Postmortem – Where to now for the Liberal Party?

In the wake of Australian Labor Party’s (ALP) victory in the 2007 Australian Federal Election, The Liberal Party (LP) has been left without office in any state or territory in Australia. Already, the recriminations have begun on what went wrong, and the direction of the LP post-Howard, without government and a foot to stand on, is under turmoil. There are so many questions that need to be answered. Here are some of them.

What went wrong?

Well, pretty much everything as soon as Kevin Rudd got the Labor leadership, although prior to this there were already signs that all was not well. We should start with Workchoices, the legislation that was more based on individual ideologies rather than genuine desire within the community. While many have claimed that this single piece of legislation has had a major impact on the voting choices of the Australian public, there is much to say that this legislation wasn’t the main reason that people changed their vote as some within the Union movement would love to claim. Yes, it was a horrendous piece of legislation that changed the complexion of the landscape of employer-employee relations in favour of employees. Yes, it predominated much of the news and became a massive bugbear for the government, so much so that it changed the name and introduced a fairness test to ameliorate concerns. But, one piece of legislation does not make an election. The problem is that, if anything, a lot of things went wrong for the government in the last 12 to 15 months. Beyond Workchoices, there were other questions that went poorly answered.

First question was one about the environment, or rather, the lack of innovation or leadership from the government on addressing the growing concerns raised by the public (locally and internationally) on global warming/climate change. As evidenced by the lengthening drought, the lack of genuine initiatives to combat the water crisis in the food bowl of Australia, the government did not proactively respond to these concerns. While the ALP did not provide a brilliant response, they did enough to differentiate themselves from the LP. Sign Kyoto, move on. The LP was left spluttering in their wake with the line of looking beyond Kyoto, not realizing that perceptions of actually doing something by signing Kyoto meant much more than the actual value of the treaty itself.

The second question was the one about the leadership of the party itself. This came to a head in 2006 when it was revealed that there had been a secret agreement between John Howard and Peter Costello about a leadership transition, which did not occur. What happened was similar to the Kiribilli agreement between Bob Hawke and Paul Keating of the early 1990s, only in this script, the treasurer didn’t challenge directly and walk off with the prize. This issue continued to haunt the LP all through 2007 in some way, shape or form, culminating with the unprepared announcement that Howard would be retiring “somewhere in his fifth term”. What followed was a poorly scripted and thought out campaign to present both Howard and Costello as part of a team, when it had been made very clear over the years that both couldn’t stand the other. This was made even more ridiculous with the sight of both of them appearing on Today Tonight, of all shows, as a happy brotherhood. While the hypocrisy was evident, the reality was that Peter Costello, beyond him being a good bloke, was not good leadership material come election time. If anything, this was played upon by the ALP throughout the campaign, especially once it became very clear that Howard was retiring. Also, if anything, the LP misread the people when it came to the “it’s time” factor. While Costello may not have been as popular as Howard in a head-to-head battle with Rudd, if there had been enough time for Costello to build a base and establish himself as his own man (say 12-18 months), on Saturday the election may have been a much more close-run thing.

The third question was the one about leadership, and whether or not the ALP or the LP presented a clear vision for the future, and this one also stems towards another problem of the campaigns themselves. Yes, the ALP vision was blurry and lacked a huge amount of developed substance at many levels, but the LP’s agenda was exactly the same. The difference was that the LP’s message was one that asked voters to look back and consider their track record, and say “if you like that, stick with us” while not spending more time developing a vision of the future. What the ALP did here was actually create some sort of blurred vision of where Australia was to be, and yes, it lacked any sort of real genuine innovations or developments, but it was a message that was forward thinking and looking towards 2010 and 2013, rather than one that was based on past performance. The reality was that the LP didn’t look as if they had a vision of the future, and again, perception is important to people. The LP and their senior members were the past, and the ALP presented themselves as the future.

The fourth question was the campaign itself and how the LP’s election campaign was poorly run in comparison to the ALP’s campaign. Beyond the first week, when the ALP was caught by the LP tax cut announcement, the ALP campaign remained completely on track and responsive to anything the LP threw at it. If anything, the LP looked more harried and under pressure as the weeks drew on, making more mistakes in their press conferences, off-camera comments, and other various smaller errors that spoke extensively of a lack of control by the party of the message that was being presented. This culminated on the week prior to the election of LP members being caught distributing fake flyers that were supposedly in support of the ALP’s stance on Bali. If anything, this controversy hurt the LP enormously and took the party off message for the remaining three days of the campaign. But, there were more of these moments during the entire month. The leak that Malcolm Turnbull had attempted to persuade the LP cabinet to ratify Kyoto was one. Another would have been that Howard raised the question of his leadership during the APEC summit prior to the election. These little mistakes translated into periods where the message was no longer under party control, and the LP had too many of these to deal with in comparison to the ALP.

