My speculation (and that's all it is - speculation) is that Howard would prefer Tony Abbot as his successor for party leadership. I sometimes get the impression he's grooming Abbot for heir-apparent. But right now Abbot's seen as too much of a hatchet man, and they need to "soften" his image.
This was Labor's mistake (one of many) with Latham. They allowed no time to remake his image as someone who could play "good cop" which the leader must be able to do (or be perceived as doing).
Hey, unless Howard & Costello were to fight to death for the leadership. In the interests of the nation. And in the spirit of healthy competition policy. It could be televised and webcast. That would be something.
This whole imbroglio (there got to work in one of my favourite words) stikes me as quite bizarre and probably the result of a slow news week following the end of the World Diving Championships. Politics is always pragmatism and there is nothing quite so political as internal party politics.
Costello is a riskier choice as leader. So does Liberal Party force Howard to resign to honour a "promise" he made 12 years ago and thereby increase the liklihood of electoral failure. In Kim Beazely's dreams they do. They recognise the "promise" for what it was, no more than a tacit agreement from Howard to support Costello's tilt for the leadership when he retired and move on.
By the measure of some people here if Howard had failed after one term he would have lied because he didn't resign after a term and a half.
Imagine if we all carried around bits of paper in our wallet for ten years? What a joke.
Politics is truly the theatre of the absurd.
Howard remains the wise political choice of the Liberal Party to lead the Liberal Party. This is unlikely to change and if I was in a Coaltion member in a marginal seat I certainly would not want to see the back of Howard.
In terms of replacing Howard when HE decides to retire, Costello is the only choice.
This extraordinarily boring, predictable and long running reality of Australian politics still seems to excite the media.
Now let me go into my wallet and see if I can dredge up what someone said ten years ago!
What a joke.
If a week is a long time in politics, what on earth is ten years? Beyond eternity?
My speculation (and that's all it is - speculation) is that Howard would prefer Tony Abbot as his successor for party leadership. I sometimes get the impression he's grooming Abbot for heir-apparent. But right now Abbot's seen as too much of a hatchet man, and they need to "soften" his image.
This was Labor's mistake (one of many) with Latham. They allowed no time to remake his image as someone who could play "good cop" which the leader must be able to do (or be perceived as doing).
Posted by: Will Howard | Wednesday, July 12, 2006 at 01:55
Expert blow-by-blow commentary by Abbott and Mark Latham.
Posted by: Jacob A. Stam | Tuesday, July 11, 2006 at 14:06
Harry "I'd pay to watch them fight if someone put on that Star Trek fight scene music in the background".
I demand a cage match!
Watching Abbott sneak around with "the chair" would be worth the price of admission alone!
Posted by: Jay White | Tuesday, July 11, 2006 at 13:23
I'd pay to watch them fight if someone put on that Star Trek fight scene music in the background.
Posted by: Harry Heidelberg | Tuesday, July 11, 2006 at 12:50
Nothing more, Justin, except ... ZZZzzzz ...
Hey, unless Howard & Costello were to fight to death for the leadership. In the interests of the nation. And in the spirit of healthy competition policy. It could be televised and webcast. That would be something.
Posted by: Jacob A. Stam | Tuesday, July 11, 2006 at 12:36
Yawn, nothing more to add as Harry got it right the first time.
Posted by: Justin Obodie | Tuesday, July 11, 2006 at 11:30
This whole imbroglio (there got to work in one of my favourite words) stikes me as quite bizarre and probably the result of a slow news week following the end of the World Diving Championships. Politics is always pragmatism and there is nothing quite so political as internal party politics.
Costello is a riskier choice as leader. So does Liberal Party force Howard to resign to honour a "promise" he made 12 years ago and thereby increase the liklihood of electoral failure. In Kim Beazely's dreams they do. They recognise the "promise" for what it was, no more than a tacit agreement from Howard to support Costello's tilt for the leadership when he retired and move on.
By the measure of some people here if Howard had failed after one term he would have lied because he didn't resign after a term and a half.
Posted by: Hamish Tweedy | Tuesday, July 11, 2006 at 02:26
Harry, given that Howard (John Howard that is) is such a liar, the only joke, since you are such a liar-loving Howard hugger, is you!
Oh, and that pathetic lunatic Jay White.
Posted by: Damian Lataan | Monday, July 10, 2006 at 15:36
The Hon Ian McLachlan AO is certainly not a joke.
Harry Heidelberg, Jay White and Noelene Konstandinitis certainly are.
Posted by: Mark Powell | Monday, July 10, 2006 at 15:24
Harry
This whole tragic non-issue is further prrof that Glen Milne and the wheels of a locomotive would be a perfect match.
Posted by: Noelene Konstandinitis | Monday, July 10, 2006 at 14:15
Make that twelve years ago.
And yes it is a joke!
Posted by: Jay White | Monday, July 10, 2006 at 13:12
Imagine if we all carried around bits of paper in our wallet for ten years? What a joke.
Politics is truly the theatre of the absurd.
Howard remains the wise political choice of the Liberal Party to lead the Liberal Party. This is unlikely to change and if I was in a Coaltion member in a marginal seat I certainly would not want to see the back of Howard.
In terms of replacing Howard when HE decides to retire, Costello is the only choice.
This extraordinarily boring, predictable and long running reality of Australian politics still seems to excite the media.
Now let me go into my wallet and see if I can dredge up what someone said ten years ago!
What a joke.
If a week is a long time in politics, what on earth is ten years? Beyond eternity?
Posted by: Harry Heidelberg | Monday, July 10, 2006 at 13:06