I watched the ABCs programme, 'Q and A,'
the other night. Peter Costello was a guest
on the panel. A member of the audience asked
him outright what were Costello's future plans?
Costello was evasive and I got the impression
that it was simply a matter of time before the
Liberal Party would be turning to this man for
its Leadership.

How different would the Liberal Party be under
Costello?

Any thoughts?

1. Work Choices would be reinstated.
2. We'd be expected to breed at least 3 children (one for you, one for me and one for Petey) - despite issues of sustainability.
3. Nuclear Power would be the big solution to alternative energy (in 20 or 30 years - however long it takes to build the most expensive way to boil water).
4. Public schools would receive no funding - user pays.
5. GST would increase.
6. Australia would become a Republic, but after all of the above no-one would care.

Oops.

Sorry Foxy, I was imagining what would be if Costello was PM.

As Opposition leader, he would oppose anything and everything put forward by Labor whether or not he agreed with any of the policies/proposals, he would make vague suggestions as to how the Libs would do anything any better and he would patent his smirk (not necessarily in that order).

I guess Peter would be rather like Turnbull except with smirk.

The Libs really do need a makeover don't they?

"How different would the Liberal Party be under Costello?"

We would start to see that the Liberal Party was all tip and no iceberg as the Opposition leader was a-swingin in his hammock and cheap, glib shots abounded in Parliament.

-- -- --

Also saw Q&A, Foxy and I thought the same as you - Costello was evasive. Unlike you though, I thought he diminished his political image because, given the chance to show something new to the electorate, he reneged and made himself look directionless. With his one-trick pony approach, he weakens his position all the time.

All Turnbull has to do to beat him is gradually build up his stocks and minimise his political mistakes. If Costello is hoping to become party leader, he's totally dependent on Turnbull making mistakes.

Fractelle I was thinking along the first lines as your first post.

Costello appeared his usual smirking self but he had a new laid back I don't care attitude towards his own party. I don't know if Costello as opposition leader would unite the Coalition to any degree in fact he may even be worse than Turnbull or Nelson. Nelson was a good man but not strong enough, Turnbull is stronger but not as altruistic. Both Turnbull and Costello are about Turnbull and Costello. Not much to choose or differentiate between the two.

If I had to pick anyone from the motley crew, I would choose Hockey. He at least has a sense of humour and is by all accounts a decent man. Hockey has since revealed that he was not totally in agreement with all aspects of Work Choices and would have taken a softer line.

You can bet if Costello receives a lucrative offer from the private sector (another overpaid business consultant or CEO) he would be off like a shot.

It is disheartening to see him still defend programs like Work Choices despite the very real detrimental effects it created in the lowest income sectors. This man just does not give a rats about real people and lost touch with reality, like his nemesis Howard, many years ago.

Actually, pelican, Costello is further to the right than Howard, but he's much more of a modern American-style conservative, as opposed to Howard's "50's throwback" attitudes.

Costello co-founded the H.R. Nicholls society, which compared WorkChoices to the centralism of communism. You have to worry when an organisation thinks WorkChoices doesn't allow employers to shaft workers hard enough.

Yep, I agree with all posters so far.

Crikey, when are those silly Liberal drongos just going to let it go? Smirkstello hasn’t got anything going for him. There is no way that he is going to be elected PM, no matter what Rudd might do to offend the electorate!

He is literally the LAST person that they should be thinking of. What they really need is someone who can introduce something new to the whole political scene, that will appeal to the electorate, like …… um ….. focussing on achieving a genuinely sustainable society within a decade.

Costello would be about the last person on the planet to do this. And yet this is the most important thing of all.

Ok. You're all probably right in your summations
of Costello. But what I don't understand is, how
come there seems to be so much support for him
from within his own party? And where were these
people when Costello needed them?

I wouldn't write him off just yet. There must be
a reason he's hanging around. And, by the way, he
was offered a very lucrative overseas post some
time ago - I remember reading about it at the time
and - thinking why doens't he take it? But sorry,
I can't remember what it was or where. All I do
recall is that he turned it down. My question still
remains - for what purpose? I can't image a man
who's held a top job for so many years - being content
to stick around on the backbench - it just doesn't
add up. And, look at all the publicity he's currently
getting (instead of Turnbull). Costello is quite happy
to go on TV shows suddenly - why?

