Liberal Party to collapse?

So says James Walter, Emeritus Professor of Politics at Monash University, via Domain:

Consider what the post-election Liberal leadership will have to do. First, comprehensive reform will entail recognising what the public has clearly shown it wants.

Second, there must be acknowledgement that such policies demand the orchestration of many hands, much advice and diverse talents: they will founder if the party defaults to “strong leadership”.

Third, to revive a form of liberalism for these times, attuned not to the paid-up “base” alone…Finally, the big issues of public concern – economic reform, immigration, social cohesion – have always entailed a degree of bipartisanship, of consensus across the aisle.

Some sense there. The real issue is the lack of talent to pull off such a maneuver. One reason that the party is so full of nuts today is because John Howard attracted them with his lurch to the right. Now those nuts have attracted even more nuts today. The party could well collapse though in one sense the lack of talent may also hold it together. It takes a leader of some charm to breakaway for such a sundering to happen. Note the defection of Cory Bernardi which caused hardly a ripple.

We must remember, too, that the fundamental driver of Australian political instability is intact and is going to worsen, the great income recession, so disenchantment with Labor will grow quickly:

However, the really depressing thought for the Liberal Party is that the greatest talent in Australian politics, Chris Bowen, is lining up behind Bill Shorten as the next PM.

They have nobody who can match him even if Labor has to wrestle with tough times.

David Llewellyn-Smith
Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)


    • Definitely. Rudd anointed him as a future leader. Badge of honour in my opinion – in that period I was a Rudd-ite, of that cohort, still am.

      • Bowen said he speaks to Keating several times a week. Keating only moved on Bob after eight years, look at that timeframe for Bowen and Bill

      • Much as I love Penny, I don’t think the average Australian voter could cope with an intelligent asian lesbian as PM.

        Our insufferable country couldn’t cope with a red head, the bogans would have a conniption at Ms Wong.

      • @Bubbly I’m pretty sure you can’t say that now, and in general if you did you’d get shut down in MSM or SM. If they are competent as Penny is why not, and probably it won’t matter as they answer to their masters and once they are in they have to toe the line. IMO to think otherwise these days it’s delusional. Just look how we keep loosing PM’s as an example. I think now we all need to look after ourselves as the pollies can’t/wont unless you fall in to a small sector that they do look after.

      • Sadly political correctness does not apply to politics. The red head I referred to was Gillard (not Hanson) and it wasn’t that long ago a man who ended up being PM, stood in front of Burn the Witch signs. Gillard was brilliant and in my view, was treated appallingly by the Aussie public as well as politicians.

        Penny Wong is extremely competent. She hold two uni degrees and is without a doubt one of the best we have. I would love to see her as PM – but the bogans will react worse to her than they did to Gillard. There is no enjoyment in that statement, its my personal view of a large portion of voters.

      • “Gillard was brilliant and in my view, was treated appallingly by the Aussie public as well as politicians.”

        Eh – ??????

        The first thing the red head did was front an industry consortium where she bent the knee and proclaimed invulnerability to populism.

      • skippy is right, Julia’s ‘open for business’ ambition sold the Australian soul to the sewer rats and cruelled tax and other reform for a decade …. so far. The public and politicians you finger were right for the wrong reasons.

  1. Is Bowen really the best talent in parliament? Admiteddly, I can’t think of anyone better off the top of my head. Is there anyone that isn’t in front of cameras and microphones that I’m overlooking?

  2. Bowen? No way is he the answer?

    He has not only endorsed the LNP policy of uncontrolled mass immigration to his electorate. He claims there should be even more immigrants squeezed into the Fairfield NSW area.(his electorate)

  3. It may be they are actually all geniuses in the LNP. Don’t forget, housing is surely going to go tits up, and so there goes the economy, no one wants to be left holding the ball then, so maybe they are actually making sure that it’s impossible for Shorten to lose the election.

  4. A “nut” as defined by MB is??????

    The total decline into petty name calling is astonishing. Anyone wanting a serious discussion has been driven away from the site. I guess everyone agreeing on everything is good for the egos involved. Everyone tells each other how clever they are.

    Sounds like the form of government that is surely heading our way before too much time is passed.

    • “A “nut” as defined by MB is??????”

      How about anybody who argues with the validity of the Scientific Method? How can anyone ‘believe” in the Scientific method enough to fly in a plane, use modern science, drive over a bridge, or trust the output from a computer, but think it does not work for other branches of science like astrophysics (flat earthers), medicine (anti-vaxxers), and the craziest nutters of all, with Climate Science!

      • Science should always be questioned. Climate Change is not exempt. The problem arises when it becomes so politicised that 100% of the people have a definitive view based on ignorance and trusting of vested interests.

        Personally, I prefer to remain cynical to both sides of the argument but happy to clean up our environment. I will note that covering the planet in black heat absorbing solar panels, and attempting to limit world population by shifting the third world population into westernised high energy consumers will probably end in tears.

      • @BlindFreddy “Science should always be questioned. Climate Change is not exempt.”

