Breaking down the Liberal breakdown

By
Ben Raue
Published: November 27, 2009Tags: , , , ,

Malcolm Turnbull looks set to lose his leadership in a push to pass the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, causing a deeper split in the party than any seen in a long time. The split has been driven deeply through the party in all states, in the city and the country, and a mix of Senators and marginal seat MPs.

It seems fairly certain that Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership will end on Monday after Tony Abbott announced this morning he will challenge if Turnbull doesn’t change his position on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. While Joe Hockey could be convinced to contest, it seems that Abbott’s CPRS opposition could give him the leadership he would not be able to win in normal circumstances. Hockey is still a strong contender, but it seems bizarre that the party would switch to another pro-CPRS leader. Indeed, considering that the candidate taking the party to the election will face disaster. It may be Hockey’s best option to hold back and take over after the next election. This will be the first time that a major party will change leaders twice without going to an election. In the past, John Latham, Alexander Downer, Simon Crean and Brendan Nelson have all been replaced without facing an election, but it is becoming increasingly common, with Turnbull being the fourth Opposition Leader to be rolled without facing an election in the last fifteen years.

You have to think the chances of the CPRS passing are low, considering the challenge. Abbott made it clear this morning that he plans to change the party’s position on the CPRS if he becomes leader. While the ALP seems to be aiming for a vote this afternoon, it seems extremely unlikely that Minchin and Abetz will allow a guillotine before the Liberals can change leaders. While there are easily seven Liberal senators willing to follow Turnbull’s lead and vote for the CPRS, I doubt there would be seven willing to cross the floor to vote with the government if Abbott is leader.

So it seems likely the Liberals will lurch to the right and go to an election with senior figures openly questioning the science of climate change, with the party deeply divided between moderates and conservatives. It is interesting to consider Turnbull’s recent behaviour from a long-term perspective. Looking at a short-term perspective of Turnbull trying to hold on to his leadership until the election, it seems madness to stake your leadership defending the federal government’s climate policies and refusing to back down under such fierce internal opposition. On the other hand, Turnbull has been continually hampered by conservatives as he has tried to modernise his party. If he is resigned to being defeated for the leadership, there is a certain logic in taking a stand in favour of the party acting on climate change and fighting to the bitter end. Once the Liberals under Abbott go to the next election and are decimated, Turnbull’s warnings and political positioning will be looked on much more favourably.

It’s possible Turnbull could hang around on the backbench to make a comeback later on. He has clearly attempted to model his leadership on David Cameron in the UK. However, the British Conservatives had spent eight years in opposition when Cameron took over, while the Australian Liberals are yet to accept they will need to modernise and change to get ahead. If Turnbull is willing to wait around for the party to turn back to him after a thumping defeat, he could become leader again with a much stronger position. That being said, you’d have to think a man like Malcolm Turnbull wouldn’t have the patience to wait around on the back bench for years in order to get another chance. It seems much more plausible he will leave Parliament either at or before the next election.

It’s fascinating to examine which individual Liberals have come down on the pro-CPRS or anti-CPRS side. Using the list made by Tim Andrews of which Liberals spoke during the long party room meeting on Tuesday, and adding in others who have been clearly identified with one side or the other (such as Turnbull loyalists or shadow ministers who resigned yesterday), you come up with the following numbers:

  • Pro – 41
  • Anti – 35
  • Unknown – 9

When you break it down by state you don’t get massive divisions, with the split running through all states. NSW is dominated by pro-CPRS MPs, while Tasmania is dominated by anti-CPRS Senators and WA has a slim majority against the CPRS. Victoria, Queensland and South Australia are split down the middle. A slim majority of House of Representatives MPs are in favour of the CPRS, while a majority of Senators (but not a large one) oppose the CPRS. While the anti-CPRS forces have equal numbers amongst MPs in safe seats and relatively safe seats, 60% of MPs with a margin of less than 5% supported Turnbull’s position. This does indicate a tendency for those Liberals more at risk of electoral defeat (marginal seat MPs) to support doing a deal and avoiding a double dissolution while Senators with little risk of electoral defeat are more likely to take a stand. If you map out the electorates of pro- and anti-CPRS MPs, you find little geographical correlation. Despite fears of Nationals winning seats off the Liberals on the back of a CPRS vote, many rural Liberal MPs support the CPRS while many urban MPs take an opposing position.

In the last few days, some pretty ridiculous predictions have been made. The most ridiculous has been the idea that the Liberals could split into separate parties. That sort of thing just does not happen in Australia’s modern party system. Throughout this entire debate, while some Liberals are climate skeptics, the argument for the centre ground of the party has been a conflict between two different pragmatisms. Some are worried about how supporting a CPRS would hurt them amongst Liberal Party members and their base support, who are increasingly skeptical of climate change. Others, such as Turnbull, support a CPRS to avoid the party being painted as climate skeptics and to avoid a double dissolution on climate change which they believe would devastate the party. Indeed, Turnbull has explicitly made such pragmatic arguments in last night’s press conference and his interview this morning on AM.

If that doesn’t convince you that the Liberals will stay together, it’s probably worthwhile to play out how it would work. If the Liberals were to split, with either Turnbull or Abbott leaving a split in one direction or the other, you would have incredible chaos as Liberal MPs picked sides. As I previously mentioned, there is little relationship between the two sides and any sort of clear geographical, demographic or ideological divide in terms of their electorates. Fights would begin over the control of the party’s resources as the two sides would be picking candidates to run against each other. What would happen to state Liberals like Barry O’Farrell? The idea is not going to happen as long as Australia retains a single-member system.

Likewise, the possibility of the Nationals making gains off the Liberals at an election following the passage of the CPRS seems very unlikely. Despite their clear position against the CPRS in recent days, the party is seriously on the decline. The fact that many rural Liberals support Turnbull’s position suggests the threat isn’t particularly serious.

One other issue which the last few days has raised is the possibility of a double dissolution. Assuming Abbott gets his way and the CPRS is blocked, the ALP will have a double dissolution trigger. I previously was convinced that Rudd would not call a DD, partly because his party is not ready and partly because there would not be a huge benefit for him. But after a week when the Liberals have exposed their ugliest side, finishing off by electing a far more right-wing politician as leader, it’s plausible we could see the ALP kick into gear for a March/April election. While they are not ready, they would have four months to speed up preselections and get ready in the field. Considering the state of the Liberal Party, no leader would do well in such an election. In addition, the crisis atmosphere of the previous week would help shield the ALP from accusations of calling an unnecessary early election. It will be easy for them to argue that the state of the Liberal Party has frustrated important CPRS legislation, and necessitated a double dissolution.