The Liberal Party’s 2025 Catastrophe: A Party Morally Adrift

Post 2025 Election – A Coalition of Convenience, A Party Without Principle

By Sue Barrett

The Liberal Party of Australia’s 2025 federal election campaign was a historic low, yielding their worst-ever result and exposing a party unmoored from moral engagement. The on-again, off-again, and now hastily rekindled relationship with the National Party underscores a coalition bound not by shared values but by a desperate life raft of convenience, clinging to political survival.

The Liberals’ growing alienation from Australian voters, coupled with their tendency to blame the electorate for their loss, as articulated by figures like Senator Jane Hume, reflects a deeper crisis of integrity – a slide into moral disengagement that has been brewing for over two decades.

Using Albert Bandura’s eight mechanisms of moral disengagement, I examine the Liberals’ 2025 campaign, their patched-up coalition with the Nationals, and their long-term moral drift, drawing on public records, commentary from analysts like Kos Samaras, Paul Barry, Mark Kenny, and Laura Tingle, and the party’s own rhetoric.

The Coalition’s Rollercoaster: A Life Raft of Convenience

The Liberal-National Coalition, a near 80-year partnership, imploded in mid-May 2025 when the Nationals, led by David Littleproud, announced their withdrawal, citing irreconcilable differences over climate change and regional priorities. Posts on X described this as a “political earthquake,” with Nationals MPs accusing the Liberals of a “leftward drift” and Liberals retorting that the Nationals were “obstructive” on urban-focused policies.

Yet, within a week of realising the dire electoral consequences of their split, the parties were back together again. What binds them? Certainly not values or policies of substance – more like a life raft of convenience to keep their MPs and Senators in jobs, and their vested interest backers, particularly in mining and fossil fuels, somewhat appeased. Mark Kenny labelled this reunion a “marriage of convenience,” noting that Labor’s landslide victory (91 seats) forced both parties to prioritise survival over principle.

This hasty reformation highlights the Liberals’ moral disengagement, prioritising political expediency over ideological coherence. The Nationals’ focus on regional interests and fossil fuel industries clashed with the Liberals’ 2025 campaign, which leaned on nuclear energy and immigration cuts. Laura Tingle described the reunion as a response to “mutual weakness,” not shared vision, underscoring a coalition driven by pragmatism rather than integrity.

The 2025 Campaign: A Moral and Strategic Failure

The Liberals’ 2025 campaign, branded “Get Australia Back on Track,” was a masterclass in misreading the public mood. Policies like a zero-emissions nuclear energy plan, a ban on foreign investors buying existing homes, and a swiftly reversed proposal to end work-from-home arrangements for public servants were pitched as solutions to cost-of-living, housing, and energy challenges. Yet, Kos Samaras observed that these policies constructed a “caricature of Australian identity,” alienating women, younger voters, and culturally diverse communities. Laura Tingle called the campaign “tone-deaf,” noting its failure to address voter priorities like climate change and social equity.

Economically, the Liberals’ promise of “lower, simpler, and fairer taxes” and a turbocharged mining sector fell flat. Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor’s focus on cutting 40,000 public service jobs and slashing immigration lacked a compelling vision, as Mark Kenny critiqued, while Labor’s cost-of-living relief resonated more strongly. The Liberals’ claim that Labor’s budgets added $40,000 in spending per household was overshadowed by their inability to offer tangible alternatives, as Paul Barry from Redbridge pointed out, noting their failure to account for global economic pressures.

Socially, the Liberals’ appeal to “aspirational hard-working ‘forgotten people’” clashed with perceptions of elitism. Kos Samaras highlighted a 60% two-party-preferred swing to Labor among voters who speak a language other than English at home, while women, especially those aged 18–34 and 35–54, rejected the Liberals en masse. Jane Hume’s 2022 election review had flagged this “women’s problem,” yet the 2025 campaign, with only 16% female candidates (often in unwinnable seats), showed no progress. Charlotte Mortlock, a former Liberal staffer, noted the party’s membership – mostly male and over 70 – clashed with the average Australian voter, a 37-year-old woman.

And then to add insult to injury, Jane Hume suggested the party’s 2025 defeat stemmed from voters’ failure to align with the Liberals’ values which she labelled as “Australian values” – that’s right she’s blaming us, rather than acknowledging the internal policy, leadership failures and moral disconnection from anything resembling values. How myopic and self-entitled.

Two Decades of Moral Disengagement: A Party Unmoored

I propose that the Liberals’ 2025 defeat, their worst ever, is the culmination of over two decades of moral disengagement. Using Bandura’s eight mechanisms, we can trace this slide and assess its severity in 2025, assigning scores out of 100 for each mechanism based on campaign conduct and post-election rhetoric.

NB: Higher scores indicate greater moral disengagement, reflecting a party increasingly detached from accountability.

• Moral Justification (Score: 65/100)
  The Liberals justified policies like the nuclear energy plan as essential for “national interest” and “lower bills,” despite expert evidence and scepticism. This echoes their 2000s defence of WorkChoices as “economic reform,” ignoring its impact on workers. Laura Tingle noted the 2025 policy as appeasing fossil fuel interests, showing a consistent pattern of justifying questionable decisions.

