow that he should have been listened too.
I suspect it is wrong in every other way, but politically I think he's right.
The Libs take on their best "born to rule outrage" whenever Labour gives up on them and gags debate but it is very hard to listen to after the abuse of the senate procedures in the Howard years.
Have seen a little of parliament on their new cable channel APAC. The chamber looked pretty deserted. It must be a dreary existence all round.
Choirboy Rudd does a bad job of any emoting. Just doesn't have it in him.
There are many extremely good reasons why Rudd's package is all wrong, but none that Turnball has bothered to articulate. Perhaps he hasn't even figured it out yet, which reflects poorly on his ability. He should have outline top ten reasons by now, but all he's managed to do is offer vague objections relating to scrutiny of the proposal, and not even vague reasons why they should spend less not more at this point. (Historically he is wrong on that; past practice of gov'ts was to spend too little, too late.)
Lib shadow treasurer offered the suggestion that we should "sit" and "wait". Sheeeeeeesssshhh. Someone get that woman a different job, pronto!
Post a Comment