Yesterday Hawke was arguing that the punters should not be distracted by Howard’s use of the term ‘deal’. Costello was talking about an ‘undertaking’. When someone gives an undertaking, you (by definition) don’t have a deal. Deals are negotiated; undertakings are given. But for the life of me, I cannot see how an undertaking begins with the words, “I can’t guarantee this to you Peter …”
Howard’s 5 December 1994 ‘undertaking’ was allegedly given to secure him the party leadership unopposed. However, that meeting was not the conclusion of the discussions between Howard and Costello. In the subsequent meeting, Costello reserved his right to challenge Howard for the Liberal leadership. If there was an undertaking on 5 December 1994 to secure an unopposed leadership ballot, was it still on the table when Costello subsequently said that he reserved the right to challenge?
While there was no deal or undertaking, Costello was clearly left with a reasonable expectation of a short-lived Howard government. Now, at least, we know why Howard has never said that he is here for the long haul. Howard has been stringing Costello along on the promise that maybe tomorrow it will all be his. And for almost 12 years, Costello has been buying the dream.
So much for 12 year old history. Yesterday’s compromise was a clever one. It was the last outcome the Labor Party would have wanted, as it is the best chance for a fifth term Coalition government. It will be interesting to see whether it is a sustainable compromise.
Yesterday’s compromise also gave an insight to the Liberal Party dynamics. Costello clearly does not have the numbers in the Cabinet, let alone the party room to mount a challenge. Howard has chosen to keep Costello in the tent and, in doing so, effectively neutered him. By staying in the tent, Costello has effectively acquiesced to Howard’s leadership.
I am inclined to agree with the Telegraph, Costello has damaged both his short- and long-term chances at the top job. In calling Howard a liar, he has called himself a liar, as he had previously denied any deal. By not resigning, Costello has shown that Howard has the strength of numbers for the medium term. Costello’s bark was worse than his bite.
And, all this raises questions about Costello’s judgement. Why did Costello give oxygen to a leadership transition story if he didn’t have the numbers to back himself in the medium term (Keating’s second shot in the locker strategy after 6 months on the back bench)?
One argument is that Costello simply wanted to correct the historical record and put pressure on Howard to retire this year. It was probably a bit late to do the former, and the subtext from Howard yesterday was more about staying than going. Another explanation is that of Howard’s naming: hubris and arrogance. Unfortunately for Costello, history is usually written by the winners.
In the medium term I think we can expect someone to challenge Costello’s status as heir apparent. Abbott, Nelsen and Downer are often named in this scenario, but there are a number of young Turks who cannot be dismissed.
Update 14 July 2006: Dennis Shanahan captured Costello’s problem in today’s Australian under the rubric ‘Costello fumbling his way out of the race’. Some excerpts follow.
PETER Costello’s campaign to replace John Howard and become prime minister is hopelessly flawed. If Costello is to ever succeed, he has to completely overhaul his approach.
The Treasurer’s ambitions have been thwarted in the large part because of Howard’s success and determination to stay in the job as long as possible, but also by his own lack of cohesive political strategy to become prime minister.
This is apparent to everyone in parliament. Costello’s friends and foes are scratching their heads as his campaign lurches to life, threatens mayhem and then folds with little gain, or even goes backwards. Time and again putative challenges and dire threats of partyroom bloodbaths recede, leaving Costello worse off than when he began.
…
Costello’s behaviour, and the divisions within his supporters between the “waiters” and the “wreckers”, suggests he can’t decide if he’s a Holt or a Keating. The two courses are mutually exclusive yet they appear to be simultaneously pursued by the Treasurer and his supporters, with dire consequences.
…
In short, he [Costello] has an insufficient base from which to launch a challenge and gain a credible, even if losing, result. This underscores the dangers of having maverick or wild-card supporters who try to prod or force Costello into confrontations with Howard through media leaks.
This goes hand in glove with the Costello camp’s failure to put a clear case as to why Costello would be better and more likely to gain victory at the next election than Howard. Epithets about being a lying rodent may detract from Howard’s standing but they don’t build Costello’s: that’s the danger of a negative, wrecking approach. Howard’s public standing is also much higher than Hawke’s was when Keating launched his assault.
Update 20 July 2006: The Australian reported on Milne v Akerman, the story behind the story.