There is one thing you can always be sure of.
The “thinkers” in and behind the Liberal Party never, ever consider the interests, values and aspirations of voters. It is always, always about them. Hell, we just lost government. What do we do to get it back?
They tell lies about why they lose elections. They lie, most of all, to themselves. They only ever think skin deep. Look inwards. Gaze at their own navels. There must be something in the Liberal Party’s DNA that blocks deep introspection, that prevents them from considering “the other”, that stops them from seeing what they have become, that obscures from their purview any sense of the bigger picture . Seeing just how far they have drifted. A not even a facsimile of the party of Menzies.
Simon Sinek, one of the marketing world’s better thinkers, says that great leaders always start with “why”.
‘Start With Why' is how you explain your purpose and the reason you exist and behave as you do. Sinek's theory is that successfully communicating the passion behind the 'Why' is a way to communicate with the listener's limbic brain (emphasis in original).
https://simonsinek.com/books/start-with-why/
It is a long time since the Liberal Party knew its “why”, or even bothered to go looking for it. The Liberal Party, and especially the version of it we suffer in the Rum Corps State, led by the millennial cadre that we have, never asks why. It has long since forgotten its compelling value proposition.
Since their most recent catastrophe – and I refer to their period in office in Macquarie Street from 2011 to 2023, twelve wasted years, as much as their losing the March election – they have mostly gone to ground, with one or two exceptions. Both instances of analytical reflection by Sydney-centric members of the political class remind us of the dismal state of a Party that hasn’t just forgotten its members and its roots. It has forgotten why it is there.
Aaron Patrick in the Australian Financial Review weighs in:
The last mainland Liberal government was built on the relationship between two men; a friendship, alliance and intellectual collaboration that the party’s elders believed had unlocked the elusive formula of Coalition rule.
Premier Dominic Perrottet, so provocatively conservative he wore an SS uniform to his 21st, and treasurer Matt Kean, who couldn’t hide his pleasure when visitors cooed at a JFK election poster on his office wall, were partners in a left-right collaboration they believed – and were largely proven correct – would stave off an inner-city teal takeover and protect suburban and country seats from the far right.
Setting aside Patrick’s farcical propositions, first, that Perrottet is a conservative, and second, that wearing a Nazi outfit when you are twenty-one makes you a conservative, his observations are very revealing. Perrottet’s serial bromances with leftists are well-known. What is striking here is that his obvious affection for Kean, and its reciprocation, are based on nothing more than a shared desire for power for its own sake, completely uncoupled from any sense of core values or of appeal to ordinary voters. It was all about retaining seats. Nothing more. This is about as cynical as politics get. And, of course, it is true.
Michael Koziol of the Sydney Morning Herald recently sought out Michael Photios (of all people to consult for a deep dive into the NSW election).
Photios, who has, effectively, run the NSW Liberals in his own financial interest for many years now, has apparently repaired to Malaysia in the wake of the atrocious election performance. Perhaps to consider the long overdue collapse of his business model, a model that earned him millions as a lobbyist/consultant while he, almost single-handedly, saw to it that New South Wales was governed – if that is the word – for over a decade by spivs and chancers.
NSW Liberal powerbroker Michael Photios says the party can return to government at the next state election if it keeps to the political centre and avoids the “dumber and dumber” rightward trajectory of its federal counterparts.
Photios, a former MP turned lobbyist who wields significant influence in the Liberals’ dominant moderate faction, also said the party would need to restore some of the “special powers” formerly enjoyed by officials to install candidates after widespread delays and issues with preselections.
… Photios said One Nation’s share of first preferences in the lower house – 1.8 per cent – was “almost a flop”, and it was electorally silly to pursue that voter base.
“I’d rather chase the 60 per cent plus we didn’t get than the 2 per cent we can’t get,” he said. “It’s simply dumb and dumber to think going hard right will magically transform today’s landscape.”
“Chase the sixty per cent”? What does that even mean? Chase? Give every last interest group what it wants? Be leftist-progressive, so as to win the hearts and minds of the Davos set? Who will never vote for your lot. I don’t think so. Slick Photios is merely channelling his inner Mark Textor. (Textor was a Liberal Party pollster of yore).
Six things stand out from Photios’s “analysis”.
First, it again provides compelling evidence, if any further evidence were needed, that those plotting – and I do mean plotting – the future of the Party, see redemption only in regaining government, as soon as possible.
Second, the man thinks only in cliches. Centrist? Modern? Dumb and dumber?
