====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
The leadership contest in the conservative Liberal Party, which is in opposition, here in Australia has just completed a leadership contest. Murdoch's Australian reported the event thus: *"THIS is a fundamental change in the power and ideology of the Liberal Party. A highly progressive leader, Malcolm Turnbull, has been replaced by a highly conservative leader, Tony Abbott. *A leader pledged to support the Rudd Government’s Emissions Trading Scheme has been replaced by a leader opposed to this scheme. This issue will now be resolved by the people. It is no surprise that in his victory comments Tony Abbott focused on an election declaring that he did not fear an election on the ETS. Abbott is a conviction politician and a complete authentic. He will be a direct, forceful and energetic leader with deep roots in the ethos of the Liberal Party. But the viability of this decision will be determined by the election result – this is a vote for an election on climate change. The feature of the ballot was the strong performance of Turnbull. He nearly won, contrary to nearly all media predictions. The failure of the progressive camp was that Turnbull and Hockey split their vote with Turnbull outpolling Hockey yet just falling short of defeating Abbott." There is much that is just rubbish in this short report. For instance Turnbull, a former merchant banker, was very far from "highly progressive". Moreover the ETS shceme he agreed to was far from progressive or radical. But seemingly it was too radical for most of the Liberal Party. The winner, Tony Abbott, is described as a "conviction politician". I suppose by Australian standards he is. His background is that of an ex-seminarian Catholic. He has spoken out against abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research: the holy trinity for Catholics of the right. However on the environment he is actually aware of the problem and originally he supported the ETS. But opportunistically he changed sides and voted down his leader. so much for his convictions and his authenticity. However all that really adds to the intrinsic trivia and idiocy of electoral politics. What is more important is to try and work out what the leadership struggle within the Liberal Party actually represents at a deep level. I do not think it reflects a rightward turn in the country. Rather it will doom the Liberals to electoral defeat IMHO. There is massive anxiety about global warming , especially among young Australians and a burning desire to have something done about it. The Liberal Party has set its face against this tide and will pay the price. I think what we are seeing here is that a faction of the ruling class has no idea how to lead. Rulers need to have hegemony, but climate sceptics just cannot achieve that in today's world. The gap between what we need and even expect from our rulers and what we actually get is ever widening. And it is this that will contribute to a political change not some irrelevant changing of the guard i.e "leadership contest". regards Gary ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
