A lingering divorce

What does one do with a political party ruthlessly knocked down after receiving a devastating blow from its rival? Out for the count was no exaggeration. The first rule of politics is to gain power. The second is to retain power. But, in this case, a split was inevitable.

It seemed highly improbable that the LNP could rise from the canvas intact, let alone muster the strength for another round. Now that the chaos has subsided and the analysts have weighed in on why the LNP was defeated in the election, and attributed this massive loss to a lacklustre campaign led by an uninspiring leader who, much like Abbott, was simply unqualified for the challenge. Pointedly put, like a quick left jab, Nikki Sava on Insiders said that many would walk away because nobody knows what they stand for. For me, Dutton was just unelectable.

The leader’s dismal performance was so catastrophic that it has forced the National Party to sever ties with its long-standing partner, seeking to restore its image in the stark isolation of enduring opposition. Whether such a resurrection is even possible remains to be seen. Conversely, the Nationals have accepted the divorce.

Let’s pause and consider the pressing need to redefine the core values of both parties.

Over time, the public has perceived the Nats as two distinct factions. On one side, we have those fiercely advocating for the people of the expansive outback, yet they find themselves mired in an identity crisis. They are from a different world than those of the city. They grapple with a profound uncertainty, unsure whether they truly represent the interests of the large mining corporations in the rugged terrains, or the country folk who are the backbone of our vast agricultural bounty, responsible for feeding the nation. This split creates an intricate tapestry of conflicting priorities that demands thoughtful redefinition.

They were called the Country Party many years ago, which better characterised their purpose. The term Nationalist says nothing about being interested in the cities.

Then we have the Liberal Party, which, when told it, needs to change, drag out Menzies and Howard as inspiration. But here we have a party, so devoid of a starting point that it is impossible to begin without acknowledging that you may only have a leader for as long as your opponent takes to swing a left hook. The fact is that there is no leader with the qualities required to repair either of these two fractured parties. The only thing they have in common is that they are both on the right side of conservatism.

Before changing anything, one has to realise that, like punch-drunk fighters Abbott, Morrison, and Dutton, who could see little need for change because they saw nothing wrong with their policies, culture and philosophy. The old school boys are still in charge of both entities, so trapped in the longevity of sameness that they cannot see other ways of doing things.

Ley and Littleproud don’t get on particularly well, said Michelle Grattan, writing for The Conversation:

“Littleproud and Ley have had a combustible relationship in the past.

After Ley, on the backbench in 2018, co-sponsored a private member’s bill to restrict live sheep exports, Littleproud, the agriculture minister, said dismissively, “I’m going to predicate my decisions on evidence, not emotion.”

More seriously, when she was environment minister in 2019-22, Ley and Littleproud clashed over the Murray-Darling Basin.

“The Nationals leader is father of, and a true believer in, the opposition’s nuclear policy; Ley began as an agnostic on the issue, saying in 2019, “To be honest, I am not strongly for or against nuclear power.”

The two leaders differ in their economic philosophies. Littleproud is what detractors of the Nationals and their predecessor, the Country Party, used to call an “agrarian socialist”. It was the Nationals who, in the last term, drove the Coalition policy to break up supermarkets that misused their power. Ley is less inclined to industry intervention.”

How could anyone possibly imagine that two lacklustre minds, who seem to find common ground only in their disagreements, could come together to forge a formidable coalition of the Liberal and National parties capable of clinching victory in the next election? To make matters worse, they are indisputably among the most disruptive figures in the Lower House, sowing discord rather than unity.

Rising above all the analytical words written by the media, the day following the split, is that both parties will end their fighting before the next election and remerge as if nothing happened. How naive is that?

They might find that they are insurmountable once they dig deeper into their differences. For an excellent summation on this point, I’d recommend Henry Belot’s article in Wednesday’s Guardian.

Of course, everything mentioned before or after this paragraph is in the recipe for a new political outlook, and both sides require it in significant volume. For Labor, it is necessary if they have any pretence of embedding a legacy into their term of office, and for the Conservatives, it is essential for survival. It is called change.

We dislike and resist change in the foolish assumption that we can make permanent, that which makes us feel secure. Yet change is part of the very fabric of our existence.

As I approach age 85, I’ve come to embrace change as naturally as the transition from night to day. My generation has witnessed an extraordinary tapestry of transformation – one that surpasses any other era. The shifts have been profound and exhilarating in realms like music, sports, advertising, medicine, engineering and the world of work. Yet, in stark contrast, our political landscape feels like a relic stuck in time, as if it belongs within the dusty walls of a political museum. It desperately needs a fresh perspective – perhaps even a new set of gloves to tackle the dust that has settled over it. Our constitution is but one example.

Let’s not forget the young

A lively debate looms on the horizon, with factions clashing over pressing issues such as the future of nuclear power, the importance of women’s representation, and the acceptance of scientific truths versus lingering irrelevance. However, the most vital battlefield in this evolving landscape is the effort to engage young voters. Their voices must be heard, especially as we navigate this changing tide – yes, even if Miss Ley finds herself merely biding her time in the midst of it all.

Attracting the young voters as saviours

When examining the voting preferences of Generation Z – those vibrant individuals born after 1996 – it becomes strikingly evident that political inclinations lean heavily to the left. Collectively, only 26 per cent of this generation rallied behind the Coalition during the 2019 and 2022 elections, while a commanding 67 per cent cast their votes for the Greens or Labor. This stark contrast marks a notable divergence from previous generations, showcasing a remarkable alignment with progressive ideals from a remarkably young age.

A 19-year-old I know of who has proudly been a member of the Young Liberal Movement for three years articulates a heartfelt belief that the Liberal Party’s principles resonate with the aspirations of young Australians. However, he feels these values are often lost in translation.

The Liberal Party’s values encompass a broad spectrum, he explains, “centred around the idea that everyone should be empowered to lead their best lives with minimal interference.” He reflects on his peers’ desires for greater independence as a teenager. “I often talk to my friends, and one common theme emerges – we crave less supervision from our parents, more freedom to chart our paths.”

Yet, he finds an intriguing paradox in the mindset of his contemporaries. “It astonishes me that while many in my generation seek to break free from the influence of parental figures, there’s a simultaneous desire for increased intervention from a governing body. It’s perplexing,” he muses, highlighting the complexities of modern youth perspectives on freedom and authority.

Regarding change, our youth have a different perspective on almost everything and are unafraid of a decent fight.

All parties must have been aware that this CHANGE would take place about now.

My thought for the day

The danger in looking back to often is that we lose the will to go forward.

Former ABC breakfast commentator Tony Armstrong puts it this way:

“We’re seeing rights being walked back all around the world and freedom of speech being wrongly defined as tolerating hate speech,” he says, adding, “I can viscerally feel the tone of the world shifting. It is fucking crazy – the way that I’m getting spoken to now is wild.”

Dear reader, we need your support

Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.

One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.

With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.

Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969