Who is going to lead now?

This has to be the most complicated question to answer for the LP. There is a massive dearth of genuine talent within the parliamentary wing of the party after this election. John Howard has lost his seat. Peter Costello has announced that he will not put his hand up for the leadership. Mal Brough, who was touted as a potential leader, has lost his seat. A massively reduced majority of members has left only a small selection of potential people to lead the party to 2010.

If anything, they will be, as The Age put it on Sunday 25 November, drinking from a poisoned chalice. The party has been decimated by this loss, and now out of government across the entire country, they will face more problems than just a dearth of political talent (see below). The possibility of the LP, as it currently stands, of making a return to government in 2010 is very poor indeed, thus it is very understandable why Peter Costello has chosen not to lead the party in opposition. While he would make a formidable opposition leader, his association with the Howard government would be a massive burden to carry, especially in light of the strength of the change of mood within the electorate. He knows that 2010 may not be a possibility, and if he was not going to stand again in 2010, then there would be little point in warming a seat for the next parliamentary LP leader.

This leaves a very small, and unimpressive field to choose from. The following people have already declared their intentions: Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott and Brendan Nelson. Other possibilities include Alexander Downer and Julie Bishop. Joe Hockey has already ruled himself out, and other such as Andrew Robb and Christopher Pyne have possibly put their hand up as deputy leader. Beyond that, there isn’t much to choose from in terms of individuals that could be nominated as leader. The one person that was being groomed for the potential position, Mal Brough, lost his seat during the election.

Each individual that have declared or are possibilities have their own incumbent problems. Malcolm Turnbull is smart and a new face within the LP, but his inexperience and polish as a politician really showed during this campaign. Furthermore, he is not a unifying force within the party at this point, he remains a divisive figure. The same could be said for Tony Abbott, although for different reasons. Abbott lacks any sort of genuine political charisma, but retains every part (if not more) of Howard’s conservatism. If anything, the LP under Abbott would become even more conservative than it is now, something that may annihilate the party. His performance during the election campaign was appalling. Brendan Nelson has the problem of having the historical ALP links count against him, but he also lacks charisma and has seen to mishandle the two portfolios that he was tasked with while in cabinet (Education and Defence). Because of this he was never seen during the campaign. Alexander Downer, while the most experienced in this group, would probably not run. He has been there already, and now he will not enjoy doing it again. There are also questions of his longevity in parliament, and he has hinted that he may not be around past 2010. There are also questions of his popularity in cabinet.

This leaves Julie Bishop, who probably would not be a bad choice if she chooses to run for opposition leader. She would make a good representation, but probably lacks experience as an opposition leader. Of course, we said the same thing about Kevin Rudd when he took the opposition leader job in December 2006. The other person, that is not running, is Joe Hockey, and his moderate position would have been a good rallying point for the LP to run to, despite his problematic association with Workchoices.

What has become clear is this. The person that will lead the Liberal Party to their next election victory may not yet be in parliament. The chances of the party returning to power in 2010 are slim, and it may be 2013 before they have a real chance of ending the ALP reign.

What direction to take?

This may seem a stupid question to ask, but it is not a simple as it seems. Now that they are out of government across the country, the LP’s ability to muster support and rebuild after this loss will be severely hampered. Paul Kelly on Insiders put it succinctly – they will have a very limited ability to raise funds and seek patronage. Furthermore, the massive factionalism that used to claim the ALP has already begun to surface in the LP, and this needs to be dealt with swiftly by the new leader. Beyond that, a serious bout of soul searching and rebuilding of the party needs to be undertaken. The problem is that if the recriminations within the party continue, there won’t be much of a party left to be a viable opposition to the ALP. Just because the LP has not been in opposition does not mean that they should automatically give up. They need to take this blow as part of the process, examine the causes, fix them, and move on. This will be tough, but, in a nutshell, that is what needs to happen. Even a complete re-examination of the basis of the party and its founding values needs to be considered and revisited. Whatever it takes to rebuild the party and forge it into something that could be considered a political force again. That’s as simple as it gets. But, sometimes simplicity is the key to success.

An ephiphanical moment about relationships and love.

I’ve been through a pretty turbulent month. I’ve been dumped from a relationship over the phone, had an emotional breakdown at home and at work, fought with my mum, handed in my resignation letter, and emotionally swung from catatonia, depression, anger to random moments of happiness. In short, I’ve been something of an emotional rollercoaster wreck. But having a talk today with a good friend of mine has helped massively, and it’s affirmed a lot of things that I may have had doubts about or issues that I felt that I needed to deal with, especially the things that stemmed from the breakup of my relationship, and also where I wanted to go with my life. I won’t deal with my professional issues here, as that is more reserved for another long rant about my opinions on the education system, but my personal life is something that I need to write here as a sort of affirmation.