I want to also mention, we went and saw the newly released
film, "W," a few days ago. It's mind-boggling - how on
earth could a person like that get elected US President?
Gee Whiz - scary! As they say, "Only in America?"
Right? I highly recommend the film for anyone who's
interested in the real reasons we got involved in the Iraq
War - and the Middle East problems. Cheney will be a
real eye-opener - as well.

cont'd

I forgot to add that from watching 'Q and A,'
it definitely appears that Costello is pro
'Workchoices,' and as another member of the
Panel that evening pointed out - 'Workchoices,'
are still there - they haven't been chucked
out yet ... Which is a worry.

While I said in the thread Costello and Turnbull, Costello would never lead he is making a move.
And perhaps shackled by the need to please his party not the voters Turnbull is in trouble.
That last line, please the party not the voters, that is Costello, if he ever leads he will truly fail.
He never can change his public persona, that sneer is imprinted on our minds.
Right now, jobs sliding away, greater pain to come workchoices is the last thing conservatives need, a concrete block instead of a raft.
It is worth noting unions and workers know EBA s in place before workchoices run out soon, wage rises asked for will be far less than conservative fear machines say.
As conservatives seem bound for self destruction who leads if not Turnbull or Costello?
The cupboard is bare I stay with Turnbull, Costello like his profile with voters only has some of his party,a number never to be enough, he will leave the Parliament within 12 months.

Belly , Workchoices wasn't our enemy , it was the enemy of Militant Irresponsible Unionism

Actually, the watered down toothless version of workchoices is with us.
Shaz, give up the union-boogeyman speech. Everybody's sick of it and they've been so emasculated in recent years, nobody still regards they're such a big threat. That's why Howard's attempts to whip up hysteria around them failed so miserably.

I hope Turnbull sticks around. He's the best hope the Libs have, and regardless of the fact I'm unlikely to be voting for the coalition anytime soon, I do like to see a strong opposition. At the moment, they're useless.

Costello's dithered for far too long. Any challenge he mounts will fail and further weaken the party.

I also agree that Turnbull would be better for
the country - but not necessarily for the Liberal
Party. And that could be his downfall.

Costello, on the other hand - will be good for the
Liberal Party, in the sense that he adheres to the
conservative way of thinking - which is not necessarily
good for the country.

Costello however would unite the party, but his policies
would alienate the working people, pensioners, and
students, who constitute the majority of the population.

In today's economic climate we have to learn to help one
another and not rely on the individual sustaining himself,
which is the policy of the Liberal Party.

The constant evasion by Costello of his future course only
confirms a deviate approach to politics and can this man
really be trusted to run the country - or in the political
arena is he the best man for the Liberal Party?

"Well may we say that John Howard lost the plot, but will
Costello save the Party?"

Yes, you just have to wonder how much longer the Australian political scene is to be graced with Peter Costello's smirking presence. Naked ambition in an ideological sense is what I see as keeping him where he is. I don't think he'd ever want a private sector position, no matter how lucrative, while ever there's still a slim chance he can grab the top job and implement his longheld policy agenda.

I agree with Sancho's reference to the H.R.Nicholls Society. This group and other conservative power brokers are far from happy about the reins of power within the party being handed over to a moderate like Turnbull. They're keeping their man ready for the time Turnbull goes too far for them on issues like the environment, the Republic and any possible winding back of various Howard positions. The moment that occurs you can bet we'll have journalists asking Costello for the umpteenth time about his future plans.

Pelican, you may have seen a side to him that I haven't, but I definitely don't share your flattering view of Joe Hockey. From what I've seen of him, I'd describe him as a first class macho bully boy, far more competent in the art of bluster and intimidation than in any true grasp of policy or in any genuine concern for fairness and decency.

You're spot on with the 'motley crew' description though. The only ones I've noticed from that bunch that genuinely cared about fairness are Petro Georgiou and Judith Troeth, both of whom have since departed I think or are about to, and neither of whom were ever very high within the Liberal hierarchy anyway.

"In today's economic climate we have to learn to help one
another and not rely on the individual sustaining himself,
which is the policy of the Liberal Party."

Very true, Foxy

Bronwyn I agree with every word in your post.
Shaz you and I will never agree.
Yes, say it like it is extremist unions went too far, but well matched by Howard's rubbish he called workchoices.
It is forever my view workchoices awoke the union movement, that while we suffer from some past events the future looks great.
Costello, and the H R Nichols society for that matter must confront the fact the world has changed direction.
Not just America or Australia the crisis took the legs out from under such right wing lost soles.
Turnbull, if let run his own race could win the second more likely third election from now.
Costello could not win a raffle if he bought all the tickets.
I am pleased to tickle conservative voters, but not kidding the next two elections appear in the bag for Labor.

Dear Bronwyn,

I too fully agree with your post.

Dear Belly,

Fingers crossed!

