“The destabilisation of Malcolm Turnbull is starting.”
That was the veteran commentator Ross Fitzgerald in the Sydney Morning Herald a few days ago.
In reality, the destabilisation of Malcolm Turnbull started almost as soon as Tony Abbott lost the leadership, with Abbott’s decision to remain in the House of Representatives an obvious indication of his unwillingness to accept the spill.
Moreover, the public knew it.
By April, the majority of Australians believed Abbott wanted to topple Turnbull – and if voters think you’re destabilising, then, almost by definition, you’re destabilising.
But that survey also revealed a deep hostility to Abbott’s ambition, with some 63% of respondents wanting the former PM to quit parliament altogether.
That’s worth remembering in the context of Abbott’s latest grandstanding: his proposal for an “open slather” free trade agreement with post-Brexit Britain.
Now, humble backbenchers intent on serving their electorates don’t generally put forward their blueprints for foreign policy for public consideration. Obviously, this scheme, dutifully published in the Australian by Abbott’s long-term stenographer, Greg Sheridan, was another shot across the bow of the SS Turnbull, a vessel in danger of foundering with all hands.
Yet Abbott’s decision to differentiate himself from his prime minister through, of all things, a free trade agreement illustrates how delusional the “Bring Abbott back” push has become.
In the United States, the public hostility to such deals has forced both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump to pledge their opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a pet project of Barack Obama.
But, of course, Abbott’s not speaking to the public. On the contrary, he’s addressing an insurgent Liberal base and the bomb throwers of the rightwing commentariat.
In the course of stalking Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd could at least point to a deep and stable reservoir of personal popularity. Abbott, however, has never been a Rudd.
Under Turnbull, the Liberals’ poll ratings may now be back down to those that motivated the coup against his predecessor, and Turnbull’s dissatisfaction rates may be rising, but his unpopularity has not translated into public enthusiasm for Abbott.
On the contrary, Abbott’s backing comes almost entirely from conservative activists and their media cheerleaders, probably the only people in the nation to share his delight in “open slather” free trade.
His bizarre reconciliation with Pauline Hanson neatly illustrated where Abbott now stands.
During the late 1990s and early 2000s, Abbott spearheaded the campaign that resulted in Hanson’s jail term. Back then, he was acting on behalf of his parliamentary leader – essentially, working as John Howard’s hardman in the interests of the Liberal mainstream.
By contrast, the meeting with Hanson was directed against the current leader. Abbott knows that the Liberal rank and file admires the One Nation founder. He also knows that he’ll need Hansonite support as he and his allies snipe at Turnbull as an effete silvertail, insufficiently hard on refugees, Muslims, security, same-sex marriage and the other obsessions of the hard right.
Hence that Facebook clip: the most awkward video since Johnny Depp apologised for Pistol and Boo.
But Hanson’s a rightwing populist and Abbott seeks to lead the Liberal party. That means while he can echo Hanson’s anti-Islam rhetoric, he can’t embrace the economic protectionism that gives her hostility to Muslims and refugees its plebeian appeal. Culture war is one thing but Abbott also needs the support of the free market fundamentalists within the Institute for Public Affairs, the Murdoch press and the Liberal party branches.
As a result, Abbott has ended up running his campaign against Turnbull on the basis of a bizarre and unpopular grab bag of policies.
On the one hand, he’s associated himself with all the oddball culture war fixations of the far right, most of which have no real currency outside Cory Bernardi’s cranium or the comments section of Andrew Bolt’s blog. On the other hand, he’s positioning himself as the strong leader necessary to push through the free market “reform agenda” so beloved of the economic hardheads.
In other words, he’s put together a Frankenstein platform out of the least popular elements of two different traditions, stitching the weird fustiness of social conservatism (but not its populism) to the market fundamentalism of the Liberal “dries” (but without their social liberalism).
None of which is to say he might not succeed in knocking off Turnbull, who’s struggling with irreconcilable contradictions of his own.
But what would happen then? Outside the conservative echo chamber, where’s the support base for Abbott 2.0?
The conservative cadre agitating for Abbott’s return will not quit. But it’s all very well for Fido to chase cars. The real problems start when he catches one.
