How Abbott will check mate his critics

I wager that Prime Minister Tony Abbott has a “thing” for former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. A “thing” in the philosophical sense of course.

She was a part of a generation that was asked to sacrifice, asked to pull one’s own weight, asked to show respect to one’s elders and asked to stand up for one’s beliefs.

As the Member for Finchley in north London and later as Prime Minister, she had a vision for Britain, she could articulate that vision and most of all, she could sell that vision.

If the Abbott Government v1.0 has a vision, it’s darn good at hiding it. And given it is hidden, it’s unsurprising the alleged vision has not been embraced by the backbench let alone marketed to the rest of us.

The, “age of entitlement” ethos that was identified by Treasurer Joe Hockey nearly three years ago and which like a virus infects all corners of society has over the six years of hard labour under Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard witnessed a misallocation of funds for education and welfare, the increase in political divisions, the allergy to economic reform and the reluctance to criticize anyone (such as special interest groups) who may be subtracting from society. Rightly the Abbott government opposes such an ethos.

Outside the inner circle of ministers and the occasional talk back radio host, the expression “personal accountability” is rarely heard in polite company. Its steadfast opponents littered within the Labor Party and the Greens promote the canard that all problems – economic and social - are always someone else’s fault.

Illegal arrivals? Blame it on Australia’s lack of an open door policy. Drug smuggling? Blame the Australian Federal Police for not giving Andrew Chan and Myurun Sukumaran a “get out of gaol free” pass. Childcare too expensive? Don’t blame yourselves for choosing to reproduce and assuming you can socialise the cost of child rearing. Instead blame the government for not offering free childcare. The cost of Medicare spinning out of control? Certainly don’t wind back the rebate for the proverbial 6-minute general practice consultation. Not if such a policy impacts on the take home pay of members of the militant and monopolistic physicians union. Blame the government for not raising the Medicare scheduled fee.

The list goes on.

For those promoting an entitlement state, the mirror is never pointed in their direction. Instead it reflects a utopia that would be possible to obtain if only what Labor wasn’t blocking what it calls the Abbott government’s so-called “unfair” and “mean” budget policies.

Leftist politicians in Canberra who exhibit the trifecta of economic illiteracy, populist prostitution and a pathological lack of shame ignore the evidence from the European PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain) where inept parliamentarians oversaw out of control welfare spending which not only sapped the self respect of its citizens and bred a disinclination for millions to vocationally connect with the economy, but tellingly also drove several Eurozone nations to the brink of financial disaster.

 This is not the Australia most of us want. We do not want to swap the meat pie for the souvlaki.

Margaret Thatcher’s advice to her trembling colleagues was as pertinent in the 1980s as it is to Abbott and his colleagues today. With regards to dilemmas that have befallen Abbott’s front bench Liberal Party, four pearls are worth recalling.

1. “Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.”

Thatcher showed, and Abbott certainly has the capacity to reveal, that strong leadership can be demonstrated and not promoted like some vulgar circus sideshow. If he needs to learn how this is mastered, he should consult his Foreign Minister.

2. “Everything is fine until you run out of everybody’s else’s money.”

So long as a government takes from productive people and companies and spoons it out to the able but less productive, what signals is it sending the young? Don’t work hard or your rewards will be taken away? Or, don’t worry about making a living; other taxpayers will take care of you? She’ll be right.

3. “As Ron [Reagan] once put it: the nine most dangerous words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help’ ”.

While government is a necessity, we should not be blind to the reality that government is the least efficient body to get almost anything done. To rely on government to take care of one’s needs is a fiscally irresponsible pursuit, chased by those well-paid inner city socialists who have never had to rely on it. It is no coincidence that the phrase, ‘as efficient as government’ does not appear in any economic textbook. Unless when used as a pejorative.

4. “I am not a consensus politician. I’m a conviction politician.”

Thatcher was and Abbott is a rare breed in courageously standing up for what she thought and he thinks is right. Even if when doing so will not win him votes.

For instance, wanting to outlaw travel by Australian passport holders of the Islamic faith to countries where Da’esh is active, Abbott was hamstrung by Labor in the Senate. Labor parliamentarians are aware of the large numbers of Muslims in their electorates. This saw Abbott abort his policy in favour or a watered down one. He agreed to Labor’s insistence that regions within countries to be made off limits to Australians and not countries per se. This is a case in point. Abbott was right straight off the bat and should have argued his case directly to voters and not the Senate by painting Labor as soft on Da’esh.