Third, that Photios believes that his charges in New South Wales have been “governing from the centre” shows that he and his ilk are utterly delusional.
Fourth, and almost unbelievably, he urges the Liberals to arrange pre-selections by Photios rules and not through internal party democracy and any reference to liberal/conservative principles. The all-powerful backroom boy wants even more power. The man is in denial. That he even dares to peek above the parapet shows more hide than Jessie the Elephant.
Fifth, his meagre attempt at an examination of the election results betray either ignorance or complete self-absorption, or both. He is certainly no expert on voting behaviour. His reference to One Nation’s 1.8 per cent of the primary vote ignores the fact that One Nation only stood candidates in around 20 seats out of the total 93 seats in the Lower House. In the Upper House, with a single, statewide electorate, One Nation scored 5.76 per cent. To which should be added The Shooters (3.06 per cent), the Liberal Democrats (3.36 per cent), and the Informed Medical Options Party (0.73 per cent), at least, to get a fuller picture of the extent of the Liberals’ right-of-centre “targets”. That is, close to 13 per cent. Over half a million voters. Not nothing, then. (If, indeed, thinking of people as “targets” is the name of the game). To which we might reasonably also add the informal vote and the sizable number who felt so little affection for the major parties, and perhaps for the system, that they didn’t turn up at all. (At the time of writing, the turn out for the Upper house was a mere 73.2 per cent, with 87 per cent, a better figure, for the Lower House). The Coalition scraped 30 per cent in the Upper House, hardly a basis for cheap shots at the voters who believe far more strongly in the core philosophy of freedom than the Party of Photios does. The Liberals scored an anemic 26 per cent of the primary vote in the Lower House (34 per cent for the Coalition).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_New_South_Wales_state_election
And sixth, to say that the Liberals in Canberra are far right is ludicrous. It would be great were it true. But it isn’t. They are just as mired in delusion as all of their other divisions across the now almost totally red nation. (The voice notwithstanding. Opposing the voice is not right wing. Merely sensible. Centrist, even. See under Graham Richardson).
All this from the bloke who determines pre-selections, selects ministries, dictates party rules and provides vested interests with direct access to ministers to get decisions that are favourable to them. He seems to be saying to anyone who might be listening, “if only I had been in charge…” Photios concluded thus:
He described the Coalition’s election loss after 12 years in power as “honourable and narrow”.
Yes, he really said this. Honourable and narrow. The ALP did not get majority government. But its victory was anything but narrow, in relation to the defeated Coalition. To describe the loss as honourable defies reality. The Liberals and Nationals were absolutely booted out. A dustbin of history level defeat. Their showing was lamentable. On Mr 26 per cent’s ever-vigilant watch.
No doubt, there will be a “review” of the Liberals’ election loss, and, no doubt, Party worthies from the past will be engaged in the exercise. If past efforts are anything to go by, the hard issues will be ignored. They will ask the wrong question, as they always do. They will ask why they lost the election. They will not ask, never ask, why they governed so poorly. Or what they need to do to win back the trust of the 70 per cent of voters in the Upper House and the 64 per cent in the Lower House who didn’t vote for them. The good thing is that they are likely to have plenty of time to think about it.
Who writes the terms of reference for “the review”, will be critical, as always. We can be sure that the former Government’s adherence to liberal and conservative principles won’t be at or near the top of the list. As Bernard of Yes Minister suggested, there will be “guidelines”. Once these are set, well, “that’s the way they will go”.
It is almost inevitable that they won’t start with “why”. Simon Sinek would not be amused. Nor will the voters of New South Wales be, in any way, assured that things will be any better next time. To say that the Liberals of Macquarie Street have their heads in the sand is merely a euphemism.
Paul Collits
12 April 2023
The 2 party "system" needs to be junked. Both Lab & Lib think they are born to rule. The result is stupidity, ignorance and arrogance - hubris. And on the ground, a "Uniparty". Which means a bipartisan 3 years of Panic Virus Scam, 30+ years of insane immigration levels, a nuclear energy ban, monumental spending on the indigenous bludger lobby and that is just a sampling.
The best way to be rid of the Uniparty scourge is to vote for minor parties (not the loony left Green faction of the Labs) and independents. The other way is to break out the pitch forks. In the end that usually results in more of the same, only worse.
Spot on. I just refuse to vote for them anymore. I held my nose and did last two elections. This time it was minor parties. I cannot believe how blind they are and much they seem not care about us and think that if they throw vouchers at us and spend money in Sydney, we will stump and vote for them.