Times Up, Tony: When Voters Stop Buying What You’re Selling

How the Liberal Party’s CPAC Obsession Proves They Still Don’t Get It

By Sue Barrett

At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Australia, held in Brisbane on 20-21 September 2025, speakers including former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, Senator Pauline Hanson, Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, and Senator Matt Canavan delivered impassioned warnings of national decline. International guest Liz Truss, former UK Prime Minister (shortest-serving Prime Minister in British history with 49 days), joined in, criticising “Net Zero policies” and perceived cultural erosion. The audience responded with enthusiastic applause, appearing to embrace the narrative of societal collapse.

However, this event highlights a growing disconnect: CPAC’s rhetoric, amplified by aligned media and think tanks, risks accelerating the Liberal Party’s political decline by alienating a broader electorate that supports progress on renewables, multiculturalism, and inclusive values.

The Evidence Gap: CPAC Rhetoric vs Australian Reality

The contrast between CPAC’s messaging and Australia’s broader public sentiment reveals a concerning disconnect. Let’s examine the evidence:

Renewable Energy Progress

CPAC Position: Opposition to “Net Zero policies” as costly and harmful to energy security. Canavan criticised renewables as elite-driven, while Truss praised UK policy reversals.

Australian Reality: Renewables provided 40% of electricity in 2024, up from 39.4% in 2023, with rooftop solar powering 4.2 million homes (12.8% of supply in H1 2025). On-grid renewables rose 5% to 37% in 2025. Labor’s May 2025 election win secured an 82% renewables target by 2030, backed by a $20 billion Capacity Investment Scheme for 40GW of solar, wind, and storage.

Public support remains strong: 75% want renewables to dominate by 2050, 82% back subsidies, and 70% support hosting a UN climate conference.

Multiculturalism and Social Values

CPAC Position: Claims of “cultural erosion” from immigration and “woke” policies. Hanson and Price argued multiculturalism fragments identity, with Abbott criticising multiple flags as divisive.

Australian Reality: 90% of Australians view cultural diversity positively. The 2025 Lowy Poll shows 74% prefer democracy for inclusive values. The Multicultural Framework Review affirms Australia’s pluralist success, with 69% seeing diversity as a strength despite housing-related immigration debates.

Immigration Attitudes

CPAC Position: Claims of migration undermining national interests, with Price’s comments on Indian migrants as “Labor leaning” and rhetoric framing immigration as societal fragmentation, backed by Sky News, Advance Australia, IPA, and CIS.

Australian Reality: While 53% say migrant numbers are “too high” (up 5% since 2024), 45% see them as “about right” or “too low”. Notably, 56% view international students positively. Price’s divisive remarks drew widespread condemnation, with Ley publicly apologising, reflecting public rejection of inflammatory rhetoric. Research by the Development Policy Centre shows Australians overestimate net migration by 59% on average and hold many misconceptions about immigration, suggesting that negative attitudes often stem from misinformation rather than facts.

Political Landscape and Voter Dynamics

CPAC Position: Calls to rally conservatives against Labor’s policies, with critiques of “moderate” Liberals like Sussan Ley as out of touch, advocating a harder-right stance.

Australian Reality: Labor’s May 2025 victory reflects support for progress, with September 2025 Newspoll showing Labor at 36% primary vote, Coalition at 27%, Greens at 13%, and One Nation at 10%. YouGov MRP polls indicate Labor’s 56.5% two-party preferred lead versus the Coalition’s 43.5%. Labor leads 45% to 24% on climate change, with 52% expressing economic optimism.

RedBridge Group director Kos Samaras, a leading political analyst, identifies a crucial shift: “40 per cent of voters are considering anyone but the two major parties“, with younger voters particularly disengaged from traditional politics. His research shows that “within gen Z, the Greens primary vote is the highest at 33 per cent. Higher than Labor, higher than the Liberal Party” in Liberal versus Labor contests. This demographic shift poses particular challenges for the Coalition, as Samaras notes that voters under 45 have “very low levels of values connection to party politics in this country”.

Additional Evidence-Based Disconnects

Beyond the core policy areas, several other indicators reveal CPAC’s isolation from mainstream Australian sentiment:

Youth Engagement and Political Participation

Samaras’s research reveals a fundamental generational divide that CPAC ignores. “There is extremely low levels of awareness about politics in general, huge amounts of disengagement and pessimism” among young voters. Crucially, “43 percent of the voters, what was made up of these two generations [Gen Z and Millennials] ; boomers are 32 percent“, making 2025 the first election where younger generations outnumber boomers in every state.

These younger voters “have no faith that the political class are in the business of solving the problems they are facing” and view political parties as “outdated organisations that don’t represent their views of the world”. Rather than engaging with this reality, CPAC doubles down on rhetoric that further alienates these crucial demographics.