And he’d be on strong ground. Labor has form in putting its electoral survival ahead of the national security interest. After all, it was former Labor Prime Minister Paul J. Keating, fearful of losing the jihadist vote, over rode his Immigration Minister, Chris Hurford and allowed the racist and divisive former Grand Mufti of Australia, Taj El-Din Al-Hilaly be granted permanent residency.

We need more leaders that will stand up for what’s right, and like Thatcher will tell us what we may not like to hear. But only if they can inform, explain and convince us of the merits of their argument.

We need more leaders who can carry us with them on the road to a more sustainable, economically fit and actively employed society that competes successfully with the world on all levels, including on wages.

But such leaders need more than economic and social policies. They need narratives and they need salesmanship.

And this brings us to Joe Hockey. Or more correctly, the problem of Joe Hockey.

Simply put: regardless of whether he enthusiastically supported the government’s economic policies or objected to some or all, his task was to narrate and to sell. At best, he did neither. At worst, he did both. Badly. It’s that simple. It’s academic to dissect the reasons why he failed.

On Monday he wasn’t pushed out the door. And he certainly didn’t surrender his title. More’s the pity.

There is something seriously awry when conservative voters (let alone Labor supporters) haven’t got a clue just what the government’s vision for Australia is and what ideas the government believes is worth fighting for.

First, a vision must be agreed upon. And not just by the Prime Minister, his Chief of Staff and a couple of Yes Men. The tent where views are to be exchanged must be broad and must include backbenchers.

Second, once a vision is agreed upon, it must be articulated 24/7 by the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues at every opportunity they get, to everyone they meet.

Third, the narratives must simple, straightforward, optimistic and inclusive.

All parliamentarians, not just cabinet ministers must be fully appraised of the government’s strategy and must sell the government’s story.

Sadly, while the government has many runs on the board, viz. it has stopped illegal arrivals and saved lives, created jobs and uncoupled the economy from carbon and mining taxes, its leadership has failed to successfully publicise these victories, let alone exploit them.

Most recently Hockey sought to shave the cost of funding Medicare by trying to curb the appetite of the nation’s most articulate union with the best-dressed members, the Australian Medical Association. The government wanted patients to marginally contribute to the cost of their care. The AMA, alert to the reality that when the price of a service rises, even ever so slightly, less will be demanded of it, successfully torpedoed this initiative.

After all, the AMA leadership like any good shop steward wasn’t going to stand around and watch its members suffer a dip in remuneration, no matter how small.

Perish the thought that such a policy has Australia’s national long-term health interests at heart.

Nobody can fault the AMA’s Dr Brian Owler for advancing his and his union’s interests. Blame however can be dumped on Joe Hockey for failing to sell his well-intentioned reform to the public.

All of the above policies, each in its own way, serves the public interest. They don’t however serve narrow special interests. And it’s the special interests that can organise air time on television to argue their case with sympathetic reporters and offer spokesmen to radio stations to disingenuously galvanise fear in the hearts of listeners.

Sydney’s Daily Telegraph on Tuesday got it so right when it held that “much of Abbott’s unpopularity, of course, is to do with Labor’s ­extremely successful campaign to paint the Coalition’s first Budget as mean and unfair. This campaign is a triumph of repetition over facts, but it is certainly working, mainly because Treasurer Joe Hockey seems unable to counter it”.

Abbott must sack Hockey as Treasurer and replace him with Turnbull. Hockey’s experience, for what it’s worth, can be harnessed if he takes Josh Frydenberg’s job of Assistant Treasurer.

By doing so, Abbott would have check mated all of his critics.

After all, if Turnbull succeeds in the role then the party’s standing in the polls will rise, the party will be energised and Abbott will look like the captain he believes he is: placing the right person in the right role.

Should Turnbull fail to bring the back bench with him, fail to cut through to the taxpaying public or falls victim to Labor’s effective but chronically asinine half truths, then not only will Turnbull damage the party, but Abbott will rightly claim he snookered his critics. He gave them a chance and Turnbull blew it.

The smart money however is on Turnbull succeeding as Treasurer, Hockey as his assistant and in turn, both making Abbott a success whilst uniting the party.

Hopefully this coming weekend, Abbott should euthanize Hockey’s Treasury ambitions and place a call to the Member for Wentworth.

And while he’s at it, Abbott should leave Turnbull running the Communication portfolio as well. Why replace him as Minister for Communications? Who possibly could do a better fist of it?

Abbott may not consider Turnbull leadership material. He may not even like him. But he surely understands that Turnbull is a very capable man whose talents the party needs. Managing and marketing two large and complex portfolios is well within his capacity.

As for Joe, as a person on television and radio he comes across as nice.  As Treasurer however he has failed.

Call the removalists. Time to hit the road Jack. Seriously.