Peter A Clarke

Peter Van Onselen’s columns are a breath of fresh air to the broad right commentariat. For starters he writes well.  For another, he actually comes up with a relatively new theme with most articles.  On the conservative side of the fence that seems to be a recurring problem.  Devine, Pearson and Albrechson churn and rechurn.  He is also fairly punchy.  His fight with Bishop is taking on Keatingesque proportions.  But her claim, by riposte, that the Van is a political stalker is, well, just creepy.  Some seriously weird take on the Mrs Robinson syndrome per chance.  Bad politics to make it personal.  Not that she doesn’t have a axe to grind over the Van’s articles most recently his most recent piece in the Tele. 

s article Lib’s deputy fading away to a shadow was as punchy as you can get.  An epitaph in commentary terms.  Saying that a parliamentarian has stench of political death about her is about as heavy duty as you can get.  I know Julie Bishop was the managing partner of Clayton Utz but for the life of me I can’t see how.  She doesn’t come across as being anywhere close to being sharp.  

But the whole psycho sexual line being run is just so foreign to Australian political reporting. Thank goodness.  This little kerfuffle is fast becoming tacky. 

But I think the Van’s slightly hagiographic piece on Peter Costello was prognostication of surreal kind.  The article does take a massive swipe at Bishop as being led in Turnbull’s saddle bag.  Hard to argue with that conclusion.  But to then look fondly up the aisle and take the morose figure of Costello as a modern day Churchill/Menzies in the wilderness just doesn’t hold water.  As for claiming Costello is a baby boomer version of Howard is well, ridiculous.  Howard for all his pragmatic compromises does have a guiding ideology.  Costello is something of a palimpset. What does he really stand for?  I don’t buy the argument that he is a moderate middle ground that will provide the perfect middle ground for the punters.  He had a chance, tons of them, to work up a constituency.  He didn’t do it.  The voters have a terrific political nose.  And their orafactory response is to treat Costello like Peppi Le Peuw. That might change but I doubt it.

There is a long tradition of high profile politicians heading off to the back bench and coming back.  Sometimes they come back because the times suit them.  Clemencou was dragged into the fore into World War I for France.  David Lloyd George had a similarly good war.  Churchill was a made to order war prime minister after spending most of the thirties in the wilderness.  He got the boot in the 1945 election.  Other politicians use the time on the back bench to recharge and reinvent themselves.  Menzies is the classic case.  He was shunted into obscurity when his government fell in August 1941, regarded as arrogant and too smart by half.  He came back  a much more inclusive and mellow leader in 1949.  What I don’t see is Costello marking out any territory, any constituency or any intellectual outpouring.  It is a tricky business but it is better than waiting for the call up.