Farewell, Simon Birmingham:
Daniel Dennis writes: I always thought he was a politician for whom career management was his career. The moderate badging was an unconvincing bit of product differentiation in the political marketplace. As soon as the party doors closed, he was an ineffectual mute whom the hard right knew would never seriously oppose them.
His principles, as much as they could be discerned, were conservative boilerplate — don’t confuse him with truly principled Liberal party warriors like Fred Chaney and Alan Missen who were fighting advocates of thought-out positions that were not for compromise when the political weather changed. Was I the only one to have had all my suspicions about Birmingham confirmed when he claimed in a post-2019 election interview that the Morrison spreadsheet calculation of rorting funding towards marginal electorates could no longer be questioned on moral grounds because “we won the election”?
Birmingham served his party’s purpose as a droning talking head who could convince the congenitally undiscerning that the Libs were a “broad church” when the only pew in the place was the one on the far right.
Grant Nowell writes: Rachel Withers is spot on with her analysis of Senator Birmingham — with the conservatives being overrun by right-wing radicals, surely the time was right for the moderate senator to stand up and offer some resistance. Sadly he chose to sit on his hands and look the other way… I’m sure many decent conservative voters would have appreciated a moderate voice in Parliament.
Anyway, I’m sure the right-wing, Trump-lite members will be celebrating another moderate departing the scene.
Sidney R writes: Here was a person who often vocalised but said nothing.
David Arthur writes: Birmingham and the so-called moderate wing of what was once the Liberal party have signally failed to stop the LNP’s “lurch to nastiness (exit stage right)” — but since the LNP is no more than the political wing of the Murdoch/mining ecosystem, maybe Birmingham wasn’t even trying.
George Megalogenis has recently written about how Australia is better served when we elect minority governments. I’d argue that Birmingham agrees with Megalogenis… and with Malcolm Turnbull, who arranged the longest possible campaign for the 2016 federal “Jobson Grothe” election, in the hope that the Australian electorate would avoid returning a majority LNP government.
Turnbull must have despaired upon realising Barnaby Joyce, Peter Dutton and Ted O’Brien were still in his joint party room. Ever the political amateur, he completely missed the Pentecostal machinations that actually brought him down.
Hopefully the teals will continue replacing LNP luminaries, much as how Helen Haines now stands where Sophie Mirabella once rampaged.
Reflections on 2024 in Parliament:
Geoff Bower writes: Bernard Keane’s article clearly spells out the contrasts between the optimism of a new Labor government elected on many climate-positive promises in 2022, and the pathetic shambles of last-minute legislation at the end of its likely only term of government [last] week.
After the promises and hopes that came with “Kevin 07” I was so disappointed by the lack of meaningful climate action that I resigned from the ALP and joined the Greens. With this current betrayal, one can only hope that a great many others will follow that path of useful voter allegiance.
Robert Kerr writes: The shambles of the last 12 months of the government should ensure a Labor-led minority government in 2025.
With regards to the Coalition, Dutton and his cronies display abject incompetence with an inability to absorb even basic factual information. Their pursuit to appease the global oligarchs of the fossil fuel industry at the expense of their constituents forfeits any acceptance of their right to form government.
Beau Repaire writes: It’s hard to escape the conclusion that Albanese is personally hostile to issues related to climate and biodiversity. His every action since becoming prime minister suggests this, and any achievements seem to have been made by ministers ducking and weaving despite his leadership, not with his active help. This a bizarre positioning, given the opportunity raised at the last election with teals and Greens allowing a more progressive relationship with the Senate, but Albo point-blank refusing to negotiate or compromise.
If he’d had a huge social justice or economic equality agenda running parallel that would be maybe something — but he’s made only limp efforts in those directions, too. No lift to the dole, no tax reform for equality beyond what Chalmers squeezed past him with the tax cuts… He’s a problem, and it’s not looking great for Labor’s reelection.
Judy Hardy-Holden writes: The past two years have been a circus in Canberra. If you want clowns in Canberra for another stint, vote for any of the major parties (including the Greens?)
If you don’t want a clown to represent you, vote for someone else. In my electorate, our major clown thinks nuclear power will solve all our problems. Which, of course, it will, in the final analysis.