        You obviously have no idea how the Scientific Method works. The Science is questioned questioned. But being questioned by clueless & paid-for morons in social media and the Murdoch press IS NOT SCIENCE. Science is peer reviewed papers that have full scrutiny from other scientists. The Scientists are not politicized and don’t bow to vested interests – again, you are thinking of the Fossil Fuel industry trying to influence the science.

        The Science of Climate Change has concluded that:
        – The World is warming.
        – Humans are the cause of MOST of that warming.
        This is as settled as the Theory of Gravitation.

        Anyone who disputes this is a nutter (or is paid to do so).

      • Straight to the insults. If you think you know all the facts, there is no way a peer-reviewer could be paid off for a false review, etc, then good for you.

        I know enough about science to know that a lot of what is being presented as fact is actually hypothesis. Ocean levels rising almost linearly by 3.3-3.4mm per annum as measured by the likes of CSIRO and NASA. The outcomes predicting accelerating water level rising of up to 4 metres by end of century are based on hypothesis. Again, if you think otherwise then good for you.

        Alex Turnbull stands to make millions out of renewables, and threatening to use lots of money to alter political outcomes. If you think there are no vested interests on the renewables side, and that only the Fossil Fuels has vested interests influencing political outcomes, then once again, good for you.

        “The Science of Climate”. Science is not a democratic process. Close to 100% of “scientists” didn’t agree with Galileo, close to 100% of “scientists” didn’t agree with Darwin.

      • Oh Freddy…. where to start?

        Lets begin with your last line “Close to 100% of “scientists” didn’t agree with Galileo, close to 100% of “scientists” didn’t agree with Darwin.”

        No, at the time they didn’t but now 100% of scientists DO agree with Galileo and Darwin (except for the 4 americans who started creationism for the southern baptists)

        If you don’t believe in Climate Change you’re behind the times. Right now, there are probably a lot of people in Deep Water QLD and Sydney suffering from “Extreme Weather Events” ie fire and flood, who would say climate change is real and happening now in Australia.

      • Your wrong on some things mate. You know that most med journals never get published if it doesn’t suit an agenda? You know that science can prove a point or deny a point if it wants to? Where there’s money there’s corruption and med science is no different to banking corruption.

      • Before you start belittling people.

        “Donna” claims to have “dug deep”, yet does nothing except raise disingenuous points that have long been refuted.

        “Belittling” is the nicest thing these people deserve.

      • Lol. You’d do better to question everything you believe and read, lest you be labelled a sheep:

        “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
        “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
        “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
        Michael Crichton (sorry, but he might just have a bit more credibility than YOU, just saying)

        Oops! Thanks, but I’ll stick with credibility and commonsense rather than the views of some whacko. Time for your meds!

      • Oops! Thanks, but I’ll stick with credibility and commonsense rather than the views of some whacko.

        If you were sticking with credibility and commonsense, you wouldn’t be arguing against climate change. Because that’s what all the evidence – you know, the stuff Crichton is claiming is what matters – supports.

        “Strangely”, nobody ever gets conniptions about the consensus in other scientific fields. Like, say, the physics of internal combustion engines, or bridge building, or flight.

        It’s only when the implications of the science cause them problems with their religious beliefs that suddenly the expertise and methods that are just fine everywhere else suddenly become unreliable and untrustworthy.

  5. If the Liberals go who gets the urban conservative vote? Not PHON, which is neither. Unless a real alternative for that voting bloc appears my guess is they can flounder for some time to come.

  6. ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

    The Australian Conservatives used to meet up the Bowlo and have their branch meetings the same night our monthly ALP Ermo branch meetings were held.
    Our meetings are in the lounge and usually pull no more than a dozen members,…but these Australian Conservatives, usually pull over 40 members!
    They have theirs in the conference room that we cant afford. (bloody 70 bucks!)
    But Their meetings are for for the entire electorate of Bennalong though, whereas Bennalong has half a dozen different ALP branchs.

    I gotta give it to these Conservatives though,…the same heads always reliably turn up, with a higher percentage of women turning up than I see at the 2 ALP Branch meeting I regularly attend.
    I noted that at my booth (Marsden High) the AusCons polled exactly the same as the greens in the Bennalong By election.

    I was so disappointed the night Kristina Keneally came in to give us a pep talk during her Bennalong campaign, the AusCons were only 30 meters away having their meeting but didn’t come out untill our meeting was over and most our members had left.
    It would have been quite the meet and greet.
    I couldn’t help pointing out to them at the bar that they had missed an opportunity to meet the next representative of Bennalong.😎

    I reckon we will see a New Coalition of 4 or 5 “conservative” parties instead of two,…AusCons, One Nation, 2 Lib factions and the Nationals!,….maybe.

    Like eddit0r said above,…it will be endlessly hilarious.

  7. The LNP will implode into two factions, neither ever gaining enough voted to actually govern. Hell, the Liberals could never gain enough votes to govern in their own right now! The future for the Libs is no brighter when you look at the collective rabble of neocons in nappies the Young Liberals. And they’ve only got themselves to blame.