From The Australian comes more rabble:
…Jeff Kennett condemned Mr Turnbull’s comments as unnecessary and argued the Prime Minister had moved away from core Liberal values by increasing taxes on the major banks and cracking down on concessions in the superannuation system.
He warned the absence of “defining political leadership” could lead to a fracturing of the two-party dominance in the lower house and called on Mr Turnbull to make peace with Tony Abbott by inviting him back into cabinet.
“Some will see (the speech) as an attack on Abbott. Some will see it as an attack on Liberalism or trying to redefine it,” Mr Kennett told The Australian. “Whatever motivated him to do it, I don’t understand … I do see it as trying to redefine what the Liberal Party is and what it stands for. There should be peace in our times. They (Mr Turnbull and Mr Abbott) should sit down with a bloody pipe and work it out. And the Liberal Party would rise up as one to support that.”
A senior Liberal source said Mr Turnbull was deliberately trying to “exacerbate differences” between moderates and conservatives, warning that it “wasn’t going to end well”. “You can’t win with a divided base,” the source said.
…Former Liberal Party federal president Richard Alston told The Australian it was imperative for the moderate and conservative arms of the party to remain united. “It’s an article of faith the Liberal Party is a broad6 church,” he said. “And I’m sure that the Prime Minister is dedicated to achieving that.”
Director of the Menzies Research Centre, Nick Cater, told The Australian he was concerned the legacy of Australia’s longest serving prime minister was becoming a point of contention.
Paul Kelly adds to the chaos:
In London, Turnbull should have spoken directly and explicitly: he should have said the Liberal Party under his leadership is the home of conservative voters — but he didn’t. He should also have said it is the home of liberal voters.
Turnbull tried to dodge or transcend the conservative-liberal tensions by saying the Liberals, above all, stood for freedom. “The Liberal Party stands for freedom or it stands for nothing,” he said. He argued this principle dates back to Menzies and “combines both the liberal and conservative traditions” of Howard’s broad church.
Significantly, however, Turnbull did not define or champion his leadership by embracing the Howard conception of the party in which the leader himself seeks to embody both the conservative and liberal traditions. This is pivotal. Turnbull, it seems, cannot do this.
Howard constantly presented his leadership as a mix of conservative and liberal values: consider gun laws, border protection, privatisations, budget surpluses, tax reform, family support, traditional marriage, fighting Islamist terror, honouring the Anzac ethos and backing the fair go.
…In a Sydney speech yesterday, global strategist and former Liberal director Lynton Crosby said (in generic terms not directed at Turnbull) that success today depends on leaders being able to project values aligned with those of the public.
“Policies are the prism through which people make decisions about your values,” Crosby said. In short, don’t expect people to reward centrist policies in their own right. What matters is what the policies tell you about the values of the leader. Put another way, the link between policy and values is key. Both need each other. Yet people still complain they are unsure about Turnbull’s convictions.
We need an entire blog dedicated to Liberal Party infighting.
