The Liberal Party - How long? - Part 2

[Johnny Bananas]

If you were running

Excellent detailed response. Very informative.

My point was not about voters switching from Liberals to Greens as I agree that's a stretch too far and not worth the effort.

But more about the Coalition bringing Net Zero and Global Warming to the national media spotlight and the opportunity that (should) present to an environment future oriented political party like The Greens.

This should be the point of the arrow that The Greens use to galvanise support around their full policy agenda -environmental, social and economic - about Australia's future.

But they haven't. They've just been very quiet through all of it.

And as a result the headline discussion has reverted back to the Libs vs Labor stuff.

A missed opportunity to fill a void and build momentum in my view. But I've never been a member of a political party or a marketer so maybe I just don't get it.

Oh, I see. I think such a approach wouldn't succeed because climate change is the #1 priority of very few voters. Even the Teals campaign on much more than climate change. Some of their biggest selling points are localism, relatability and a sense of being accountable to the people rather than a party. That does also present an issue if they were to formalise into a party though.

I don't mean to say the electorate are apathetic about climate change. They do care, they're just more concerned with the here and now, particularly their hip pocket, rather than something that still seems like an abstract concept because it hasn't bit us that hard yet. I don't think that situation will last though, it'll be harder to ignore climate change as it worsens.

As for the Greens, what if they have been commenting on the situation but it's not being reported on? If a tree falls in the political forest but no media are publicising it, did it really happen? As much as people want to declare the death of traditional media in terms of political influence, they still set the agenda to a degree by what they choose to report on and what they choose to ignore.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Ignoring the unpopularity of abandoning net zero for anyone under 50, or in the metro areas that they must win back to ever form government, the Libs appear wholly committed and moving towards:

1. Chopping the only female leader in their history 8-10 months into the job and alnost certainly replacing her with a male from the conservative side of the party.

2. Embracing the perception that they can be bullied by the Nationals, especially into policy decisions that are consistent with One Nation, since they're losing so much of their right wing base to them.

Whatever people's thoughts are of the Voice Referendum and the outcome of that, it at least made strategic sense for Dutton to oppose it, not least because I've no doubt that he truly opposed it. But if he'd offered bipartisan support for the Yes campaign and handed Albanese the win, he'd have been dead as leader. He wouldn't have made it to Christmas 2023.

 

[Saint]

Oh, I see. I think such a approach wouldn't succeed because climate change is the #1 priority of very few voters. Even the Teals campaign on much more than climate change. Some of their biggest selling points are localism, relatability and a sense of being accountable to the people rather than a party. That does also present an issue if they were to formalise into a party though.

I don't mean to say the electorate are apathetic about climate change. They do care, they're just more concerned with the here and now, particularly their hip pocket, rather than something that still seems like an abstract concept because it hasn't bit us that hard yet. I don't think that situation will last though, it'll be harder to ignore climate change as it worsens.

As for the Greens, what if they have been commenting on the situation but it's not being reported on? If a tree falls in the political forest but no media are publicising it, did it really happen? As much as people want to declare the death of traditional media in terms of political influence, they still set the agenda to a degree by what they choose to report on and what they choose to ignore.

Climate is far more important to younger voters than older. 25% of voters ranked Climate as their top concern in 2022. It's probably shifted more to CoL, but it'd be CoL/Housing then Climate.

The Liberal party’s betrayal of younger voters on net zero isn’t just a moral failure – it’s electoral stupidity | Intifar Chowdhury

For a Coalition desperate to prove it can govern again, ignoring millennials and gen Z is a curious kind of strategy

www.theguardian.com

Data from the Australian Election Study shows climate has surged as a priority for voters, with one in four ranking it in their top concern in 2022, up from 11.8% in 2010. Lowy Institute polling reinforces this, with more than 80% of Australians, in over 16 years of polls, consistently saying global warming requires action, and 60% saying this is true even at significant economic cost.