• Euphemistic Labelling (Score: 70/100)
  Harsh policies were cloaked in neutral terms, like “efficiency dividends” for public service cuts and “rebalancing” for immigration reductions. This mirrors the Howard era’s use of “border protection” to soften asylum seeker policies. Kos Samaras criticised the 2025 rhetoric as failing to mask unpopularity, a tactic refined over decades but increasingly ineffective.

• Advantageous Comparison (Score: 80/100)
  The Liberals’ 2025 claim that Labor’s spending fuelled inflation ignored global factors, as Paul Barry noted, a tactic reminiscent of their 2013 campaign blaming Labor for debt despite their own fiscal legacy. This mechanism has grown more pronounced, deflecting scrutiny by exaggerating Labor’s flaws.

• Displacement of Responsibility (Score: 85/100)
  Jane Hume’s blaming of voters for not embracing “Australian values” in 2025 continues a trend from the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison years, where leaders deflected policy failures onto “elites” or “globalists.” Mark Kenny called this a refusal to engage with Australia’s changing demographics, a hallmark of the party’s post-2007 rhetoric.

• Diffusion of Responsibility (Score: 75/100)
  Post-election reviews, like Hume’s 2022 analysis, blamed vague issues like “candidate selection” or “state divisions,” avoiding direct accountability. This recalls the Liberals’ post-2007 tendency to attribute losses to internal processes rather than leadership or policy failures, diffusing blame across the organisation.

• Disregard or Distortion of Consequences (Score: 60/100)
  The Liberals downplayed the work-from-home ban’s impact, alienating voters, especially women. This echoes their 2014 budget’s dismissal of welfare cuts’ social toll. While less extreme in 2025, the party’s late policy reversal showed a persistent disregard for consequences.

• Dehumanisation (Score: 55/100)
  Peter Dutton’s 2025 focus on deporting non-citizen offenders framed migrants as threats, costing votes among diverse communities, as Kos Samaras noted. This builds on the Liberals’ 2001 “children overboard” narrative, though 2025’s rhetoric was less overt but still divisive.

• Attribution of Blame (Score: 90/100)
  Blaming voters for rejecting their “values,” as Hume did, is a peak in a 20-year trend of externalising failure. From Howard’s 2007 loss blamed on “WorkChoices fatigue” to Morrison’s 2022 defeat pinned on “COVID fatigue,” the Liberals consistently deflect accountability, with 2025 marking their most blatant use of this mechanism.

Average Moral Disengagement Score: 72.5/100
Overall Moral Engagement Score: 27.5/100

The Liberals’ dismal moral engagement score of 27.5/100 reflects a party profoundly detached from accountability.

High scores in attribution of blame (90/100) and displacement of responsibility (85/100) highlight their tendency to scapegoat voters and external factors, a pattern entrenched since the Howard era.

This slide, exacerbated by the 2025 campaign’s failure to connect with diverse, progressive, and economically anxious Australians, has left the party appealing primarily to older, affluent retirees, as Charlotte Mortlock observed.

Why Australians Rejected the Liberals

The 2025 election saw Labor secure 91 seats, while the Liberals were reduced to a handful of urban strongholds, their support confined to regional areas and older voters. Kos Samaras noted drastic swings among women, younger voters, and culturally diverse communities, driven by the Liberals’ elitist image and failure to address everyday struggles. Paul Barry argued the Liberals misjudged a “socially progressive but economically anxious” electorate, while Mark Kenny criticised their “rightward moves” as alienating moderates.

Conclusion: A Party Facing Oblivion

The Liberal Party’s 2025 debacle, their worst-ever result, is the endpoint of over two decades of moral disengagement. The hastily rekindled coalition with the Nationals, a life raft of convenience to preserve jobs and appease vested interests, masks unresolved ideological rifts and reinforces a pattern of expediency over principle.

Blaming Australians for rejecting their “values,” as Jane Hume did, ignores the party’s failure to adapt to a diversifying, progressive nation. With a moral engagement score of 27.5/100, the Liberals are adrift, their values, once rooted in economic liberalism, now hollow and disconnected from the average voter, a 37-year-old woman.

Under Sussan Ley’s leadership, the Liberals face a stark choice: confront their demographic disconnect, embrace diversity, and realign with Australia’s priorities, or remain mired in a past that appeals only to a shrinking base of “old, rich retirees.”

As Laura Tingle warns, without a “complete rethink,” the Liberals risk irrelevance. Their offering is “on the nose,” and Australians aren’t buying.

Onward we press

Coming Soon

Democracy Watch AU is a non-partisan, citizen-led movement to monitor and assess the ethical and moral health of Australia’s levels of power – the First Estate (politicians and parties), Second Estate (governments), Third Estate (institutions), and Fourth Estate (media). Using Steve Davies’ extended work on Albert Bandura’s eight mechanisms of moral disengagement, and AI tools, we help Australians stay informed and hold all estates accountable for integrity, equity, climate action, common good, transparency and representative democracy.

By Joining Democracy Watch AU (Australia), citizens will be able to:

• Track the ethical conduct of politicians, governments, institutions, and media with bias-free insights.

• Expose unethical behaviour across all levels of power using AI-driven scrutiny.

• Unite their communities to stay vigilant and demand accountable governance.

• Contribute to a national network for transparent, fair democracy.

Our inclusive, scalable model fosters local Watch initiatives (e.g., Goldstein Watch) and aims to unite communities across Australia’s 150 electorates.

Watch This Space

This article was originally published on Sue Barrett

 

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