Bull at the gate trips up

MALCOLM Turnbull's return to the political front line this week - The Australian's Paul Kelly and Phillip Coorey of The Sydney Morning Herald reported that Turnbull approached Tony Abbott about assuming the shadow finance portfolio to repair the Coalition's economic credentials - shows why Turnbull doesn't have the skills to take on a leader of Kevin Rudd's astuteness.

How did a former Liberal Party leader who, just more than a month ago, crossed the floor on the emissions trading scheme to sit all alone with the Labor Party imagine he could use the media to put pressure on Abbott to promote him to the front bench?

That is what Turnbull tried to do by letting it be known he would be open to serving as finance spokesman. Such thinking is all the more ridiculous given that another vote on the ETS is expected in May. What would have happened had Abbott taken up Turnbull's offer? Would Turnbull cross the floor on the next ETS vote, requiring Abbott to sack him and so reignite the internal tensions that marked the end of the last parliamentary year, or would he abandon his political convictions?

Yesterday, Liberals were simply shaking their heads at Turnbull's naivety and absurdity in thinking he could return so soon. Turnbull himself must have been aware that his reputation as a political strategist had taken yet another battering and that the door on his political future had slammed shut once more.

The member for Wentworth may now decide that he has no future in politics and swiftly resign. If that happens, it would indicate a shift in thinking.

Newspaper editors like to run columns written by former politicians or former party leaders. They hope that they will dump on their own side, not simply run the more typical partisan attacks against political opponents most politicians engage in.

When Turnbull lost the Liberal leadership late last year he was approached by several newspapers, including this one, to write a regular column. The assumption was that, because he came out so hard in the weeks before and immediately after losing the leadership, he would go on doing so until the election.

However, since Turnbull started regularly writing for The Sydney Morning Herald he could hardly have been more on message for the Liberal Party's cause.

With the obvious exception of his disagreements with Abbott on emissions trading, when Turnbull couldn't find something to attack Rudd about, he would steer clear of politics and discuss issues in his electorate.

The evidence was therefore mounting that he thought he still had something to offer the parliamentary Liberal Party. The proof of this was delivered by media coverage this week.

Of course Abbott's rebuke of Turnbull's ambitions may change that, making his copy more interesting if he reverts to the wrecking ball approach in his columns.

Even with Turnbull out for the count, this election year is more complicated for Liberals than a simple struggle between Abbott and Rudd.

Abbott's performance will be a testing ground for the sort of policies the Liberal Party embraces into the future. Joe Hockey stands as a philosophical alternative to Abbott in the partyroom. If Turnbull remains in politics, with a great deal of repair work to be sure, he could still emerge one day as a leader.

Abbott and Hockey may in time become their generation's John Howard and Andrew Peacock, jockeying for control of the heart and soul of the party.

Hockey is the Peacock figure (hopefully from his perspective philosophically, not electorally), and Abbott is the modern conservative Howard.

The dilemma for Liberals is that their party is torn between three tendencies, not two, and all have drawbacks.

There is the Right (or dries) that struggles to keep pace with changing politics. Times can suit the dries, as Howard proved, which means they are often turned to when the electoral cycle goes the Liberals' way.

In the meantime the Labor Party can score points painting them as extreme rather than mainstream. That is what Labor is trying to do to Abbott.

But even within the Right there are disagreements about the role of the market and the role of the big arm of government.

Such disagreements were never more obvious than when Abbott began promoting his parental leave scheme, opposed by senator Nick Minchin and perhaps even a catalyst for his early departure (in addition to family reasons).

Then there are the moderates, who right-wingers like to refer to as "Labor-lite". It is hard to see how voters with moderate inclinations are likely to vote Liberal rather than Labor, especially when the right wing of the Liberal Party remains dominant.

But some of the Liberal Party's best thinkers, such as senators George Brandis and Brett Mason, are moderates, as is the most electorally appealing leadership candidate, Hockey.

The final tendency is the most malign and the worst at handling opposition. It is the careerists, the professionals from the private sector, who are at best good managers, at worst devoid of ideas. This group's main goal is power for power's sake and, with it, management of the nation. These people aren't all that interested in shaping Australian society to their philosophical world view.

Labels can be clunky and many Liberals consider the old dry and moderate labels outdated.

Personalities can be an important driver of factional affiliations in modern politics. Nevertheless, such labels do help us understand the broad challenges the Liberal Party faces.

Abbott is a right winger and unashamedly so.

Hockey is a moderate, equally unashamedly so.

Turnbull is a careerist, but with clear moderate tendencies. If he can stop making politically stupid decisions and buckle down for a long period of rehabilitation rather than try for a quick fit back on to the front bench, he could be an important swing factor as to which tendency dominates the Liberal Party in the years to come.

But for that to happen he would need to commit to politics for the long haul.

This week's events make that possibility even less likely.