Now I get it

[Tannin]

Something dropped into place for me just now, reading Tom Switzer.

Now why would I read Tom Switzer? He's just a cookie-cutter right-wing ideologue who obediently sticks to neo-conservative orthodoxy; his appointment to the ABC was a disgrace; and he never has anything much new to say, after all. But I do make a point of reading views that disagree with me, and every now and again that policy pays off.

Today, it paid off.

Writing about the Wentworth by-election and the Liberals' problems there, his theme was that they should not worry so much, pretty much ignore all other public issues, and simply champion trickle-down economics as their main (and in his view practically only) claim to public esteem and electoral success. Well, it's not a terribly intelligent point of view, but that's OK, it's par for the course for Switzer.

But along the way he just happened to throw off a single sentence which made an enduring mystery suddenly clear to me. For years now, ever since the last election, I have been unable to understand the deep, almost visceral hatred so many in the Liberal Party had for Turnbull. It made absolutely no sense. Turnbull was by far their most popular figure. He saved their arses at the last election, even going so far as to donate millions of dollars out of his own pocket. He rolled over on every single touchstone issue, giving the hard right exactly what they wanted on immigration, energy policy, gay marriage, climate change, and a host of other issues. He was the kind and gentle face, making harsh policies less unpalatable to an increasingly doubtful electorate. Turnbull was exactly what they needed: a way to stay in office and carry on with the hard right's policies, while presenting an urbane, intelligent, modern-looking face to the voters.

But they hated him!

I could never understand that. Turnbull (or someone very like him) was their only chance to stay in office, their only chance to get exactly what they wanted. And he delivered. He got them their tax cuts for the wealthy. He got them a complete zero of a climate policy. He got them their gay marriage plebiscite, kept their religious chaplains in public schools, wrecked the NBN, did his very best to get tax cuts through for large companies, resist the Banking Royal Commission as long as possible, delay financial reforms, defund ASIC and the ABC ... a great long Christmas list of things they wanted. All down to Turnbull and his ability to look as though he represented "the sensible centre" while still enacting hard right policies.

It just didn't make any sense.

Until I read Switzer's column today. In passing, with a single sentence, he provided the vital clue:

"The party remains shattered since Turnbull blew Tony Abbott’s huge majority at the 2016 election."

Now I get it!

They actually think that the incredibly unpopular Abbott would have won! They blame Turnbull - the man who saved their sorry arses and magicked a close-run victory out of certain defeat - for Abbott's comprehensive failure.

This is why they very nearly chose the suicidally unpopular Dutton to lead them. This is why they wound up backing the egregious right-winger Morrison (who will doubtless lead them to resounding defeat) instead of the highly electable Julie Bishop. They have convinced themselves - God only knows how - that the public goodwill they pissed away inside twelve months after being handed a massive walkover victory by the appalling Kevin Rudd was in fact theirs by right, and it was that class traitor Turnbull who lost it for them.

OK, it's an incredibly stupid thing to believe. But given that one ridiculous counter-fact, everything else they have done since is actually logical.

Thank you Tom Switzer. I now finally understand what is going on.

[stui magpie]

Yup.

There's a hard core who still believe that Abbott would have turned the boat around and sailed them into the promised land if he hadn't been shafted by Turnbull.

They never forgave him for that.

Christ, when Turnbull said if Dutton produced the numbers he'd step down and not re-contest the leadership, clearing the way for Scho Mo, there were some calling for Abbott to throw his hat in the ring.

[roar]

The ultra conservatives are certainly a strange bunch.

[thesoretoothsayer]

I feel sorry for Malcolm.
He was potentially a great Labor PM.

[roar]

Nah, he was a Liberal politician, just not a loony Lib. He was like the other Malcolm PM we had.

[Wokko]

[Jezza]

Malcolm Turnbull didn't save the Liberal Party, he destroyed it.

As others said, he would have made a great Labor PM.

[stui magpie]

Man between 2 parties.

His personal beliefs socially were a better fit at labor, but they'd never take him in. He didn't fit their mold.

[stui magpie]

[Tannin]

[HAL]

I don't think I have seen it.

[Tannin]

Just to underline my original point, I see that Liberal cheerleader Chris Kenny from the Australian says that the reason for the massive Wentworth loss is that Tony Abbott was deposed as leader.

No joke.

[stui magpie]

[Tannin]

^ Just so.

Realistically, they ought to split. Dutton and Abbott and co in one party (presumably merging with Bernardi's lot), Pyne, Bishop, and others in the moderate wing.

Labor should do the same: the true Labor people in one group, the technocrats and Blairites in the other.

That would leave Australia with six parties: Green, Labor, Labor Lite, Liberal, Tory, and One Nation.

Or, in left-wing to right-wing order, Labor, Labor Lite, Liberal,and Tory, with the Greens and One Nation both being harder to place. The Greens have poor credentials as a genuine left-wing party - and would have poorer credentials still if there was a left-wing Labor party to bleed away their more socialist-inclined supporters, leaving them as they began in Bob Brown days as an environmental party above all else. And One Nation, Like Katter's lot, have a lot of traditional leftist policies.

This would leave us with several interesting and worthwhile coalition government possibilities. For example, Labor, Labor Lite, and Liberal. Or Labor Lite, Liberal and Green.

Liberal, Tory, and One Nation would work but not for long - they'd get kicked out pretty quick smart. The same applies to Labor, Labor Lite and Green.

Australia is an overwhelmingly centrist nation. It has always been about a contest for the sensible centre. Whoever can occupy that middle ground is always going to be best placed to form a government. Turnbull talked the talk. My expectation is that Boring Bill will walk the walk.

[Tannin]

^ It just occurred to me that I completely ignored the Nationals in that analysis. Which, on reflection, seems to be just and fitting.