The bell tolls for the Liberal Party

Advertisement

An excellent piece here from James Walter who is a professor of political science at Monash University via The Conversation.

The Liberal Party is riven by internal bickering, with various camps claiming to speak for its “true” values and traditions. The contest is leading not to any prospect of unity or discipline, but to the party’s fragmentation. The war is fought in the guise of a contest over leadership appropriate to the party’s soul and to the national interest.The Conversation

In the process, the party is incrementally diverging from popular opinion on issues essential to future electoral success. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is currently in the crosshairs. But whether or not he survives to fight another election, whoever leads the party next time is unlikely to be the saviour of the party or Coalition government.

An attempt by Tony Abbott to drag the Liberal Party to the political right has backfired as former Abbott loyalists broke ranks in disgust at comments they viewed as disloyal to the party and a flagrant attempt to visit revenge on Malcolm Turnbull. Vision courtesy ABC News 24.

The predicament is best understood by analysing what is at the heart of this struggle: the pragmatic liberalism that was the Liberal Party’s foundation; the divergence of the party base from majority opinion; and the contemporary obsession with “the leader” as solely responsible for the party’s fortunes.

All exponents of Liberal Party values lay claim to the “Menzies” tradition. The most vehement contemporary claimants are on the party’s right wing. Their plaint is that the commitment to individualism, private enterprise, small government, lower taxes and free trade has been forgotten. Cory Bernardi split with the Liberals to establish his own party, Australian Conservatives, “to reconnect with voters and restore traditional Menzies-era values”.

Others of like mind remain in the fold — and threaten Turnbull’s leadership. The most prominent is his predecessor, Tony Abbott. Abbott continues to advocate more extreme budget austerity, climate change scepticism, immigration restriction, market fundamentalism and regressive taxation reform than even Turnbull (who has compromised on everything he once promised in an attempt to mollify the right) has yet conceded.

Such claims depart from Menzies’ principles in two core texts. The first is his famous “Forgotten People” broadcast in 1943. The second is his essay on “The revival of Liberalism in Australia” in Afternoon Light.

Menzies championed thrift, self-reliance, private enterprise, individual responsibility and freedom, and the family as the bastion of our best instincts. He warned of the danger of an “all powerful” state. But he pitched his appeal to the middle class, excluding the rich and powerful (who did not need his help) and the “unskilled people” (protected by unions and with wages safeguarded by common law). Thus he mobilised an election-winning constituency between what he saw as the extremes of exploitative financial power and the incipient socialism of the organised working class.

Yet Menzies insisted: “There is no room in Australia for a party of reaction. There is no useful place for a policy of negation.”

He never claimed that his was a conservative party. On the contrary: “We took the name ‘Liberal’ because we were determined to be a progressive party, willing to make experiments, in no sense reactionary, but believing in the individual, his rights and his enterprise, and rejecting the Socialist panacea.”

Still, the state had its part to play. Menzies supported protection, not free trade. He “did not … [believe] that private enterprise should have an ‘open go’. Not at all.”

He identified the state’s obligation to address unemployment, and secure economic security and material well-being through social legislation. He advocated fierce independence, but the difficulties of those who fell through the cracks were to be ameliorated: “we have nothing but the warmest human compassion … towards those compelled to live upon the bounty of the state.”

This philosophy served Menzies well. Not until the late 1980s did the party change, when it “torched its traditions” as it sacrificed ameliorative liberalism in the interests of economic reform. Only then did the split between “wets” and “drys” lead to liberal moderates being increasingly marginalised. And only then party did hardliners begin to assert their claims as “conservatives”, a term that had never been indigenous to Australian anti-Labor politics, but was appropriated from the US culture wars of the time to serve the same purpose.

The bipartisan commitment to neo-liberal reform did what was intended. It increased prosperity, but at the cost of increasing employment uncertainty and astonishing inequity in the distribution of rewards. Inflation was defeated, but some communities were devastated as industry disappeared.

By the early 2000s, surveys revealed that the “new consensus” had not won popular acceptance. By 2016, there was pervasive distrust in the institutions of the new order and an unprecedented loss of confidence in the leaders who had brought this about.

It is a collapse that has impacted both major parties. Pointedly, for the Liberal Party, Tony Abbott, after election, reverted to policies that mirrored the party’s base — now increasingly divergent from majority opinion on social issues, especially climate change.

Unable to garner public support, Abbott was supplanted by Turnbull, whose initial popularity depended on a progressive liberalism akin to a contemporary adaptation of Menzies’ stipulations.

But the “broad church” was gone. Progressive liberals have given up; the hard right has claimed Menzies’ mantle and threatens retribution if Turnbull “offends” against the much diminished and now atypical membership base. He is besieged on both sides: an uprising if he confronts those who claim to speak for the party; and a loss of popularity (and electorate support) as he compromises on the more progressive liberalism he promised the public.

