This may seem reactionary, and somewhat irrational, however I have firmly developed the belief that the Liberal Party leadership should be handed over to Costello as soon as is reasonably practicable.
This has developed primarily out of the sense that the electorate has stopped listening to Howard, and the notion that he is central to the need for change.
Reasons for leadership change -
- It instigates a sense of change within governmental ranks, and although he is perceived as 'arrogant', Costello does have his record as Treasurer, and without the extent of 'political baggage' associated with Howard.
- If Howard continues until the election, and loses, Costello would realistically have lost any chance of gaining the prime ministership. The likelihood of becoming Opposition Leader and gaining electoral succes in one term would be more than unlikely. He might as well have an attempt while he has the opportunity. If he loses, and presuming Howard would lose as well, the party has at least explored the alternatives.
- In any event, the electorate is fully aware that Costello will succeed Howard should he win the election. As one commentator stated, Costello would much rather be remembered for being Prime Minister at some stage, than 'Howard's Treasurer'.
- New leadership not only stimulates electoral interest, but also stimulates te case for ministerial change in the key portfolios. Turnbull to Treasurer, Bishop to Health, Abbott to Industrial Relations, Nelson remain in Defence etc
- The government needs to gain traction in the area of 'change' and provide an 'alternative' to the current situation. Regardless of the political issues that exist, the mood for change is more aligned to government longevity and 'staleness'.
Does Costello have much chance of winning? I don't think so. However, the party should at least explore other options, as the current formula, whilst successful in the past, is unlikely to achieve the desired result.
Will this happen of course? No chance..
Surely this has to supercede 1993 as the 'unwinnable' election..
This has developed primarily out of the sense that the electorate has stopped listening to Howard, and the notion that he is central to the need for change.
Reasons for leadership change -
- It instigates a sense of change within governmental ranks, and although he is perceived as 'arrogant', Costello does have his record as Treasurer, and without the extent of 'political baggage' associated with Howard.
- If Howard continues until the election, and loses, Costello would realistically have lost any chance of gaining the prime ministership. The likelihood of becoming Opposition Leader and gaining electoral succes in one term would be more than unlikely. He might as well have an attempt while he has the opportunity. If he loses, and presuming Howard would lose as well, the party has at least explored the alternatives.
- In any event, the electorate is fully aware that Costello will succeed Howard should he win the election. As one commentator stated, Costello would much rather be remembered for being Prime Minister at some stage, than 'Howard's Treasurer'.
- New leadership not only stimulates electoral interest, but also stimulates te case for ministerial change in the key portfolios. Turnbull to Treasurer, Bishop to Health, Abbott to Industrial Relations, Nelson remain in Defence etc
- The government needs to gain traction in the area of 'change' and provide an 'alternative' to the current situation. Regardless of the political issues that exist, the mood for change is more aligned to government longevity and 'staleness'.
Does Costello have much chance of winning? I don't think so. However, the party should at least explore other options, as the current formula, whilst successful in the past, is unlikely to achieve the desired result.
Will this happen of course? No chance..
Surely this has to supercede 1993 as the 'unwinnable' election..
Last edited:
