And so, after some scandal and much unpleasantness, the illicit union between Malcolm Turnbull and an indifferent nation is now legal.
More News Videos
- Video duration
- 01:24
We have a mandate: Turnbull
- Video duration
- 02:39
Coalition's 'term of delivery': Turnbull
- Video duration
- 00:54
Australian education 'very significantly shrunk'
- Video duration
- 01:16
Malcolm Turnbull's schools proposal
- Video duration
- 02:28
Growing inequality amongst our poorest
- Video duration
- 02:32
Father drowns saving son
- Video duration
- 02:12
Education funding battle recommences
- Video duration
- 00:47
Julie Bishop visits New York for UN talks
We have a mandate: Turnbull
An election win is a mandate according to PM Malcolm Turnbull who says he'll deliver all his election promises.
On Monday, the freshly endorsed Prime Minister convenes his depleted party room, sans several soldiers.
There's no denying the election nearly knocked his government off its foundations. Financially, the eight-week marathon strained the voter relationship to breaking point and brought the extraordinary circumstance of Turnbull bailing out his own party with a hefty $1 million from his own pocket. It's a headline writer's dream: "Prime Millionaire Turnbull" or perhaps "PM's million-quid pro quo, for the leadership". Even "Turnbull's buy-election".
But it wasn't just money. Success came at a hefty political cost also with Turnbull losing true believers – plotters such as Wyatt Roy and Peter Hendy, who had only orchestrated the jarring replacement of Tony Abbott to save their careers.
Even for those who survived, election night was torture and the week following, hardly better. Nonetheless, critical contests eventually tumbled their way providing a slim if bankable majority. Coalitionists who had panicked initially, calmed, with most settling for the consoling truism that a win is a win. Most, but not all. Abbott loyalist Eric Abetz, revealed his inner bile on Thursday when he questioned if the victory could even be seen as such. The Labor Party was delighted.
It is a reminder that tensions over Abbott's removal will find ongoing expression even if disguised as something else such as the current backlash on superannuation. This year's same-sex marriage plebiscite is already in their sights – even though the foolhardy vote was theirs in the first place.
It is also a reminder that politics is the quintessential zero-sum-game. The successful are always ankle deep in someone else's failure and it is rarely pretty. The most "beautiful" equation of theoretical physics, e=mc², has its political variant: e=en² (elections equal enmity squared).
Yet history is written by the winners, and Turnbull's achievement will, in time, become more appreciated.
His claim is nothing less than to have rescued the Coalition from certain loss by buying it (perhaps literally) a second term after its breach of trust in 2014.
"I think if there had not been a change of leadership, then we would have lost the election very resoundingly," he told the ABC's Sarah Ferguson without hesitation.
One of the amazing aspects of Turnbull's rise, is that his party – that election-winning machine as Christopher Pyne dubbed it – is so light on for alternatives.
Cleary, talk of a leadership change is ridiculous right now. But all governments need a plan B and a party lauding the virtues of competition can hardly claim exemption.
If Turnbull went under the proverbial bus, who would step up? Abbott? Not likely. Treasurer Scott Morrison? Not yet. A colleague from the party's right wing advised he would struggle to rebuild trust after his role in Abbott's demise. There is also a sense that Morrison's attacks on the opposition during the campaign were amateurish and embarrassing cementing a view of the Treasurer as too punchy for his own good.
What about Julie Bishop? Again, not likely. The perennial deputy, Foreign Minister Bishop is loved by the Liberal base, by grassroots members, and was overwhelmingly the minister of choice for marginal seat MPs looking to sway votes in the shopping centres and function rooms of their communities. But her party room support is less universal. Critics question her sure-footedness on economic detail. Moreover, her closeness to Turnbull is seen as the flipside of her distance from his predecessor.
Of the rest, the only standouts with a chance of broad support are Josh Frydenberg and Christian Porter. Both are confident and competent but both are also too new.
When you compare this to Labor, the alternatives to Bill Shorten are legion: Anthony Albanese, Tanya Plibersek, Chris Bowen, Tony Burke, Jason Clare, perhaps Richard Marles.
Who would emerge remains a matter of perspective but it is likely the first two would start as favourites. Outside of Shorten, Plibersek was the standout performer of the campaign, which is why a domestic portfolio such as health is now being considered.
The presence of a clear leadership alternative is not necessarily a bad thing for a government. Both of the only enduring recent governments (Labor 1983-1996 and Coalition 1996-2007) were notable for the competitive tensions between the PM and the heir-apparent.
It kept both PM's on their toes, forcing them to perform at a higher level. It might even be said the prospect of a Keating challenge, which eventually became a reality, or a Costello challenge, which did not materialise, offered the respective governing parties as much in perceived continuity as it risked in potential instability.
At the very least, it suggested a degree of succession planning.
Mark Kenny is chief political correspondent.
0 comments
New User? Sign up