It is not, finally, an argument about who is more and less Liberal, but a manifestation of the unravelling of the party. Who could break the impasse that looks likely to defeat Turnbull? Schisms between liberals and self-proclaimed conservatives will continue within, potentially with more splintering of populist, libertarian and hard-right fringe parties.

Any new leader would need to be a master tactician and negotiator without peer to achieve consensus across this morass. No one currently in the ranks demonstrates such skills. And a return to Abbott or any of his ilk guarantees electoral oblivion. We may be witnessing the end of a once great party.

Yep. The question is, what rough beast slouches towards replacing it? At The Australian today we have wall-to-wall agonising over what it might be.

The editorial says Do-nothing Malcolm needs to get cracking:

Advertisement

For more than a year now the Labor opposition has had more success in setting the agenda than the Coalition. Mr Turnbull and his Treasurer, Scott Morrison, have floated ideas, then scrapped them, and failed to adequately make the case for reform, let alone deliver it. The Coalition is running out of time. Yet again the May budget looms as a crucial moment when either the nettle will be grasped or the chance for a reset will slip through fumbling hands. The Coalition must not allow its recipe for national recovery to be diluted by obstructionism from Labor and the Greens; that would mean surrender to mediocrity. Rather, the onus is on Mr Turnbull to map out a clearer, more detailed and more active path, and advocate it strongly. He must present a plan for the nation that is coherent and sufficiently ambitious so that if he gets nowhere, it can be put directly to the people in a compelling way. It is time to get cracking.

It neglects to say on what. David Crowe notes Do-nothing Malcolm fruitlessly rallying the restless troops:

The Prime Minister told Liberal and Nationals MPs their “duty” to the country meant backing the government rather than spreading disaffection, days after a dismal Newspoll result highlighted the damage from the internal unrest. “We have a duty to Australia and to our constituents to stick ­together and to be united,” Mr Turnbull told the confidential meeting of federal MPs in Parliament House.

This government has never shown the slightest concern for the nation, hence it’s problems. That “unity” is now a byword for “duty” shows how distracted it is.

Advertisement

The fatal split is now apparent in its culture wars agenda, according to Hedley Thomas:

Malcolm Turnbull will be forced to rule on a damaging Liberal split over race-hate laws after a parliamentary inquiry failed to agree on the strongest way to defend free speech, dropping the Prime Minister in a political quagmire.

The parliamentary review splintered over laws that have sparked complaints against cartoonists and students for offending people on racial grounds. It backed a “process change” to the rules but stalled a push for wider reform to the law.

The polarised debate will see conservative Liberals clash with moderates over a push for changes to section 18C of the ­Racial Discrimination Act, which makes it an offence to “insult” or “offend” someone on the basis of race. The Prime Minister will face calls from conservatives to replace the two words with “harass”, in order to raise the bar on complaints, but key moderates insist there is no need to reform the law.

Janet Albrechtsen slams Tony Abbott for all thew wrong reasons:

Advertisement

Now Abbott is opposed to tax increases. He wasn’t as PM. Remember the deficit levy? Abbott has become a firm believer, too, that governments should not break promises. Dropping section 18C reform and the deficit levy were both broken promises that dismayed his conservative base. Today Abbott is keen to abolish the renewable energy target. In October 2014 he legislated the current RET as PM amid opposition from conservative MPs such as Mathias Cormann and Peter Dutton who reportedly wanted it scrapped. Abbott now supports Brexit. As PM he opined that Britain must not leave the EU. Abbott has become very hairy-chested about the Liberal Party returning to its socially conservative roots. As PM, Abbott implemented the Left’s cause celebre and Julia Gillard’s brainstorm, the Safe Schools program. Abbott says he didn’t realise its aim.

Abbott always has an excuse. But he has never explained why he failed, as prime minister, to set the course for a return of conservative politics in Australia. Here’s where his credibility as the conservative saviour falls apart. If these are matters of deep conviction, why weren’t these convictions pursued in office?

It’s fair to say that the political environment is more conducive to some of these matters, for example abolishing section 18C and scrapping the RET, but if every leader waited for politically nice times for reform, nothing much would ever get done. Had Howard waited for easy times to reform gun laws or introduce a GST, he would still be waiting, long after he left office.

True delusion at this point. Abbott’s agenda was clearly too conservative for Australia: budget cuts that attacked the vulnerable rather than structural change; love of monarchy; rampant climate change skepticism; the “open for business” rent-seeker agenda; senselessly slaughtering the car sector then raining pork on defense industry; inflammatory rhetoric around Islam condemned by spooks as well as proposing invasions of Iraq, Syria and Nigeria; supporting his ludicrous parental leave scheme; lying constantly about housing and super tax concessions; failed Federation reform, the East-West link tantrum and these are only the things I can think of off the top my head. Abbott’s conservatism was the problem.