Economic Priorities and Cost of Living

Current polling shows Australians’ immediate concerns centre on practical economic issues. The Ipsos Issues Monitor for August 2025 identifies cost of living as the top concern for 62% of Australians, followed by housing at 42% and healthcare at 30%. Immigration ranks much lower in public priorities, contradicting CPAC’s emphasis on migration as a primary threat.

The Echo Chamber Effect: Understanding CPAC’s Isolation

CPAC and its supporters demonstrate characteristics that mirror what psychologists identify in insular groups: dependency through isolation, emotional manipulation, and a shared sense of mission against external enemies. This isn’t mainstream conservatism but rather a closed system that reinforces predetermined beliefs.

Key indicators include:

• Charismatic Authority: Figures like Abbott and Price inspire strong devotion, with Price’s defiance of party leadership praised by supporters despite creating internal tensions.
• Information Isolation: Backing from Murdoch media and think tanks (IPA, CIS) creates echo chambers that dismiss critics as “elites” while social media reinforces these views.
• Binary Thinking: Rhetoric frames Labor, migrants, and environmental advocates as existential threats to “traditional values,” fostering an us-versus-them mentality.
• Fear-Based Messaging: Alarmist claims about migration “vote-rigging” and cultural collapse amplify anxieties rather than addressing policy specifics.
• Dissent Suppression: Criticism from moderates like Ley is framed as disloyalty, with emotional narratives overshadowing evidence-based debate.

The Price Affair: A Case Study in Self-Inflicted Damage

The Liberal Party’s internal chaos, exemplified by Senator Price’s actions, underscores this dangerous rift. Her controversial comments about Indian migrants, refusal to apologise, and public undermining of deputy leader Sussan Ley led to her removal from the shadow ministry on 10 September 2025.

While Sky News, Advance Australia, the IPA, and CIS supported her stance, the broader public and party leadership recognised the damage to the Liberal brand. This episode demonstrates how CPAC-aligned positions can generate short-term media attention while causing long-term electoral harm.

A Path Forward: Hewson’s Evidence-Based Alternative

Former Liberal leader John Hewson, in “The unravelling of the Liberal Party” (The Saturday Paper, 20 September 2025), offers a stark assessment of the party’s predicament. With a 27% primary vote and 58-42 two-party preferred deficit to Labor, Hewson proposes practical solutions:

1. Enforce Unity and Discipline: Curb factionalism that allows individual members to damage the party brand
2. Develop Credible Policies: Implement evidence-based approaches like carbon pricing and productivity-enhancing deregulation
3. Organisational Reform: Recruit expert talent and modernise party structures

These measured proposals contrast sharply with CPAC’s emotional, divisive approach and offer a realistic path to reconnect with Australian voters.

The Market Reality: When Customers Stop Buying Your Product

From a strategic and client engagement perspective, the Liberal Party’s predicament mirrors a classic business failure: refusing to adapt when customers clearly want something different. In any successful enterprise, if buyers don’t like what you’re selling, they will shop elsewhere. If your messages don’t resonate, customers will find alternatives that better meet their needs – think Community Independents for instance.

22nd September 2025: In his tweet, Political analyst Kos Samaras captures this absurdity perfectly: “One side has just won 94 seats and is busy dissecting what went wrong. The other side, having suffered its worst defeat since 1943, is acting out some strange piece of political theatre, as if they were the victors. It’s like watching the losing team hold a victory parade. Labor, for all its hand-wringing, is at least asking the hard questions about its base and its future and yes, they need to urgently address some massive problems. Meanwhile on CPAC stage, some in the Coalition are like Richard III crying out not for a horse, but for their dead horse, still flogging it, still insisting it can carry them back to power.”

This is the fundamental rule of strategy and market engagement: you must always read the market. CPAC and the LNP represent a textbook case of ignoring market research while clinging to myopic views that “their way is the only way”, even as most voters have moved on to something better. Today’s political marketplace offers unprecedented choice: community independents, crossbench senators, and minor parties that speak directly to voters’ values, priorities, needs, and aspirations. When these alternatives exist, voters naturally gravitate towards them.

Tony Abbott epitomises everything outdated about the Liberal Party’s approach. His prominent role at CPAC 2025 symbolises a brand that refuses to acknowledge changing citizen preferences. The message was delivered plainly on t-shirts and bathers worn by Warringah voters in 2018-2019: “Times Up Tony” and “Vote Tony Out.” That sentiment hasn’t disappeared: it has spread. The majority of voters are not buying what Abbott and his allies are selling, yet the party continues to platform voices that actively repel their target market.

The rise of community independents in traditionally safe Liberal seats demonstrates this market shift perfectly. These candidates succeed because they conduct proper “market research”, listening to constituents, understanding local priorities, and offering products (policies) that match customer demand. They don’t lecture voters about what they should want; they respond to what voters actually need.

