The climate won't change for the Liberals without more women and fewer oldies
If the Liberals have any sense, they won't waste too much time blaming their shocking election result on Peter Dutton, Donald Trump, Cyclone Alfred, the party secretariat, an unready shadow ministry or any other 'proximate cause', as economists say. Why not? Because none of these go to the heart of their party's problem.
The Liberals' problem is that Australia has changed but their party hasn't. They're like someone still driving a Holden Commodore: a great car in its day but looking pretty outdated today.
In other words, the Libs' problem is structural, not merely cyclical. It can't be fixed just by finding a more attractive leader – not unless that leader has the authority to make what many Liberal MPs and party members would regard as radical changes.
Liberal leaders have been aware of their party's two key problems for some years without facing up to them. The first is their 'women problem'. While Labor has put much effort into increasing the proportion of women among its parliamentary members and ministers, the Libs have been quite half-hearted about it, refusing to use quotas to speed up the process.
I'm sure Labor people have been sincere in believing a roughly 50-50 split should become the norm, but I'm equally sure they're aware of the political advantage that comes with making sure they attract the votes of at least half the female voters, and preferably more.
Loading
Go back far enough and you find Australia's women slightly more attracted to the Coalition than Labor. Not these days. The Australian National University's Australian Election Study, which uses polling of people after they've voted – at the democracy sausage stage – found that, in the previous, 2022 federal election, while 38 per cent of male respondents voted for the Coalition, only 32 per cent of females did.
I'd be surprised if that disparity was much reduced on Saturday, and not surprised if it had increased. Surely a party incapable of attracting its share of the female half of the voting population is a party without a bright future.
Did you notice Monday's photo of Labor's just-elected federal members in Brisbane? Seven broadly smiling, youngish women. A lot of them who'd just taken seats from the Libs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
37 minutes ago
- The Age
The Libs have been handed a golden opportunity. Now, watch them stuff it up
One of the great entertainments of political commentary in Australia over the past decade-and-a-bit has been speculating on what new and inventive way the Liberal Party will find to comprehensively bugger itself up. I can't help thinking this must have crossed Treasurer Jim Chalmers' mind as he fronted the National Press Club this week to announce that he will undertake a process to develop a new productivity agenda. Chalmers' speech was solid, but then so it should be after so many have said the same things so often to so little avail. His words and aspirations have been written for him many times over, sometimes with hope, other times with emotions ranging from dull rage to despair. Sometimes even by the Coalition. We need productivity reform, politicians all know we need it, the media all know they know we need it, yet no-one ever does it. There's a simple reason for that: it's hard. The treasurer dwelt in his speech on why it's hard. Reforming an economic system requires trade-offs. Some choices will cost some people. They may or may not be recompensed in the rejig. Chalmers doesn't want the media to simplify economic reform by explaining it in terms of 'winners and losers', as they do after each budget, but there will be winners and losers in the short, medium, or long term as a result of any new tax system. And, naturally, the opposition will do what the name says on the tin. It will oppose. Given the last years of Liberal shenanigans, the real question is how it chooses to do that. In one scenario, Sussan Ley leads a team which analyses and criticises the government's productivity proposals to ensure the best outcome for Australia and Australians. Should they choose this version of their own adventure, there will be plenty of material to tackle. The prime minister has already shown that he has no instinct for making business more efficient or even any understanding that a healthy economy relies on the private sector, creating new wealth instead of just shifting existing money around. In the first term of the Albanese government, the size of the public sector grew relative to the size of the private sector, so now each private employee is supporting more public sector salaries. Loading Then-employment minister Tony Burke passed through an industrial relations bill which makes it harder for businesses to scale up without locking themselves into costly arrangements. Meanwhile, the 'Future Made in Australia' slush fund has been 'picking winners' (code for government making decisions on industries it poorly understands) by investing in bringing in an overseas quantum technology firm rather than backing existing quantum technology firms – ahem – made in Australia. Labor is even trashing its own legacy by changing the rules on the superannuation system it forced people to contribute to, undermining trust that the money you lock away for retirement is really yours for later. It's hard to see how a government which made policies of this sort a priority and prefers the public to the private sector will back a productivity agenda which turns Australia around. But one of the great paradoxes of politics is that sometimes you need the party which is seen to be the touchy-feely side to deliver hard-nosed decisions. Think Labour prime minister Tony Blair in the UK, Democrat president Bill Clinton in the USA, or chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in Germany, all of whom delivered welfare reform in the face of their countries' badly designed benefits systems, which were creating disincentives to work.