New poll shows Aussies back strong climate action, as unnatural disasters dent productivity | Climate Council

A survey of more than 1500 Australians found that more than three-quarters (77%) want the government’s climate plan to aim to limit risks from extreme weather events like bushfires.

www.climatecouncil.org.au

Australia votes 2025: Where’s the climate action? | Future Super

This election the major parties were quiet on climate change as cost of living took priority, but voters care about both issues.

www.futuresuper.com.au

The reason there is more talk in the media about Lib/Lab and Lib/ON than Lab/Green is that the people who consume that media are conservatives so that's the way it's skewed, and the ABC just follows along.

 

[Festerz]

Look at these smug basterds.

 

[big_e]

Libs should abandon the Coalition, move to the centre and try to win back Labor and Teal voters in the cities and leave the fringe shit (climate, nuclear, hatred of women) to the One Nations and Nationals, et al.

It gives them a point of difference whilst knowing that most of those votes will end up with them on preferences anyway.

 

[Festerz]

Libs should abandon the Coalition, move to the centre and try to win back Labor and Teal voters in the cities and leave the fringe shit (climate, nuclear, hatred of women) to the One Nations and Nationals, et al.

It gives them a point of difference whilst knowing that most of those votes will end up with them on preferences anyway.

Zero chance (sorry for the pun) of the Liberals moving to the centre - ZERO.

Take a read at events from yesterday. This is a mob who are partying as their bus speeds over the cliff.

Deputy leader Ted O'Brien also backed dropping the commitment, as did Alex Hawke, Ley’s numbers man.

Ley herself, once an advocate for net zero, has for some time been willing to jettison it to prop up her leadership. She did not present a view to the meeting.

Leaks poured out of the party room as fast as the contributions were made – they were so constant that it might as well have been live-streamed. Henderson complained about them, suggesting Ley needed to impose more discipline.

James Paterson, a senior conservative who had earlier tried to promote a compromise, opposed net zero, advocating a sharp contrast with Labor.

As they always have - Using climate change and the future of the planet as a political tool. Nothing more or less.

View from The Hill: Conservative Liberals hold ‘power walk’ before delivering coup de grâce to net zero

The Liberals are set to dump net zero with a strong majority of the party room speaking out against the policy.

theconversation.com

 

[Dixie Flatline]

They should but they won't. The extreme right-wing fringe of the party dominates the airwaves and the news cycle, because they make for juicy headlines and by-lines, so they have an outsized influence on the party as a whole. Coupled with the insidious infiltration of the party by extreme right-wing religious nutters at a grassroots level, and we've seen over the past few years (which continues to this day) the slide of the party towards the far right. The loss of inner suburban seats to the Teals in the last two election cycles simultaneously are the outcome of such a move within the Liberal Party and the accelerator of the drift of the Liberal Party to the right.

 

[Gough]

They should but they won't. The extreme right-wing fringe of the party dominates the airwaves and the news cycle, because they make for juicy headlines and by-lines, so they have an outsized influence on the party as a whole. Coupled with the insidious infiltration of the party by extreme right-wing religious nutters at a grassroots level, and we've seen over the past few years (which continues to this day) the slide of the party towards the far right. The loss of inner suburban seats to the Teals in the last two election cycles simultaneously are the outcome of such a move within the Liberal Party and the accelerator of the drift of the Liberal Party to the right.

The hard right of the Libs are more loyal to Trump's America than they are Australia. Here you can be either MAGA or you can be a patriot but you can't be both.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

Zero chance (sorry for the pun) of the Liberals moving to the centre - ZERO.

Take a read at events from yesterday. This is a mob who are partying as their bus speeds over the cliff.

Deputy leader Ted O'Brien also backed dropping the commitment, as did Alex Hawke, Ley’s numbers man.

Ley herself, once an advocate for net zero, has for some time been willing to jettison it to prop up her leadership. She did not present a view to the meeting.
Leaks poured out of the party room as fast as the contributions were made – they were so constant that it might as well have been live-streamed. Henderson complained about them, suggesting Ley needed to impose more discipline.

