Ley can't repeat Dutton's mistakes - it's time to let her freak flag fly
COMMENT
In the aftermath of the Labor Party's 2022 election victory, there was much praise for Peter Dutton keeping the show together without any big blow-ups.
But as the Liberal Party surveys the scorched earth of their 2025 defeat, it's worth asking the hard question: Was this failure to have the big policy fights one of their biggest mistakes?
The Liberal Party has been playing pretend for three years like they are still in government, too timid and too scared to rock the boat and have the fight.
High on their own supply of fantasy football that they would be storming the Prime Minister's office after one-term in 2025, they wanted to keep a lid on the big debates.
There wasn't even a leadership vote after the 2022 election.
Queenslander Dutton got handed the top job without ever having a fight or spelling out why he wanted it or deserved it.
Can you even remember any big policy barneys this term after the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison years?
Even the opposition to Peter Dutton's ultimate position on the Voice referendum was a genteel affair, leading to one bloke few had ever heard of – NSW Liberal MP Julian Leeser – retreating to the backbench.
Politics is meant to be a contest of ideas. The Liberal Party ended up looking like it didn't have any good ones.
Bizarrely, this mob appeared to have more robust arguments about policy while running the government than during the freedom years of the opposition.
Sure, Peter Dutton took a big gamble on nuclear power. But he then spent the entire campaign refusing to talk about it and refusing to back it in.
He showcased all the policy timidity and equivocation and anxiety that ended up swallowing him whole during the election campaign.
Liberal frontbenchers were tasked with coming up with acres of policy ideas that got buried in the leader's office.
Mr Dutton, the big, bad, bald hardman of the Liberal Party, had a soft, gooey, frightened centre over policy fights like work from home. And it was his undoing.
By contrast, the teary Prime Minister, who cried when he called the election and talked about Medicare or whenever anyone mentioned his mum Maryanne, has always hidden a ruthless political tough guy.
Hell, Anthony Albanese this week even went around terminating cabinet enemies who got on his wrong side during his first term, including the NSW Right's Ed Husic.
He even managed to get his deputy Richard Marles to take the blame. That's next level Machiavellian gear.
People are complex like that and so are politicians.
But the fights the Liberal Party needs to have now are about policy, not personalities.
So here's the best piece of advice to the Liberal Party as it tries to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
Have the policy fights. Let it all hang out. It's time to let your freak flag fly.
The fundamentals of what the Liberal Party is supposed to stand for are just fine – lower, fairer taxes.
Why that article of faith was trashed during the election by the brains trust of Mr Dutton and Angus Taylor is unfathomable.
It's worth remembering that the seeds of victory inevitably lie in the lessons of defeat.
Would John Howard have governed for as long as he did without John Hewson losing the 1993 election?
Would Mr Albanese or his ALP campaign chief Paul Erickson have won the 2025 election without the brutalising experience of the 2019 election loss under Bill Shorten?
Most pundits seem to think the Liberal Party has Buckley's chance of winning the next election. Those sort of predictions sometimes turn out to be wonky.
But let's imagine it's true. This is the Coalition's big chance to knock down and remodel the Liberal Party for government in the future.
Time to call in the demolition crew and the architects.
To win government in the future, the Liberal Party must also fix two other issues.
First, grow up over John Howard, and second, grow up about women.
The former prime minister will always be a lion of the Liberal Party, the second-longest serving prime minister of Australia, after Sir Robert Menzies.
He served from 1996 to 2007, a total of 11 years. He is rightly revered and his counsel sought.
But the world has changed since that era and the Liberal Party has failed to change with it.
The whole show just smells incredibly musty.
You can respect Mr Howard without pretending that the issues that moved voters in the 1980s keep millennials up at night 40 years later.
Which brings us to the ladies.
The embarrassing Stockholm syndrome of women in the Liberal Party lining up to insist they don't need quotas because it's all about merit – it's too much.
Here's the cold, hard truth.
Please, please stop talking about merit when you have chosen the musty old crew of boring men you have on your frontbench.
If that's merit, please don't say this out loud, as people will giggle.
The problem with the bogus merit argument is staring us all in the face if you look at the frontbench photo under Mr Dutton. Just enough.
Ladies, we recognise this is the only way you get preselected, by pedalling this nonsense to 90-year-old Liberals in Launceston putting their teeth in a jar. We get it.
But it's not going to get you into government.
If you talk to any blokes in the Liberal Party who have worked in the private sector, they will tell you.
Corporates worked out years ago that they needed to promote women into leadership if they wanted to get women into leadership.
They are not always ready. Neither are the men.
But until you fix this, your entire party is going to smell like your grandmother's wardrobe.
So, no you don't need to have quotas. Call it a target if you want.
