No, Peter, It's Not Your Turn

by Michael Costello - The Australian

Peter Costello has, since the middle of 2003, allowed himself to be taken for a mug by John Howard. That was when Howard decided to stay in the job for the 2004 election.

That was when he coined his famous formula that he would remain leader "for so long as the party wanted him to".

Costello has chosen, up until now, to interpret that as meaning that after the 2004 election, Howard would be willing to hand over to him.

That was self-delusion on Costello's part. What Howard was saying then, what he has said since, and what he is saying still is this: "Peter, while I have got the numbers, I'm staying as long as I want."

In his so-called Athens declaration last week, Howard did refer to his fitness, good health, enthusiasm for the job, to still having a big agenda - but absolutely none of this is new. He has said all those things during the election campaign and since.

The only thing new this year is that Howard's growing arrogance has tempted him to needle Costello. For example, after the election of the new Pope, Howard, with a knowing Cheshire-cat grin, referred to the tremendous advantage age and experience have in leadership.

And it was an unnecessary and cruel kick in the teeth to Costello for Howard to say in Athens that Costello's 10th budget was Howard's 16th!

But Howard has never hidden his position. While he has the numbers and wants the job he is staying. It is a sad reflection on Costello's lack of insight that he apparently has not realised this until now.

What's Costello's claim to the leadership? He talks about the need for an orderly transition in the interests of the Liberal Party.

Howard had the killer response to that. He said to the ABC's Kerry O'Brien on Monday that "it's important that there be an understanding about how to handle things at the pinnacle at the Liberal Party but it's got to be an understanding that reflects the views of the Liberal Party".

Of course. How can a transition be either orderly or in the interests of the Liberal Party if most members of the Liberal Party think that changing leaders is a bad idea? And at the moment, that is exactly what most of them think.

So if the orderly transition argument does not work, what's Costello's other claim to the leadership? He cannot argue he's more popular and more likely to win the next election. The polling numbers overwhelmingly point to the contrary.

He hasn't argued that he has huge policy differences with Howard over economic reform. After all, this bloke over the years has singularly failed to take on Howard in a single serious Cabinet fight. He has just rolled over.

No, Costello's claim is not policy or political appeal. His real claim is a beauty. It's that it is his turn! That's what it all amounts to. He might of well said, "I have been a good, loyal soldier and was nice to you in helping you to get the leadership (as I didn't have the numbers myself at the time). I have worked hard and it's been a long time, so it's my turn." What sort of argument is that?

But something has changed. The light bulb has flashed on. He has realised that Howard is saying "If you want this job, you are going to have to take it from me." Even though Howard overwhelmingly has the numbers at the moment, Costello could create the circumstances where that changes. How?

It's called destabilisation, undermining, backgrounding, and white-anting the leader. We are starting to see a bit of it right now. Setting March deadlines, threatening that these things "have not been finally dealt with but they will be", getting business figures backgrounding sympathetically -- all not a bad start.

But this is a tactic fraught with risk. Unlike Paul Keating, who did it so successfully to Bob Hawke, Costello doesn't have a substantial, rusted-on group of powerful supporters to start with.

His performance in parliament is often compared with Keating's, so let's see if he's capable of the sort of hand-to-hand political combat Keating was so good at. And the risk Costello faces is that in trying to pull Howard down, he will also hurt the Government's standing -- and thus could trash his own standing in the Liberal Party.

Howard could in those circumstances easily do a deal with any of Tony Abbott, Brendan Nelson, Alexander Downer, even Malcolm Turnbull. Costello, instead of being the remorseless Keating to Hawke, could end up more like Peacock to Fraser in 1982 -- smashed 59 to 27 in a party-room vote.

Costello either has to decide to take that risk, undermine Howard and challenge him (perhaps more than once), or he has to simply cop the fact that Howard will go when it suits him not when it suits Costello.

When Howard in 2003 decided to stay on, Costello harrumphed, muttered darkly, promised to talk on a much broader policy canvas and then subsided into quiescence.

Will he do the same again? Or are we finally seeing Achilles storm out of his tent? I suspect we are. But remember this. Achilles did indeed slaughter the Trojan hero Hector. But he was himself promptly slain from ambush by the pretty boy Paris.