Liberal leader

The showdown for Liberal leader will happen on Tuesday. At the moment it is a fight between Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott, though Joe Hockey also might join the mix. Kevin Andrews might have another go too.

Some other potential leaders aren’t putting their hands up this time around. One option that I quite like is Andrew Robb. Other names sometimes thrown around for future leader include Julie Bishop, Peter Dutton and Christopher Pyne.

So what do you think, dear reader?  (Note: click on the poll below to take you to the poll main page, then vote. You can choose more than one option, but you can only vote once.)

Who should lead the Liberal Party?
Malcolm Turnbull
Tony Abbott
Joe Hockey
Kevin Andrews
Andrew Robb
Julie Bishop
Peter Dutton
Christopher Pyne
pollcode.com free polls

19 thoughts on “Liberal leader

  1. The spill is on Tuesday because that’s when the parliamentarians will all be in Canberra.

    The Senate is sitting on Monday, but the Senators have the option of continuing to debate the bill and not vote… so the legislation could be delayed until Tuesday when the Liberals may have a new leader.

  2. @ 10pm

    Turnbull 39%
    Abbott 17%
    Hockey 17%
    Robb 13%
    Bishop 13%

    Early stages still, but I am a bit surprised that Turnbull still has strong support and that over 50% of people have backed a pro-ETS candidate.

  3. Ah, OK. Never sure how things work with the senate, etc… So there’s no chance of the ETS being passed before Tuesday?

    As for the poll, I expect it’s mostly lack of votes – plus, you have the rest split amongst lots of candidates. Any lefties visiting the site will no doubt vote for the Turncoat, so the result is hardly surprising.

    In short: Turnbull has a strong result because he’s supported by people who would never vote Liberal in the first place, regardless of current policy.

  4. Would this be more acceptable to the angry conservatives?

    http://www.catallaxyfiles.com/blog/?p=7124#comment-168997

    ‘Not originally my idea, I’ve just changed it slightly:

    A 30 year tax exemption on all taxes for any business that changes business practices to stop CO2 emissions or to sequester them.

    A 30 year tax exemption break for three areas; renewables, biofuel, nuclear (energy sources), sustainable & net carbon sequestering farming (agriculture) and for firms that replace a direct reliance on fossil fuel (i.e automotive, e.g., Better Place).

    Surely this would be very easy to implement globally and a yearly audit would replace yearly tax returns and tax bills. The catch would have to be that other significant environmental damage is mitigated – i.e if you build a hydro power dam, that there is adequate fish ladders etc built. Still, we’d have no more bureaucracy and a decrease in explicit taxes.

    This could be gamed so you’d have to give the exemption to the extent that the business engages in carbon abating enterprise that sells or offers another good or service at the same time.

    A long enough period would encourage industry structures and consumer tastes to change with no losers.

    This is what I said before at the beginning. I may not have made it clear but it applied all the way though –

    “A 30 year tax exemption on all taxes for any business that changes business practices to stop CO2 emissions or to sequester them.”

    That would be significant, would it not? No registration tax, no income taxes, no stamp duties, no rates, no payroll tax etc.

    The only thing I’d change is that any other subsidies currently existing must go and the bias against nuclear and iron seeding really must go as well. Iron seeding could be important for aquaculture and sequestering carbon permanently.

    The savings could fund the tax losses on exemptions or otherwise be collected as GST as income is transferred throughout the economy. Any State tax losses can be paid out of the GST.

    Again, I think the advantage is simplicity, a no losers approach (minus abolition of current subsidies) and the ease of implementing this internationally. No country can benefit itself over others by increasing the taxes here.

    The only political will must be to remove subsidies to possible consumption of carbon emitting power and unsustainable, non carbon sequestering ag.

    This seems extremely doable considering there is public support for mitigation, but not to pay for it.’

  5. Nuke:

    He doesn’t strike me as an intellectually capable to be PM. Seems like a nice guy but it kinda stops there.

  6. And he’s hardly a “compromise candidate” – regardless of how often the line is repeated.

    How I wish Costello had hung around… will have to make do with Abbott instead.

  7. Weren’t Hockey and Rudd on a TV show together, Sunrise, on a commercial channel? Did anyone watch that?

  8. Rudd and Hockey walked the Kokoda trail together so they no doubt know eachother very well.

    I think people are wrong to insist that the leader should be highly intellectual. That isn’t the essential quality for leadership. Vision, drive, charisma and a clear set of core values is arguably much more important in leadership terms. A lack of intellect can be readily compensated for by good communication skills and a good supporting team. In fact a big brain probably tends to be a bit of a negative as they will personally have to deal with the perception that their collegues seem a little dim. However a complete dim wit is unlikely to be suitable leader either. I don’t think Hockey is a complete dim wit. Hockey seems to have some good people instincts.

    The ALP is generally regarded as a soft party so they need a leader who looks tough. The Liberals are generally regarded as a harsh party so I’d argue they need a leader that sounds warm and caring. I think Hockey could be a good choice.

    Whoever leads they are stuck with some tough strategic choices. I’d say go the nuclear path, sell it hard and tough it out until the public turns. However it won’t happen quickly.

  9. He does look a bit awkward, though in fairness, probably no more than I would if I was stupid enough to pull this lame shit…

    It’s pretty standard for politicians to go out of their way to try and look like “one of the regular people” – and it’s almost always embarrassing – but I think Rudd is just incapable of pulling it off. You know if Hockey wins the Lib leadership, we’re going to see this segment played a fair bit, don’t you?

    BTW, who was that singing just before Rudd? The idiot in the Che Guevara T-shirt?

  10. Speaking of the Sunrise family, word on the street is that Kochie is heading to Canberra tomorrow – no doubt hoping to capitalise on his own “special friendship” with Hockey – but that Hockey isn’t retarded enough to give him the time of day.

  11. If Abbott is leader. Well… Sure he sticks to his principles, but what principles?

    I remember an op-ed by him at the start of the where he was praising the virtues of middle-class welfare. And his stance on any social issue is bound to be disgusting. The Liberal Party is the pits.

    As far as I can see there are no libertarians within the elected representatives of the party. Any that may have been libertarians at some stage have sold their souls to the devil.

    How anyone could be supporting the Liberal Party in Higgins OR Bradfield and call themselves libertarian. *sigh* Back to Japan with me soon.

  12. Not because Japan is libertarian, mind you. Just because I don’t need to care about politics as much there. And being a foreigner I exist outside of politics and society.

  13. If it wasn’t for the inconvenient truth that Peter Cline is dead, he would be a good leader for any party! He was the lawyer who helped people minimize their taxes, and he had a role in repealing the Australia Card laws of Hawke.

Comments are closed.