And no surprises what their purpose of this was..

James Paterson, a senior conservative who had earlier tried to promote a compromise, opposed net zero, advocating a sharp contrast with Labor.

As they always have - Using climate change and the future of the planet as a political tool. Nothing more or less.

View from The Hill: Conservative Liberals hold ‘power walk’ before delivering coup de grâce to net zero

The Liberals are set to dump net zero with a strong majority of the party room speaking out against the policy.

theconversation.com

Interesting to read about Jessica Collins, the first-time senator from NSW, who was part of the pack of Liberals that walked in to knife their commitment to Net Zero. Born in 1983 in New Zealand and has worked as a research fellow at the Lowy Institute with a specialisation in refugee issues. One would think, as a generation X Liberal with a background in immigration studies that she would perhaps be a more moderate Liberal, but she clearly wants to advance in the Party (as is natural) and believes that aligning herself with those of the Party that do not believe in climate science is the way to go, notwithstanding that climate change has a real and significant impact on third world countries and is therefore likely to produce more and more climate refugees in the next 20-50 years.

Her Parliamentary biography for reference: https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=297964

 

[Dixie Flatline]

Ignoring the unpopularity of abandoning net zero for anyone under 50, or in the metro areas that they must win back to ever form government, the Libs appear wholly committed and moving towards:

1. Chopping the only female leader in their history 8-10 months into the job and alnost certainly replacing her with a male from the conservative side of the party.

2. Embracing the perception that they can be bullied by the Nationals, especially into policy decisions that are consistent with One Nation, since they're losing so much of their right wing base to them.

Whatever people's thoughts are of the Voice Referendum and the outcome of that, it at least made strategic sense for Dutton to oppose it, not least because I've no doubt that he truly opposed it. But if he'd offered bipartisan support for the Yes campaign and handed Albanese the win, he'd have been dead as leader. He wouldn't have made it to Christmas 2023.

Ley doesn't support net zero, either. If Hastie or Taylor were to come after her leadership using this as a pretext, she can appeal to the right wing base of the party and assure them that she represents their views regarding net zero and climate change. Edited - it remains to be seen how effective that would be to prevent Ley's internal party enemies from removing her from the role, though.

 

[The Punter]

Interesting to read about Jessica Collins, the first-time senator from NSW, who was part of the pack of Liberals that walked in to knife their commitment to Net Zero. Born in 1983 in New Zealand and has worked as a research fellow at the Lowy Institute with a specialisation in refugee issues. One would think, as a generation X Liberal with a background in immigration studies that she would perhaps be a more moderate Liberal, but she clearly wants to advance in the Party (as is natural) and believes that aligning herself with those of the Party that do not believe in climate science is the way to go, notwithstanding that climate change has a real and significant impact on third world countries and is therefore likely to produce more and more climate refugees in the next 20-50 years.

Her Parliamentary biography for reference: https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=297964

If the NSW Senate preselection process is anything like SA's, they take turns depending on which faction is dominant (the ALP do this everywhere). Bragg the moderate got the 1st spot, Collins the 2nd spot (knocking off Hollie Hughes).

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Climate is far more important to younger voters than older. 25% of voters ranked Climate as their top concern in 2022. It's probably shifted more to CoL, but it'd be CoL/Housing then Climate.

The Liberal party’s betrayal of younger voters on net zero isn’t just a moral failure – it’s electoral stupidity | Intifar Chowdhury

For a Coalition desperate to prove it can govern again, ignoring millennials and gen Z is a curious kind of strategy

www.theguardian.com

Data from the Australian Election Study shows climate has surged as a priority for voters, with one in four ranking it in their top concern in 2022, up from 11.8% in 2010. Lowy Institute polling reinforces this, with more than 80% of Australians, in over 16 years of polls, consistently saying global warming requires action, and 60% saying this is true even at significant economic cost.