Andrew Bolt spends his time canvassing alternative leaders which I could have written myself:

Advertisement

Finally, Paul Kelly succumbs to despair and tries to shift focus to “Left populism”:

Two trends now shape Australia’s political decline: the smashing of the political centre as the basis for economic progress and national interest policymaking, and the explosion in populist support on the Left and Right as the polarisation of our society intensifies.

Contrary to almost every view, it is populism of the Left that is more important. This is because it is essentially unified, it is about power and it is winning. Left populism is getting ready for its victory. By contrast, the populism of the Right is self-absorbed, chaotic, driven by resentment, devoid of a coherent agenda, and obsessed by the “you’re not listening to the people” mantra that by itself leads nowhere.

Left populism knows what it wants and it has a leader — Bill Shorten, smart and opportunistic. Left populism has respectability, unlike Right populism, and it has the discipline to reap the dividends from the self-destruction of the Right. Shorten, off the back of his 2016 populist campaign, is going even more populist: opposing budget savings in the new omnibus bill, crusading against the $50 billion corporate tax cuts, gearing up for a new Work Choices onslaught, and branding Malcolm Turnbull as a rich man’s PM punishing ordinary workers.

If:

Advertisement
  • opposing budget savings that have zero structural impact but smash the vulnerable;
  • crusading against a brain-fart corporate tax cut that was a last minute election fig-leaf and is nothing more than a giveaway to foreign shareholders;
  • and overturning the removal of penalty rates for kids amid mass under-employment,

equals Left populism then bring it on. Of course it is no such thing. It is preventing the politicised Right from victim-bashing and if Paul Kelly sees this as reform then, truly, the cause of conservatism is lost.

What a competent Coalition would have done (and still should do) was productivity and competitiveness reform that addressed the post-mining boom adjustment while protecting the vulnerable, not this hand-picked political bullying. That might have included:

  • super and property tax concession cuts for Budget repair and to deflate land costs, as well as lower the currency;
  • overall wage constraint in a context of mutual sacrifice, including Coalition mates;
  • raising and lowering taxes across the board to reward productive effort and innovation.
Advertisement

What we needed was policy to accelerate a real exchange rate adjustment within centrist Australian values to shift growth onto a different track. What we got was a bastardised echo of Howard years policy in a shifted context that could not support it, along with ribald favours for mates and pump-primed immigration.

And as it all unfolded, the Murdoch press ceaseless cheer-led all of it, reassuring conservatives that their idiotic policies were spot on.

We warned you, Paul, every day, just about every hour, as you sailed the conservative ship directly onto the rocks. You’re all in this sinking ship together. The only real shame is that you dragged the whole country in with you.

Advertisement

So, now we catch a glimpse of where this is all heading for the Coalition, via the AFR:

Coalition MPs from Queensland say the Liberal-National Party in their home state must either de-merge or adopt some other strategy to better differentiate between the Liberals and Nationals – or risk being consumed by One Nation.

With the rise of One Nation destabilising the Turnbull government on several fronts, there is near unanimous agreement between the MPs and senators from Queensland, including cabinet ministers, that the move to merge the two parties in 2008 was a mistake because it created a vacuum for a third party with a regional focus.

Former prime minister Tony Abbott cited the loss of voters to One Nation to rationalise his outburst last week in which he recommended controversial policy changes and accused Malcolm Turnbull of running a Labor-lite government.

…Like most of his colleagues from Queensland, Mr Christensen believed the merger in 2008 was a grave error but he thought it would be impractical to try to demerge.

“There is a growing view among MPs and others that there should not be a demerger but a debranding,” he said. This would include, but not be limited to, resorting to the use of separate National and Liberal Party logos on electoral material and ballot papers.

It will not be enough. One Nation popularity is based upon pure belief. By comparison, today’s Nats are political hacks. What is brewing now, either on the run or in opposition, is a full blown reverse takeover of The Coalition by One Nation.

Advertisement

Robert Menzies would be appalled.

About the author
David Llewellyn-Smith is Chief Strategist at the MB Fund and MB Super. David is the founding publisher and editor of MacroBusiness and was the founding publisher and global economy editor of The Diplomat, the Asia Pacific’s leading geo-politics and economics portal. He is also a former gold trader and economic commentator at The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, the ABC and Business Spectator. He is the co-author of The Great Crash of 2008 with Ross Garnaut and was the editor of the second Garnaut Climate Change Review.