Is it wrong that this is one of the things I miss most about being immersed in Australian politics is articles like this... there is something about the observation of human behaviour and interaction that political commentators and operators undertake which I really love... I do take issue to some extent with the immense focus on interpersonal rivalry over issues of policy but there is something about certain political commentator's ability to describe and reveal the complexities of human behaviour that makes me jealous and happy all at once. I know from experience it is a skill which is difficult to master. Plus I have always loved Annabel!

Turnbull struggles for a loyal word

Sydney Morning Herald
Annabel Crabb
September 13, 2007

BEING Malcolm Turnbull must be quite pleasant most of the time; the
pay is good, the accommodation first-class, and the views unparalleled. But for
four minutes yesterday, from 2.25pm until 2.29, being Malcolm Turnbull was
uncomfortable.

It began when Labor's Anthony Albanese asked Mr Turnbull about his
attendance at a meeting in the Foreign Minister's hotel room last week, at which
the Prime Minister's shortcomings reportedly underwent genteel discussion.

Now, it would be impolite to describe Mr Albanese as a muck-raker,
exactly, but you do hear the barely perceptible sound, when he rises to ask a
question, of latex gloves being snapped on.
And this was a curly one for the
Environment Minister, whose recent efforts to redesign the Liberal leadership
environment were crushed finally and expertly yesterday under the prime
ministerial boot.

Mr Turnbull rose to his feet and edged towards the dispatch box, then
paused halfway as he heard the Speaker, David Hawker, voice the opinion that the
question was very nearly out of order.

Off the hook.

Mr Turnbull beetled back towards his seat with relief, until an
explosion of laughter stopped him in his tracks.

He stopped, swivelled; a rich indecision overcame his handsome
features.

"I will answer it. I will take the question," he muttered as he
ploughed back to the dispatch box, to announce: "I attended that meeting. That
is the answer to your question."

On the way back to his seat, however, the Environment Minister realised
the import of what he had just said. To confirm attendance at the meeting,
without indicating a full retraction of sentiments expressed at it? Suicidal. To
return and add to the answer? Embarrassing.

Once again, Mr Turnbull wheeled about, then hovered in agony. Frozen
between inclination and humiliation, his body language looked very much like
that of a man trying to buy a pornographic magazine in a busy service station.

Finally, he noticed the Prime Minister's lowered brow, and the slight
incline of the prime ministerial head that indicated, in the politest possible
way: "Get back here and clear that up, would you?"

Eventually Mr Turnbull rushed the counter and babbled out his
repentance: "I attended that meeting. The Prime Minister has the support of
everybody at that meeting. The discussions at the meeting are not part of my
portfolio responsibilities, but I have answered the question. The Prime Minister
has the support, as Prime Minister, of everybody in the cabinet. That is the
answer."

Yesterday was that sort of day.

Much stout talk of loyalty, and support for the Prime Minister, and
"going forward as a team", and "winning the election seat by seat" (is there any
other way?) and a magnanimous guarantee from the PM there would be no
recriminations against anybody. Apart from losing their seats, one or two
sourpusses observed.

Wilson Tuckey, the bow-legged warrior from the west, came the
closest to public insurrection; asked on his way into the party meeting whether
the Prime Minister enjoyed his support, Mr Tuckey answered, magnificently: "That
is a matter of the circumstances of the moment."
Once inside, he apparently
held forth at length on the topic of wheat, which tells you just about all you
need to know about the state of the anti-Howard camp yesterday.