The Liberal Party - How long? - Part 2

[Saint]

Wouldn't you rather he stayed in parliament then?

There must be people within the parliamentary and apparatus of the Liberal Party in Victoria who would be worried that they'd be helping conservative nutters get power.

Perhaps many of them would rather see the ALP win than the Liberals win, if it meant they conservative wing took power, like what happened in the federal Liberal party.

If the Libs do win the next state election, it'll include a dozen or more new Liberal MPs. If they're 8-4 nutters, then the nutty branch will essentially be in Government.

People like Matthew Bach must wonder "Why am I helping these nutters take over Government when I share more values with the ALP?".

 

[Kwality]

I acknowledge your reluctance to provide the detail. So I'm going to assume you are a "men are men and women are women" ideologue who would like to see the Liberals "take the fight up to Labor" (which is performative rather than productive), also "oppositions are there to oppose" is probably one of your views too. Might also be a "don't out-left the left" subscriber although this is a logical nonsense on every level.

See? I posted what I thought.

What you have asked of me is much more than three lines as you well know.

"men are men and women are women" : women/girls have rights too. A hangover from Mum, born 1916.

 

[The Punter]

There must be people within the parliamentary and apparatus of the Liberal Party in Victoria who would be worried that they'd be helping conservative nutters get power.

Perhaps many of them would rather see the ALP win than the Liberals win, if it meant they conservative wing took power, like what happened in the federal Liberal party.

If the Libs do win the next state election, it'll include a dozen or more new Liberal MPs. If they're 8-4 nutters, then the nutty branch will essentially be in Government.

People like Matthew Bach must wonder "Why am I helping these nutters take over Government when I share more values with the ALP?".

Matt Bach would absolutely not think "I share more values with the ALP".

It's a useful rhetorical device - moderates should quit the Liberal Party rather than get "nutters" elected (or work inside the party to stop the march of the "nutters"). It's not going to work with me.

The only viable alternative to working towards restoring the Liberal Party to a broad, values-based, popular political party is the moderates leaving which will render Victoria and probably Australia as a one-party state for at least the remainder of my lifetime. No thanks.

 

[The Punter]

What you have asked of me is much more than three lines as you well know.

"men are men and women are women" : women/girls have rights too. A hangover from Mum, born 1916.

I gave you the opportunity for a more detailed explanation, and you did not take up this opportunity.

At the heart of the second point is the question: does a group of people have a right to expressly exclude another group of people? I also think most of this is opportunistic politicking performed by those who think generating anger amongst a group in the community will lead to political success. Therefore a solution is proposed absent of an actual problem.

 

[Saint]

Matt Bach would absolutely not think "I share more values with the ALP".

It's a useful rhetorical device - moderates should quit the Liberal Party rather than get "nutters" elected (or work inside the party to stop the march of the "nutters"). It's not going to work with me.

The only viable alternative to working towards restoring the Liberal Party to a broad, values-based, popular political party is the moderates leaving which will render Victoria and probably Australia as a one-party state for at least the remainder of my lifetime. No thanks.

How does the moderate values-based Liberal Party become popular again without pandering to the zealots who are currently trying to take over the party?

Seems they're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I think the answer would be to split the party and go it alone.

The state (and country) would be better off with more political parties and more minority governments. It allows people to vote for parties which share their values rather than just against the one party which doesn't and will lead to a better polity.

Moderates doing the bidding of Zealots, or working-class people voting against "woke-ism" isn't doing our polity any good. Everyone focuses on division rather than the values they share with people.

If the moderate Libs split from the zealots, I think they could attract many moderate ALP voters as well as not being complete on-the-nose with young voters. It might be painful in the short-term, but let's face it, they've got 7 years before they might be in Government again.

My wife is a new citizen, asked me why she shouldn't vote for the Libs, answer: "half of them are homophobic religious zealots" enough said. Shake that and we might actually be able to talk about politics that matter. But you couldn't ever vote for a party with such opposing values.

 

[Millky95]

How does the moderate values-based Liberal Party become popular again without pandering to the zealots who are currently trying to take over the party?