Sydney Morning Herald
41 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The Libs have been handed a golden opportunity. Now, watch them stuff it up
One of the great entertainments of political commentary in Australia over the past decade-and-a-bit has been speculating on what new and inventive way the Liberal Party will find to comprehensively bugger itself up. I can't help thinking this must have crossed Treasurer Jim Chalmers' mind as he fronted the National Press Club this week to announce that he will undertake a process to develop a new productivity agenda. Chalmers' speech was solid, but then so it should be after so many have said the same things so often to so little avail. His words and aspirations have been written for him many times over, sometimes with hope, other times with emotions ranging from dull rage to despair. Sometimes even by the Coalition. We need productivity reform, politicians all know we need it, the media all know they know we need it, yet no-one ever does it. There's a simple reason for that: it's hard. The treasurer dwelt in his speech on why it's hard. Reforming an economic system requires trade-offs. Some choices will cost some people. They may or may not be recompensed in the rejig. Chalmers doesn't want the media to simplify economic reform by explaining it in terms of 'winners and losers', as they do after each budget, but there will be winners and losers in the short, medium, or long term as a result of any new tax system. And, naturally, the opposition will do what the name says on the tin. It will oppose. Given the last years of Liberal shenanigans, the real question is how it chooses to do that. In one scenario, Sussan Ley leads a team which analyses and criticises the government's productivity proposals to ensure the best outcome for Australia and Australians. Should they choose this version of their own adventure, there will be plenty of material to tackle. The prime minister has already shown that he has no instinct for making business more efficient or even any understanding that a healthy economy relies on the private sector, creating new wealth instead of just shifting existing money around. In the first term of the Albanese government, the size of the public sector grew relative to the size of the private sector, so now each private employee is supporting more public sector salaries. Loading Then-employment minister Tony Burke passed through an industrial relations bill which makes it harder for businesses to scale up without locking themselves into costly arrangements. Meanwhile, the 'Future Made in Australia' slush fund has been 'picking winners' (code for government making decisions on industries it poorly understands) by investing in bringing in an overseas quantum technology firm rather than backing existing quantum technology firms – ahem – made in Australia. Labor is even trashing its own legacy by changing the rules on the superannuation system it forced people to contribute to, undermining trust that the money you lock away for retirement is really yours for later. It's hard to see how a government which made policies of this sort a priority and prefers the public to the private sector will back a productivity agenda which turns Australia around. But one of the great paradoxes of politics is that sometimes you need the party which is seen to be the touchy-feely side to deliver hard-nosed decisions. Think Labour prime minister Tony Blair in the UK, Democrat president Bill Clinton in the USA, or chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in Germany, all of whom delivered welfare reform in the face of their countries' badly designed benefits systems, which were creating disincentives to work.
Herald Sun
an hour ago
- Herald Sun
Pakistan nominates Donald Trump for Nobel Peace Prize
Don't miss out on the headlines from North America. Followed categories will be added to My News. Pakistan has announced it will recommend Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, an accolade the US President has said he craves for his work in helping to resolve the recent conflict between India and Pakistan. Some analysts in Pakistan said the move could even persuade Mr Trump to think again about potentially joining Israel in striking Iran's nuclear facilities. Pakistan has condemned Israel's action as a violation of international law and a threat to regional stability. In May, a surprise announcement by Mr Trump of a ceasefire brought an end to a four-day conflict between nuclear-armed foes India and Pakistan. Mr Trump has since repeatedly said that he averted a nuclear war, saved millions of lives, and grumbled that he got no credit for it. Pakistan agrees that US diplomatic intervention ended the fighting, and said the Nobel recommendation was 'in recognition of his decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership' during the recent conflict. 'President Trump demonstrated great strategic foresight and stellar statesmanship through robust diplomatic engagement with both Islamabad and New Delhi, which de-escalated a rapidly deteriorating situation,' Pakistan said. 'This intervention stands as a testament to his role as a genuine peacemaker.' Indian officials have denied that Mr Trump had any role in its ceasefire with Pakistan But Mr Trump is not convinced he'll get the gong. Taking to his Truth Social platform, Mr Trump posted a laundry list of reasons why he believes that he should get a Nobel Peace Prize. In a Truth Social post, the president celebrated that he was 'very happy' to report on a series of deals and agreements to end global conflicts that he 'won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for.' 'I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between India and Pakistan, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between Serbia and Kosovo, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for keeping Peace between Egypt and Ethiopia (A massive Ethiopian built dam, stupidly financed by the United States of America, substantially reduces the water flowing into The Nile River),' Mr Trump wrote. 'And I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for doing the Abraham Accords in the Middle East which, if all goes well, will be loaded to the brim with additional Countries signing on, and will unify the Middle East for the first time in 'The Ages!'' He added, 'No, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be, but the people know, and that's all that matters to me!' Mr Trump campaigned for office as a 'peacemaker' who would use his negotiating skills to quickly end wars in Ukraine and Gaza, although both conflicts are still raging five months into his presidency. .Mr Trump has received multiple Nobel Peace Prize nominations from supporters and loyal politicians over the years. He has made no secret of his irritation at missing out on the prestigious award, bringing it up as recently as February during an Oval Office meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. President Barack Obama won the prize soon after taking office in 2009, and Mr Trump complained during his 2024 election campaign that his Democratic predecessor was not worthy of the honour. - with AFP
