And the winner is: Tony Abbott

With less than three weeks to go to election day, it’s still hard to get excited about the contest for who will govern Australia. But the battle for control of the Liberal Party remains enthralling.

By announcing on Sunday that the Liberals would preference Labor ahead of the Greens in every seat, Malcolm Turnbull confirmed what has been long suspected: that Tony Abbott, the man whom he deposed as leader, has more control over the party’s direction than Turnbull himself.

On a number of policy questions, that’s easy to see. Many of Abbott’s signature policies – including the same-sex marriage plebiscite, the giant military build-up, offshore processing of refugees and opposition to carbon trading – remain stubbornly in place, despite occasional signs of Turnbull’s discomfort.

It may be that if the government is returned (as still seems likely), and particularly if it retains a comfortable majority (less likely), there will be movement on some of these fronts. But Sunday’s announcement will be harder to live down.

One of the first rules of politics is that policy is dispensable. Politicians can be fiercely loyal to personality, party or faction; few are ever so loyal to a policy position. Policies come and go, but tribal interests and tribal identities remain.

The Turnbull-Abbott conflict, or rather the cultural conflict of which those two men are symbols, has never been chiefly about particular policies. It is deeper than that, tribal in its intensity: a conflict between two opposed worldviews that provide very different ways of seeing the Liberal Party. What we can now see is that the view Turnbull represents is, despite his victory in last September’s ballot, the minority view within the party.

Unconditional warfare against the Greens makes sense only on the assumption that the Liberal Party is what Tony Abbott tried to make it: an ideologically conservative party, whose primary enemy is not socialism, or trade unionism, or the working class, but modernity.

On any other assumption – if the Liberal Party was mostly about the class interest of capitalists, for example, or if it was just a contrivance to secure political power for a certain group of people, or if it was a force for the promotion (heaven forbid!) of liberalism – the Greens could never become a central issue. They might be a steady foe or an occasional ally, but they would not be a bogeyman.

A Liberal Party that cared about the basics of liberalism – about peace, democracy, accountability, human rights, and so on – would find some sympathetic echoes in the Greens.

The idea that the Greens are more to be feared than the Labor Party, and that therefore they must be the prime electoral target (not occasionally, as may well make sense for tactical reasons, but invariably), could come, on the other hand, only from a worldview that was hostile to liberalism.

And this is not idle speculation; we know that such an anti-liberal or anti-modern worldview is common on the right. It has been explicitly enunciated by Abbott and a number of his colleagues, not to mention a legion of outside propagandists in Australia and overseas (many of them employed by a particular media group, also and not coincidentally known for its unbridled hostility towards the Greens).

These, to put it mildly, are not Malcolm Turnbull’s people. But in his nine months as prime minister he has proved either unable or unwilling to dispute their control over the Liberal Party’s agenda.

Turnbull may win the election – indeed, I think he probably will. Winning elections, however, is of little use if your own party’s political direction is in other, hostile hands.


Disclosure: As long-time readers will know, the Greens candidate most conspicuously disadvantaged by the decision in question, Alex Bhathal in Batman, is a personal friend.


4 thoughts on “And the winner is: Tony Abbott

  1. It seems like you’re hung up on the appropriation of the word “liberal”. Perhaps it would help if the Liberal Party of Australian renamed themselves the Conservative Party. There certainly aren’t any substantive differences with the UK Conservatives. Nor is this a new development.

    If there’s a mainstream liberal party in Australia, it’s the ALP.

    I dispute your characterisation of the Greens as simply a middle class socially liberal party. Whilst certainly their voter base is middle class and tertiary educated, on substance they’re very left-wing. Not simply on cultural and humanitarian issues like asylum seekers, but economic ones too. Look at Di Natale outflanking Shorten on penalty rates. The Greens have even developed ties with the trade unions. The hostility of Australia’s Tories – whether “capitalist” or “conservative” – is understandable. The Greens represent a purer, less pragmatic version of Labor.


  2. I agree with David Walsh. Of the 3 parties the biggest promoter of the class interest of capitalists are the Liberals and the biggest opponents are the Greens, not Labor. Labor has been capitalists’ 2nd best friend since the Accord.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.