1. Stop denying climate change
2. Wait for the ALP to **** up
3. Merge/takeover/become the Teals

 

[The Punter]

How does the moderate values-based Liberal Party become popular again without pandering to the zealots who are currently trying to take over the party?

Seems they're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I think the answer would be to split the party and go it alone.

The state (and country) would be better off with more political parties and more minority governments. It allows people to vote for parties which share their values rather than just against the one party which doesn't and will lead to a better polity.

Moderates doing the bidding of Zealots, or working-class people voting against "woke-ism" isn't doing our polity any good. Everyone focuses on division rather than the values they share with people.

If the moderate Libs split from the zealots, I think they could attract many moderate ALP voters as well as not being complete on-the-nose with young voters. It might be painful in the short-term, but let's face it, they've got 7 years before they might be in Government again.

My wife is a new citizen, asked me why she shouldn't vote for the Libs, answer: "half of them are homophobic religious zealots" enough said. Shake that and we might actually be able to talk about politics that matter. But you couldn't ever vote for a party with such opposing values.

Two things:

- More, smaller parties would allow people to vote for parties who share their values, then they would enter coalitions and compromise on those values. We don't have that many parties of values anyway - most are parties of interest or temporary grievance.

- I think you underestimate the scale of the task of creating another mass-membership, mass-appeal political party. The Liberals were created by the combining of a whole swathe of political parties and movements at a time of enormous international upheaval. No right-of-centre political party has managed a medium-term foothold in the political landscape since the DLP (Aus Dems were centrist at first, anyone else has been left-of-centre, regional in nature (Xenophon or Lambie Network) or has come and gone quickly.

 

[Saint]

Two things:

- More, smaller parties would allow people to vote for parties who share their values, then they would enter coalitions and compromise on those values. We don't have that many parties of values anyway - most are parties of interest or temporary grievance.

- I think you underestimate the scale of the task of creating another mass-membership, mass-appeal political party. The Liberals were created by the combining of a whole swathe of political parties and movements at a time of enormous international upheaval. No right-of-centre political party has managed a medium-term foothold in the political landscape since the DLP (Aus Dems were centrist at first, anyone else has been left-of-centre, regional in nature (Xenophon or Lambie Network) or has come and gone quickly.

It would be very similar to the ALP/DLP split, and for the same reason. A political party can't be popular while maintaining very unpopular beliefs on behalf of half of the party.

I imagine it would be just like the ALP/DLP split. Where, at first, the zealots (DLP) did win their 10%, but over time, they then realised it was futile and either went back to the ALP and left most of their zealotry at home, or gave up (very few have still not given up).

But the ALP has emerged after around a decade as a stronger and more unified party than before.

I just can't see Victoria having effective opposition until this happens. The state is too progressive to vote for religious zealots, regardless of how bad the Govt is doing, and that's a huge problem for the state (as well as the Liberal Party).

 

[Kwality]

I gave you the opportunity for a more detailed explanation, and you did not take up this opportunity.

At the heart of the second point is the question: does a group of people have a right to expressly exclude another group of people? I also think most of this is opportunistic politicking performed by those who think generating anger amongst a group in the community will lead to political success. Therefore a solution is proposed absent of an actual problem.

Parties need to accommodate different views - see the recent ALP conference.
Keeping the support of the electorate was the reason why those very different views reached consensus.

 

[Not Important]

leadership material then?

 

[The Punter]

Parties need to accommodate different views - see the recent ALP conference.
Keeping the support of the electorate was the reason why those very different views reached consensus.

Yes, but it is the anti-moderate forces inside the party at the moment which is entirely intolerant of opposing views, all the while waxing lyrical about protecting free speech.

Excluding is the opposite of including BTW. The Liberal Party needs to be inclusive, consistent with its stated values, to be electorally successful.

 

[geoffjennings79]

Yes, but it is the anti-moderate forces inside the party at the moment which is entirely intolerant of opposing views, all the while waxing lyrical about protecting free speech.

Excluding is the opposite of including BTW. The Liberal Party needs to be inclusive, consistent with its stated values, to be electorally successful.

But its current degree of inclusivity is what is making it electorally unsuccessful, isn't it?
The lurching further right has given rise to the teals. Pandering to a minority via inclusivity has given that minority the apparent internal power to move the meter on the party's stated values.