New poll shows Aussies back strong climate action, as unnatural disasters dent productivity | Climate Council

A survey of more than 1500 Australians found that more than three-quarters (77%) want the government’s climate plan to aim to limit risks from extreme weather events like bushfires.

www.climatecouncil.org.au

Australia votes 2025: Where’s the climate action? | Future Super

This election the major parties were quiet on climate change as cost of living took priority, but voters care about both issues.

www.futuresuper.com.au

The reason there is more talk in the media about Lib/Lab and Lib/ON than Lab/Green is that the people who consume that media are conservatives so that's the way it's skewed, and the ABC just follows along.

I feel like climate change always spikes as a concern after bushfires or floods.

 

[It Just Is]

I struggle to see how they make a factual argument that dumping net zero is in the economic interest of Australians, or even lowers energy costs, which I assume means we are going to get two years of increasingly negative advertising smashed into our brains.

 

[The Punter]

There's a middle way that could be traversed, but any opportunity to do that has been lost through the constant public decrying of attempting to get to Net Zero as a matter of faith. Again, it's the "no compromise, no surrender" crowd who will get what they want because the list of what they want doesn't really include "being in government".

 

[Saint]

Interesting to read about Jessica Collins, the first-time senator from NSW, who was part of the pack of Liberals that walked in to knife their commitment to Net Zero. Born in 1983 in New Zealand and has worked as a research fellow at the Lowy Institute with a specialisation in refugee issues. One would think, as a generation X Liberal with a background in immigration studies that she would perhaps be a more moderate Liberal, but she clearly wants to advance in the Party (as is natural) and believes that aligning herself with those of the Party that do not believe in climate science is the way to go, notwithstanding that climate change has a real and significant impact on third world countries and is therefore likely to produce more and more climate refugees in the next 20-50 years.

Her Parliamentary biography for reference: https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=297964

It all becomes a bit self-fulfilling doesn't it, and shows their complete lack of leadership.

They're all willing to do what they know is wrong for the climate, for the economy and for the party electorally as long as it progresses their standing in the party via donors and the media.

I think they're still playing a two-party system where dis-satisfaction with Labor automatically means votes for the Libs. I think they need to think more about what the rise of the Teals and Greens is going to do to their party in the long run.

If there's no support for climate policies, then why do people vote for the Teals instead of the Liberals across the country?

 

[Saint]

There's a middle way that could be traversed, but any opportunity to do that has been lost through the constant public decrying of attempting to get to Net Zero as a matter of faith. Again, it's the "no compromise, no surrender" crowd who will get what they want because the list of what they want doesn't really include "being in government".

Now that the ALP is in the pocket of the mining and gas companies, what purpose do the Libs serve those interests unless they're more extreme anti-climate?

Labor are occupying the "middle way" of doing very little on climate change (approving everything which comes across their desk and watered down environmental laws). Lib donors want the Libs to be more to the right (anti-environment) of that.

There's nobody in the Liberal Party room who could possibly lead that party on a "middle path" of reasonable climate policy. I'm not sure there's anybody in the world who could.

 

[QuietB]

Libs should abandon the Coalition, move to the centre and try to win back Labor and Teal voters in the cities and leave the fringe shit (climate, nuclear, hatred of women) to the One Nations and Nationals, et al.

It gives them a point of difference whilst knowing that most of those votes will end up with them on preferences anyway.

The current Liberal leader is the member for what should be a National seat. That is how far the Liberals have been pushed out of Urban Australia - their leader occupies a seat along the Murray River.

They are a dying party. And they are refusing treatment. They are literally reduced to a gas and coal party now. Good luck.

 

[Saint]

I feel like climate change always spikes as a concern after bushfires or floods.

The likelihood of which means it's a big gamble for the Libs to pursue an anti-climate agenda when there could be a fire or flood in the lead up to the 2028 election.

Dec to April is flooding season in Queensland and the election is due in April 2028.

 

[Saint]

The current Liberal leader is the member for what should be a National seat. That is how far the Liberals have been pushed out of Urban Australia - their leader occupies a seat along the Murray River.