Call it a TimTam. Nobody cares. Just fix it.
Good luck. Enjoy the freedom years. It could open the door to the government faster than you think.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
38 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
US acted alone, Albanese declares while abandoning neutral stance on attack
The US acted alone to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, Anthony Albanese has declared, as he refused to say whether Australia received advance notice but departed from the government's neutral position to back US President Donald Trump's strikes. The shift was confirmed by Foreign Minister Penny Wong on Monday, a day after an unnamed government spokesperson released a statement that called for peace and remained neutral on the strike. Wong and Albanese declined to say how close Iran was to making a nuclear bomb or whether the joint US-Australia intelligence base at Pine Gap in the Northern Territory was used to garner intelligence for it at a press conference at which they were peppered with questions. 'The world has long agreed that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon and we support action to prevent that – that is what this is,' Albanese said. 'The US action was directed at specific sites central to Iran's nuclear program. We don't want escalation and a full-scale war. 'We are upfront, but we don't talk about intelligence, obviously, but we have made very clear this was unilateral action taken by the United States,' Albanese repeatedly answered when asked whether Australia had been briefed on the US' decision to strike Iran. Loading British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has confirmed he was briefed just before the strike. Albanese said: 'The UK has been one of the countries that's been at the negotiating table with Iran for many years on its nuclear weapons program'. The government's shift from neutrality to full support emphasises Australia's close alliance with the US, echoing its stance before the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. When Trump confirmed the strikes on the weekend, the Australian government gave a statement that reiterated Iran's missile and ballistic missile programs were dangerous, but was neutral on the US decision to attack them.
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Albanese doesn't want a bar of Middle East conflict, but that comes at a cost
Anthony Albanese's government looks more distant than ever from the Trump administration following the United States' decision to join Israel in bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. On the face of it, nothing much has changed. Albanese, joined by Penny Wong, announced Australia's support for US strikes on Monday morning because 'the world has long agreed that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon and we support action to prevent that'. But make no mistake, there are small but subtle shifts under way in the US-Australia relationship now that Donald Trump is back in the White House. The fact he has not met Albanese face to face surely has not helped. Whatever you think about Trump – and a solid majority of Australians don't like him one bit – the US remains our major military and strategic partner. It is (probably) still selling us submarines under the AUKUS deal that the government views as crucial to Australia's self-defence. So it matters when Albanese spoke curtly on Monday to point out three times that the US decision to bomb Iran was unilateral, all but confirming that Australia was not briefed ahead of time by the US. UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, by contrast, got a heads-up. Last week, when Albanese was asked if Australia could send a ship to the Middle East in support of the US, he gave a categorical 'no'. That answer made clear the prime minister's view of Australia's potential entanglement in the fight: he doesn't see a need for it in this age of 'progressive patriotism'. Loading It was strange, then, that Albanese appeared almost annoyed in his press conference that he had been left out of the loop on the US decision to strike even as he confirmed that 'we aren't a central player in this conflict – that's just a fact.' When the prime minister was asked for a third time why the federal government had waited 24 hours before expressing unequivocal support for the US bombing, he bit back, arguing 'we issued a statement' on Sunday within hours of the strikes.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Albanese doesn't want a bar of Middle East conflict, but that comes at a cost
Anthony Albanese's government looks more distant than ever from the Trump administration following the United States' decision to join Israel in bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. On the face of it, nothing much has changed. Albanese, joined by Penny Wong, announced Australia's support for US strikes on Monday morning because 'the world has long agreed that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon and we support action to prevent that'. But make no mistake, there are small but subtle shifts under way in the US-Australia relationship now that Donald Trump is back in the White House. The fact he has not met Albanese face to face surely has not helped. Whatever you think about Trump – and a solid majority of Australians don't like him one bit – the US remains our major military and strategic partner. It is (probably) still selling us submarines under the AUKUS deal that the government views as crucial to Australia's self-defence. So it matters when Albanese spoke curtly on Monday to point out three times that the US decision to bomb Iran was unilateral, all but confirming that Australia was not briefed ahead of time by the US. UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, by contrast, got a heads-up. Last week, when Albanese was asked if Australia could send a ship to the Middle East in support of the US, he gave a categorical 'no'. That answer made clear the prime minister's view of Australia's potential entanglement in the fight: he doesn't see a need for it in this age of 'progressive patriotism'. Loading It was strange, then, that Albanese appeared almost annoyed in his press conference that he had been left out of the loop on the US decision to strike even as he confirmed that 'we aren't a central player in this conflict – that's just a fact.' When the prime minister was asked for a third time why the federal government had waited 24 hours before expressing unequivocal support for the US bombing, he bit back, arguing 'we issued a statement' on Sunday within hours of the strikes.
