Rebels with a lost cause

THE great conservative revolt is about the heart, values and ideology of the Liberal Party, but it will be judged by its ability to make the Liberals more credible with the Australian people.

This week's conservative rebellion had two objectives: to reverse the Turnbull-declared partyroom support for Kevin Rudd's emissions trading scheme and to terminate Malcolm Turnbull as a leader because he refused to submit to the party base and its hostility to climate change.

The test for the Liberals is whether this wilful contest becomes an act of political suicide or offers the means to salvage a better electoral position. The future of the Liberal Party for years hinges upon this question.

Sentiment yesterday was that Turnbull, having survived a leadership spill motion on Wednesday 48-35, is unlikely to survive next week. Tony Abbott, the conservative banner carrier, will contest the leadership if it falls vacant. But shadow treasurer Joe Hockey, a pro-Turnbull moderate, will face intense pressure to stand.

Hockey will not run against Turnbull. A fundamental issue is whether Turnbull, in effect, can be persuaded to sanction Hockey to stand in an effort to deny the conservative revolt the prize of the leadership.

Hockey is appalled at recent events. He wants the ETS to pass. He would prefer Turnbull to remain leader. But Hockey confronts a "conscript of history" dilemma and if he runs against Abbott, he would be favoured to win as the candidate best able to unite the party.

Turnbull's media conference on Thursday night created a lethal political legacy.

He spelt out the price of his repudiation by the party: it means the Liberal Party will have broken its agreement to legislate the policy, abandoned its obligation to act responsibly on climate change and, in Turnbull's words, adopted an electoral position that "will be a catastrophe for us".

The Senate's failure to pass Rudd's ETS yesterday testifies to the inroads of the conservative revolt. Seizing Turnbull's words and praising his courage, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard said last night that if the Liberals failed to pass the legislation next week, it will prove they have been conquered by climate change "sceptics and deniers".

The Rudd government has its script for the great conservative rebellion: it is an act of betrayal: against Turnbull, against the national interest, against climate change responsibility. Rudd will depict the demise of Turnbull as the point when the Liberals ceased being a mainstream party and went into introspective denial.

Turnbull was in fatalistic crash-through-or-crash mode yesterday. He crashed through the party room on Tuesday to declare support for passing the ETS. He crashed through the spill motion on Wednesday and intended, if it was carried, to contest the leadership against Kevin Andrews. Turnbull will fight next week's spill and has told colleagues he will contest the leadership against Abbott if it is carried. "If they want to remove me they must take ownership of the decision," he told colleagues.

The Turnbull leadership experiment has now become an identity crisis for the Liberal Party. The real debate is over the exit strategy.

The party is desperate to strike a post-Turnbull compromise.

It is true that Turnbull blundered by getting too close to Rudd's ETS for his own party's rank and file. But it is equally true that any Turnbull demise will signal the party's repudiation of resolute climate change action.

The conservative rebellion this week has been a stunning, ruthless and self-righteous exercise. It was about converting a minority into a majority position by sabotage. Don't fall for the idea that Turnbull didn't have majority support. On Tuesday in the party room, total Liberal numbers (front and backbench) were 50-34 in favour of the ETS. When the Nationals were added, this was reduced to a "slender" majority, in Turnbull's words (with all Nationals opposing the ETS).

Turnbull's problem was his flouting of partyroom conventions and his arrogance. During the joint partyroom debate there were 40 speakers against and 35 for (though among Liberals who spoke there was a majority). The debate, therefore, had a backbench majority opposed to the shadow cabinet recommendation, so the tenor of the meeting was against the ETS. When Turnbull declared the party room in his favour and issued his "I am the leader" declaration, the conservative camp was provoked into complete warfare. This was the trigger point for the crisis. It ignited one of the most virulent conservative backlashes in the party's history. The conservatives felt Turnbull was stealing away their party. They correctly sensed Turnbull's vulnerability to a tactic of shadow ministry resignation.

Led by veterans from the Howard years, Abbott, Nick Minchin, Kevin Andrews and Andrew Robb, and legitimatised by a furious grassroots backlash, the conservative tactic of repeated political sabotage of Turnbull seems to have finally broken through.

In their respective statements of defiance, Andrews and Abbott made a potent case: the ETS is opposed by the party branches, there is no case for Australian action now and it is an unjustified imposition on the nation.

In recent times Turnbull and Abbott have been close but Abbott finally broke away, convinced on political grounds the Liberals must reject the ETS. In the showdown on Tuesday the conservatives prefer Abbott but would grudgingly accept the popular Hockey, convinced he will be more inclusive than Turnbull. Hockey is no sceptic but has signalled he thinks an internal accommodation is needed on the ETS crisis.

The truth, however, is that the Liberals, ultimately, must come down for or against Rudd's ETS policy. Turnbull is right in insisting this decision cannot be fudged.

Hockey, like Turnbull, was keen to pass Rudd's ETS package. But the implicit condition of any Hockey leadership will be to heal the party. That dictates some compromise, probably agreement to defer the ETS until February, the Minchin position. It is the exact position that Turnbull rejected.

When Minchin and Abbott saw Turnbull on Thursday ,they proposed that he accept a compromise and defer the ETS decision until February, pending another Senate inquiry. Abbott made clear his prime aim was to reverse the ETS position, not ruin Turnbull.

But Turnbull refused: he correctly saw that delay was a victory for his opponents. If the party cannot vote for the ETS now, there is no way it will vote for the ETS in February.

For Turnbull, achieving passage of the ETS would constitute an honourable cause for which to lose the leadership. But he may be denied on both fronts. His final stand involves asking the Liberal Party to follow public opinion, not party sentiment. Recent party marginal-seat research shows an overwhelming 72-26 per cent majority for climate change action now, as opposed to delay.

There is, however, no gainsaying that the Liberal Party is in full political cannibalisation of its leadership. Having lost John Howard and Peter Costello it now confronts the option of a new leader after Brendan Nelson andTurnbull.