Not budging?
The possible transition from Howard to Costello has been an ongoing fascination this year. This morning on AM the Prime Minister used quite specific language when questioned about his future:
MATT BROWN: To finish on a domestic issue, on your leadership of the Liberal Party and currently the country, do you accept that you should decide on your future before the Treasurer delivers his next Budget?
JOHN HOWARD: I will do what I said I would do, in 2003 when I said I’d continue as leader of the party. I said that I’d remain leader of the party for as long as the party wanted me to, and it was in the best interests of the party that I should do so. And nothing has changed.
MATT BROWN: It remains in the best interests of the party?
JOHN HOWARD: Well, they are things that are assessed by the party and by me and I have a job to do, and I intend to go on doing it.
MATT BROWN: It can’t have escaped the attention of some of those in the party who would like to see a transition that you appear at the top of your game. You appear full of energy and you are still loving the job as much as ever?
JOHN HOWARD: Matt, the position on the leadership is as I’ve described it. Of course I’m fit and of course I’m committed. That’s what I owe the Australian people. They are entitled to have 200 per cent from me, while ever I’m in this job.
Just in case you missed it, Howard said, “I will do what I said I would do, in 2003 when I said I’d continue as leader of the party. I said that I’d remain leader of the party for as long as the party wanted me to, and it was in the best interests of the party that I should do so.”
I think there are (at least) two ways of interpreting the remark. The first is that Howard means what he says and says what he means. He is staying for the foreseeable future, and there is no transition plan in April, May or June 2006 (regardless of the rumours and speculations from team Costello).
This is bad news for the Costello push, as his supporters are in the minority in the party room. At some point Costello must decided whether he will (a) knuckle down and stay on as Treasurer for at least another three years, (b) mount a (probably unsuccessful) challenge and then move to the backbench to try and do a Keating, or (c) take the Paris option (ie. an ambassadorial positing, or the local alternatives such as being made a High Court Judge or the next Governor-General).
However, there is a second way to interpret Howard and Costello’s stick to the script remarks: they may have their own Kirribilli agreement. At some point between now and the next election, Howard will step down and Costello is the obvious heir apparent. With Howard and Costello sticking to the script and not answering the transition question, Howard is spared Tony Blair’s fate — being seen as a lame duck prime minister, serving his time before his retirement.
The problem with Kirribilli agreements is they have a history of being welched, largely because the prime minister of the day believes he is best placed to lead the party to victory at the next election.
I find this a hard one to judge. My inclination is that Howard intends to stay, and it is just stiff cheddar for Costello. If there really was a Kirribilli agreement, I suspect team Costello would not be speaking up dates in the second quarter of 2006. Still, Kirribilli agreements do not have a good history, and Costello may feel that subtle backgrounding is necessary to ensure prime ministerial compliance.
What do you think? Is there an agreement? Is Howard staying on to the next election or going?