They are a dying party. And they are refusing treatment. They are literally reduced to a gas and coal party now. Good luck.

Both major parties are gas and coal parties. One on behalf of the owners, the others on behalf of the workers (nominally, but really on behalf of the owners).

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Libs should abandon the Coalition, move to the centre and try to win back Labor and Teal voters in the cities and leave the fringe shit (climate, nuclear, hatred of women) to the One Nations and Nationals, et al.

It gives them a point of difference whilst knowing that most of those votes will end up with them on preferences anyway.

Trouble is, in their history the Libs have never been able to govern in their own right, and that was when they were a political powerhouse, so less than zero chance now.

I think the only possible way forward is for Teals (and other independents) and disaffected moderate Libs to form a whole new party.

But (a) I’m not convinced even that would guarantee electoral success and (b) I suspect a lot of the Teals and indies aren’t going to give up their independence and join a party; that’d be shitting on their whole raison d’être and could cause a mass turn-off of their supporters.

 

[The Punter]

Now that the ALP is in the pocket of the mining and gas companies, what purpose do the Libs serve those interests unless they're more extreme anti-climate?

Labor are occupying the "middle way" of doing very little on climate change (approving everything which comes across their desk and watered down environmental laws). Lib donors want the Libs to be more to the right (anti-environment) of that.

There's nobody in the Liberal Party room who could possibly lead that party on a "middle path" of reasonable climate policy. I'm not sure there's anybody in the world who could.

It's entertainment to talk about Lib donors. As far as the Libs are concerned, its not the donors, its the membership.

Any public utterance by Senator Henderson gives one a pretty good idea of what branch members are telling MPs at meetings.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

There's a middle way that could be traversed, but any opportunity to do that has been lost through the constant public decrying of attempting to get to Net Zero as a matter of faith. Again, it's the "no compromise, no surrender" crowd who will get what they want because the list of what they want doesn't really include "being in government".

Although we don’t share much overlap politically and I don’t know you personally, just want to say you seem like a decent human being and it must be awful for you to see the party you believed in tearing itself to shreds.

 

[The Punter]

Although we don’t share much overlap politically and I don’t know you personally, just want to say you seem like a decent human being and it must be awful for you to see the party you believed in tearing itself to shreds.

I appreciate the message. If I didn't want to engage meaningfully with people I disagreed with I wouldn't post on here, so the sentiment is mutual.

IMO the Coalition could advocate for emissions reduction while maintaining Liberal values with regards to government intervention and market solutions, while also working towards moderating energy prices, all the while moving in step with the rest of the world, recognising our small but significant contribution to emissions and their reduction. Turnbull and his Environment Minister (Frydenburg) tried. It was the literal end of Turnbull's premiership.

 

[Saint]

It's entertainment to talk about Lib donors. As far as the Libs are concerned, its not the donors, its the membership.

Any public utterance by Senator Henderson gives one a pretty good idea of what branch members are telling MPs at meetings.

I guess there's two elements in the Liberal Party.

There's the very rich members, who also pour in a lot of money where they're more donors than ordinary members.

And then there's the ordinary members ( who don't also tip in thousands of dollars) who have as much voting power, but probably not as much policy power. The two would share a lot of overlap in beliefs, though.

 

[Saint]

I appreciate the message. If I didn't want to engage meaningfully with people I disagreed with I wouldn't post on here, so the sentiment is mutual.

IMO the Coalition could advocate for emissions reduction while maintaining Liberal values with regards to government intervention and market solutions, while also working towards moderating energy prices, all the while moving in step with the rest of the world, recognising our small but significant contribution to emissions and their reduction. Turnbull and his Environment Minister (Frydenburg) tried. It was the literal end of Turnbull's premiership.

How does Turnbull/Frydenberg's policy differ from current ALP policy?

It's a bit like the Vic Libs on crime. They want to differ from the other party, but the acknowledged solution is the only real option. So how do they make it an issue even though they basically agree on the action to take?