Costello's decision not to contest the leadership of the party had vindicated the party's choice not to support his tilt for the Prime Ministership, and Howard's decision not to step aside for him.
Costello refused to take the leadership and defend his own government's record if the face of unprecidented hostility from the media and a drubbing from the electorate. The libs are in power nowhere in the country and we need to sure up Victoria, Costello's home state, as a powerbase and what does he do? He walks.
Costello's decision was gutless and selfish. Thank heavens there was another person ready to defend the track record and the policies of the Howard govt in the form of Brendan Nelson. We could easily have lurched to the left and gone the way of the British Conservatives, and taken our country to the dog house along with us.
Costello took his action out of a desire for revenge, as revealed by his i-told-you-so comments about generational change. He wanted revenge against Howard and against the party for frustrating his ambitions.
Not only does this reveal his selfishness, but also his cowardice (as pointed out by Rudd in parliament, albeit in a scheriking high pitched voice) and his naivety. Power is never given. It must be taken. Costello did not have the naus to realise this, and if he did he lacked the balls to wield the knife.
He cannot blame Howard for not stepping aside. Hawke never stepped aside for Keating. A will to power is essential in any national leader. Costello cannot blame others for his own lack in this regard.
Neither can he blame the party for supporting Howard. Howard had just gone 10 years as PM and looked invincible. Is it not reasonable that they should be absolutely sure of the alternative before dumping him?
Whether the party room was wrong or right to back Howard 18 months ago is up to them. In the face of that decision he could have gone to the back bench and worked on his numbers like Keating did. When Rudd became opposition leader a year ago and the polls changed Costello would have pissed it in. Things could have been very different for hims and the party.
But he didn't go to the back bench did he? He didn't go because he is a show pony. He wanted to show off in the chamber and take the piss. To be fair he is the best parliamentary performer there has ever been in Australia and probably the entire world. He is a man of talent, but he has revealed himself to be a performer with the vanity and mood-swings of a performer.
He could have taken Rudd to pieces in these first months of the new government and had the time of his life in responsibility-free opposition. He could have sured up morale in the libs and helped to heal the sting of the election loss. He could have pillored Rudd on his many and hilarious hypocrisies. Instead he handed Rudd another scalp.
Jeff Kennett wrote in the Herald Sun that Costello's actions had verified many of the things he had previously thought about Costello. He did not say what they were, but they can't have been good. I am beginning to see think them myself now.
Costello is and always was mainy concerned with his own ambition. You could see it in his face everytime people hinted he would never make PM. He got all sulky.
I personally think that Costello's ambition and selfishness damaged the party's campaign irreperably. He his solely to blame for destroying Howard's image of invulnerability. Polls can be ignored, but a party room pressure is decisive. By hanging around like a bad smell with clear designs on the leadership but never having the balls to openly state his hand he did more harm than good.
I wrote my first post on this blog as Howard emerged from the post APEC leadership tussle. He had fought the whole way and for a few hours seemed to emerge triumphant. I called him the UBERBATTLER. Then within hours he had announced the planned transition to Costello. The shield was smashed in that moment. The spear broken. His helm cleft and crest fallen. Howard's weakness within his own party had been revealed. That was the first big victory for Rudd and the media.
I blogged it as TEAM AUSTRALIA, but in my heart I knew the public announcement of a handover was poison. It handed Rudd the 'What's the point in voting for Howard?' line. Rudd had a point.
Why did Costello have to insist on a public declaration? Because he did not trust Howard after he renegged on his supposed first private agreement to hand after winning office. He did not trust the party room as witnesses either, only the media and the public. What a fool. His purposes could not have been served by torpeding his own ship.
And then there was the comments from Costello in the Howard biography, and the infamous off-the-record interview with Brissenden et al that was published dispite Costello's objections. The drip drip drip of Costello's bitterness did more damage to the libs this year than most other things.
All the time he was waiting to be handed the leadership on a plate, dispite the polls not showing that he was favoured over Howard.
His insistence on damaging the party every time he was knocked back, and on clinging to the central role he had been given, rather than resiging and making a forceful point reveal that he cared more about his own ambition than the Party.
His bitter admission that 'The Liberal Party always came first' is maddenning. Why wouldn't they come first?
Costello's belief that others should elevate him to power without him having to fight them for it reveals his vanity, naivety, selfishness and cowardice. Thank goodness he never became Liberal leader. We were right not to back him. Obviously at the time he made his pitch Howard and the party knew more about him than I did.
We can't blame Costello for the loss. Howard must be held responsible for the election defeat because he was in charge. He would want to be. He understands the responsibities of power. But Howard was right not to second guess the electorate and abandon his mission and leave on a high. This would have appealed to the vanity of lesser men but Howard wanted to fight. If Costello was not prepared to fight him, we was going to have to fight Rudd. In the end this gave the electorate a clear choice, or as clear has Howard could make it in the face or Rudd's me-tooism.
Costello knew Howard was well loved within the party and did not want to knife him, but had he done so and affected generational change and won the election, or got it closer, then he would have been a hero too. Had he matched his ambition with action then Liberals would have loved him as much now as they did for the whole time he was our effervescent treasurer.
Costello, you are a great entertainer, you are a big thinker, but you are not a warrior. No guts no glory, man. Sorry. I'll miss your jokes, but that's about it.