Why This Matters for Australian Democracy

The Liberal Party’s downward trajectory affects more than partisan politics. Australia needs a viable centre-right alternative that can engage constructively with challenges like climate change, economic inequality, and social cohesion. A party trapped in an echo chamber of grievance and nostalgia cannot fulfill this democratic role.

For voters concerned about the Liberal Party’s direction, the evidence suggests:

• CPAC’s positions are increasingly out of step with mainstream Australian opinion
• The party’s electoral prospects suffer when it amplifies divisive rhetoric over practical policy
• Alternative conservative approaches exist that could rebuild public trust

For those engaging in political discussions, key facts to remember:

• 82% of Australians support renewable energy subsidies, contradicting CPAC’s anti-renewables stance
• 90% view cultural diversity positively, undermining claims of widespread opposition to multiculturalism
• 53% want lower migration levels, but 56% view international students positively, showing nuanced rather than blanket anti-immigration sentiment
• Labor maintains a significant polling lead partly due to the Coalition’s internal divisions and positioning
• 40% of voters are considering alternatives to major parties, with younger voters particularly disengaged from traditional political messaging
• Cost of living (62%) and housing (42%) rank as top concerns, while immigration ranks much lower in public priorities

A Choice Between Echo Chambers and Electoral Viability

I write this as someone who has never belonged to a political party and does not vote Liberal. I was one of the founders of Voices of Goldstein and served as Zoe Daniel’s campaign manager for the 2022 election that saw her defeat Tim Wilson in what was once considered an ultra-safe Liberal seat. This gives me an interesting perspective on why the Liberal Party is hemorrhaging support to community independents who actually listen to their constituents.

As Ian Macphee, former member for Goldstein and minister in the Fraser Liberal Government, astutely observed: “The Liberal party ceased being liberal in the late 1980s when Howardism took over.” This transformation from a genuinely liberal party to an increasingly conservative one has accelerated under CPAC’s influence, driving away the very voters who once formed the party’s backbone.

Tim Wilson’s narrow victory in reclaiming Goldstein in 2025 might seem to contradict this analysis, but it actually reinforces the broader problem. Wilson won through what observers described as “a ruthless postal vote harvesting campaign” and “a nasty ground campaign that falsely accused Daniel of any and all things that would motivate key target voters.” This victory was achieved with massive financial support from CPAC-aligned groups like Advance Australia, which spent over $1.7 million during the 2025 election, specifically targeting seats like Goldstein with divisive tactics and a flood of disinformation.

As one longtime political observer noted: “After 60 years in politics I have seen some dirty campaigns and this was up there with the worst.” Wilson’s victory came not through compelling policy or genuine community engagement, but through intimidation tactics, massive spending, and what can only be described as electoral carpet-bombing. He won by just 175 votes following a partial recount – hardly a mandate for the divisive approach that secured his victory.

This raises the crucial question: what does Tim Wilson do now that his Liberal Party is being hijacked by CPAC? As a self-proclaimed “Modern Liberal” who previously supported Malcolm Turnbull against Peter Dutton and has advocated for Net Zero by 2050, Wilson finds himself in an impossible position. He won his seat using the very tactics and with support from the very groups that represent everything wrong with modern conservative politics. But Wilson has a well-documented history of saying and doing anything to win – so how can he be trusted to distance himself from the forces that put him back in parliament? His victory reveals the moral bankruptcy at the heart of modern Liberal politics: even their so-called “moderates” will embrace divisive tactics when it serves their ambition.

The Liberal Party faces a stark choice. It can continue down CPAC’s path of ideological purity and electoral irrelevance, using divisive tactics and big money to win occasional seats while losing the broader electorate, or it can embrace Hewson’s call for evidence-based policy and genuine engagement with Australian concerns.

As Kos Samaras observes, the political landscape has fundamentally shifted: “We’re dealing with a very different Australia” where traditional party loyalties no longer hold. The party’s future depends not on rallying the already convinced but on persuading the unconvinced. In a democracy where 56.5% support Labor’s progressive vision and 40% of voters are considering alternatives to major parties, the Liberal Party must offer a compelling alternative that addresses real challenges rather than imaginary threats.

Wilson’s pyrrhic victory in Goldstein demonstrates that while divisive tactics and massive spending can occasionally win individual seats, they cannot rebuild a party’s connection with mainstream Australia. Unless the Liberals do a complete 180-degree turn away from CPAC’s failed approach, then it’s goodnight Liberal Party. Au revoir.

Without this fundamental shift, CPAC’s stage risks becoming a memorial service for what was once Australia’s most successful political party. The choice is clear: break free from the echo chamber or face continued decline in an Australia that is moving forward.

You know what to do.

Onward we press

 

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