 

[Kwality]

But its current degree of inclusivity is what is making it electorally unsuccessful, isn't it?
The lurching further right has given rise to the teals. Pandering to a minority via inclusivity has given that minority the apparent internal power to move the meter on the party's stated values.

Turnbull enshrined a lurch to the left of centre & the likes of Matt Kean are the current 'poster boys'.
The unpopularity of ScoMo was a big driver of the Teals vote (encompassing the treatment of women, religion & integrity). Dragging back that vote is unlikely to be one term.

 

[blueboy25]

Turnbull enshrined a lurch to the left of centre & the likes of Matt Kean are the current 'poster boys'.
The unpopularity of ScoMo was a big driver of the Teals vote (encompassing the treatment of women, religion & integrity). Dragging back that vote is unlikely to be one term.

Not just Scomo....it was all his cronies as well. Fryenburg, Tudge, Dutton and co.

 

[peetoo]

Turnbull enshrined a lurch to the left of centre & the likes of Matt Kean are the current 'poster boys'.
The unpopularity of ScoMo was a big driver of the Teals vote (encompassing the treatment of women, religion & integrity). Dragging back that vote is unlikely to be one term.

Never if they replace Dutton with another Dutton

 

[The Punter]

But its current degree of inclusivity is what is making it electorally unsuccessful, isn't it?
The lurching further right has given rise to the teals. Pandering to a minority via inclusivity has given that minority the apparent internal power to move the meter on the party's stated values.

The party's stated values haven't changed. Our collective commitment to them as a party, and the commitment to them applying universally, has changed.

Turnbull enshrined a lurch to the left of centre & the likes of Matt Kean are the current 'poster boys'.
The unpopularity of ScoMo was a big driver of the Teals vote (encompassing the treatment of women, religion & integrity). Dragging back that vote is unlikely to be one term.

Care to detail how Turnbull enshrined a "lurch to the left"? What policies and legislation did he implement that fits this description?

 

[QuietB]

Turnbull enshrined a lurch to the left of centre & the likes of Matt Kean are the current 'poster boys'.
The unpopularity of ScoMo was a big driver of the Teals vote (encompassing the treatment of women, religion & integrity). Dragging back that vote is unlikely to be one term.

Precisely what did Turnbull do that "enshrined a lurch to the left of centre".

That is a statement based on zero evidence.

 

[Gough]

If anything Turnbull can be criticised for not doing enough to defend party moderates.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Makes sense if you consider that Morrison and Dutton are both centrists.

But for normal people it makes no sense.

 

[geoffjennings79]

Care to detail how Turnbull enshrined a "lurch to the left"? What policies and legislation did he implement that fits this description?

Precisely what did Turnbull do that "enshrined a lurch to the left of centre".

That is a statement based on zero evidence.

I'm glad you two called that laughable statement out, I refuse to engage with someone who fails to read or address reasonable questions raised by their own saturation posting that largely adds nothing to worthwhile discussions.

 

[geoffjennings79]

The party's stated values haven't changed. Our collective commitment to them as a party, and the commitment to them applying universally, has changed.

Fair point, even if semantically.

The perception outside the party is certainly that they've changed, regardless of any stated position. And the federal leader is doing a good job of perpetuating that perception with his actions on almost a daily basis.

 

[QuietB]

The party's stated values haven't changed. Our collective commitment to them as a party, and the commitment to them applying universally, has changed.

Whilst the stated values may not have changed, there is a pretty strong argument that the moderates have largely deserted the party.

 

[Kwality]

The party's stated values haven't changed. Our collective commitment to them as a party, and the commitment to them applying universally, has changed.

Care to detail how Turnbull enshrined a "lurch to the left"? What policies and legislation did he implement that fits this description?

See 2016 Federal election where Turnbull effectively lost the Abbott majority of 2013.

 

[QuietB]

See 2016 Federal election where Turnbull effectively lost the Abbott majority of 2013.

That does not answer the question at all.

 

[FredLeDeux]

That does not answer the question at all.

He is at a total loss when he is asked to produce facts, rather than his normal passive-aggressive parroting of Murdoch Scum talking points.