Bronwyn I should have said Hockey was the best of a bad bunch but I don't see him as a bully boy. While it is personally fun to see the Coalition in disarray, in the interest of democracy we really do need some semblance of an intelligent and functioning opposition.

Foxy and Sancho, I remember a time when the Liberal Party was not so right wing. In the 70s the Liberals really did represent small business (as opposed to the pockets of the big end of town) and they did not sell off public assets (neither did the ALP). Even under the Libs during that time we were closer to the ideal of social democracy.

Dear Pelican,

I agree that we need a strong Opposition.

But whether we'll get it is another story.

It would be great if the Liberal Party allowed
Turnbull to have more of a say in its direction.
I'm a bit wary of them wanting to stick to the old
Howard policies of people either sinking or swimming,
and if they sink, well that's too bad, (because welfare
is not good for business).

I'm concerned about social welfare, public health,
education, I believe in the right of working people
being able to protect their livelihoods, so for
me "Workchoices" is not an option I'd vote for.

If Peter Costello was the Liberal Party Leader - would
he really change things for the better? Somehow I doubt it.
To me Turnbull, given a chance by his Party - is a better
option out of the two.

Have I stumbled into Greeen Left Weekly? We really are in need of Col to balance you lot out.

If Costello leads the party, they will lose me. I've never voted Liberal, but I cant stand Rudd, and I think Turbull is a pretty impressive man alround. Costello, on the other hand, I can only hold contempt for. Where Turnbull plainly has balls, Costello is the most spineless of characters you could ever hope to find.

I remember I liked Keating because for all his faults he was a strong man with a presence and a leader with character, had some worldliness about him, and I liked having him represent Australia. Then when Howard won, it was like the country was handed over to a meek little man who you'd more likely see in tracksuit pants at the RSL drinking a Tooheys Old. I cant explain it, but I was embarrassed for Australia.

Now we have Rudd, who to me seems like he isn't really human, leads by committee, and murders the english language at every speach he makes. I've recently been reading Death Sentences, and all the examples in that book remind me of Rudd. I think he is Totally without substance. The most wishy washy, stunted little nerd who is also an embarassment. Turnbull would be a step back in the Keating direction. A Leader with style and chutzpah.

So, now that you all know my opinions on leaders is based on my perception of their personality and style, you can all go off and fear for the future of the country, as I know I'm not alone. It does count though. It matters for the country. Who would ever want the chance to be represented by a slimy little shite like Cossie?

My lasting image of him is a picture I saw with him smirking at the opposition from behind Little Johnny, and Him, 'people skills' and Downer pulling faces at Rudd during a debate with Johnny like naughty little private school boys.

"My lasting image of him is a picture I saw with him smirking at the opposition from behind Little Johnny, and Him, 'people skills' and Downer pulling faces at Rudd during a debate with Johnny like naughty little private school boys."

Houellebecq

You have summed up to perfection the Liberal 'that-was'.

For a revitalised Liberal Party 'to-be', we don't need any of the above and except for Petey the old guard has changed. But into what exactly I am unsure, but a step forward would be for Costello to leave. Now. With what little grace he has.

Well, for one thing he would prove the truth of the reply attributed to Winston Churchill, when a new M.P. referred to the opposition party as "the enemy"
"MY BOY," said Winston," the opposition in a Democracy is just that-"the opposition" but in politics "the enemy" is sitting right behind you!

Dear Houellebecq,

So you want a Leader with style and chutzpah?

You mean like Barack Obama?

You may have a long time to wait.

Have you heard this definition of chutzpah?

It's when someone murders their parents, then
throws themselves on the court's mercy because
they're an orphan.

Come to think of it - perhaps Turnbull does fit
the bill...

Costello will never be leader he never had the balls to challenge Howard and is a de-stabling influence on the party. The party is in a mess and cannot get behind 2 leaders so why should they get behind Costello?
They rejected him and never gave him the numbers to challenged Howard. Why? Because they did not think he had what it takes so why should anyone think he has it now?

The Liberal party all need a reality check. Maybe they should all go into counselling. They need something instead of continuing to feed the press with a lot of rubbish. Is it just to take out minds off the state of the nation because they too have no solutions and will not admit that they helped to get us into this mess under Howard.

Costello will never be leader he never had the balls to challenge Howard and is a de-stabling influence on the party. The party is in a mess and cannot get behind 2 leaders so why should they get behind Costello?
They rejected him and never gave him the numbers to challenged Howard. Why? Because they did not think he had what it takes so why should anyone think he has it now?

The party needs a reality check. Maybe they should all get some counselling