Relationship-wise, I think I’m going in the right direction. There are days that I still feel pain and hurt, but most days I’ve improved a lot from having days where I wake up and I just don’t do anything and I’ve been dead to the world. These days now are more about thinking and dealing with these moments, and from a lost day, I’ve gotten down to maybe an hour, so I’ve made some progress. Writing about it, reading about it, mentally dealing with the reasons, going through a bit of grieving, this all helps a little bit, but there’s still some lingering feelings that are hard to get rid of. There are the moments that pop into my head of the past, of happier times. There are the vivid dreams which leave me sad and emotional when I awake. There are those mental arguments with myself about the future, and what I can do to change it, or move on. I can’t change what’s happened before, but I can definitely do something about the future.

I’ve realized that I’ve got to heal myself before I can even consider the future. There’s all of these problems with me that I’ve got to work on, such as my lack of self-dependence, my loss of self, my retreat into myself and my defensiveness of my flaws and faults and lashing out at these, being lazy and not showing my commitment to a relationship, all my personality flaws and issues that prevented me from progressing as a person. On the flip side, I also realize that I’m not a horrendously bad person. Like all humans, I’m just horrendously flawed and imperfect. This is not bad, in fact, this is very normal. If I was looking for perfection, I would be unhappy for the rest of my life, but I’m looking for some improvement to the self, and emerging from this period in the manner of a butterfly emerging from its chrysalis of a cocoon would be a satisfying result. If my peers and friends come up to me and say afterwards that “You’ve become a different person, the same, but different all the same”, then I would know that I have made some sort of major personal change.

That is the other real challenge. One may work hard at change, but it’s the changes that stick with you and you don’t revert to the old habits, they are the hardest to keep. It shouldn’t even be the ones that you have to think about anymore, they represent a shift in persona, rather than a temporary shift. For example, I’ve been attempting in the last 2 months to stop saying “like”. For me, it has become a religious cauterization. I hear it every day, people randomly using that “l” word, and it has gotten to the point where it is distinctively irritating if I hear it, and if I use it. The problem is that it is hard to remove, and a large part of me says that if I can do this and make it a permanent change, I really can do a lot of other things.

This brings me to an earlier question that I posed in an earlier post. This is the issue of the disposable relationship, or to be more precise, the problem of not only a disposable relationship, but our search for the easy relationship. I fear that, in a way, we’re creating a world where what we seek in love is something that is not something that is built, but we all seek what I have come to say is the “love at first sight” kind of love, the idealized version of love that we all yearn for, but in reality probably could never find. I know of only a few instances where I would say is the case, but most successful relationships in the real world would have been ones where there has been a lot of work between the two people. The main thing has been the desire to commit to the relationship and their willingness to stay and work on the conflicts and differences of opinion that may exist. It may not be one where they end up with consensus, they may maintain their opinions. But they have both made that commitment to continue to work at it, and what they both have had has grown into something spectacular and beautiful, that may lead to a long and fruitful union between two minds.

The thing is that, the current world encourages us to consume and discard when finished with alarming alacrity. In particular, if it does not work, there is no need to fix it, it would cost more, so we dispose of it instead. The question then is this: are we now engaging in the same mindset with relationships? Phenomenon such as speed dating, online dating and flirting, singles or desperate and dateless balls, the objectification of physical appearances, valuing physical features and completely ignoring the emotional, intellectual and mental features of a person, the increase emphasis of sex in the developed world, it makes me question whether all of my work to achieve a level of self-improvement is worth the effort. I have to believe that most people live in the veneer of looking for their great love, but are willing to work on a relationship if they see the value in it, and that my current feeling is more a result of being burnt and not an emerging societal change.

I somehow do doubt that it is an emerging movement, as from my experiences with people, that this opinion may not be true. However, the opinions that I have are from my generation. I am unsure about the new and upcoming generation of young adults and children that have been exposed to a lifetime of easy, casual relationships and the concept of love at first sight. Even the concept of speed dating, that is, knowing whether you would like someone, or finding a serious partner, within the first 5-10 minutes of a conversation, holds some truth but places enormous pressure on the self to perform. In this high-paced, consumer-style world, there should still be a place for romance and love.

But what I’ve learnt is that love is something that is built. Love doesn’t blossom at first sight. That kind of love is not the honest, truthful kind. The truest love is the one that still exists after you have broken off the relationship, months down the track, the pain and suffering is gone, and you can say with conviction in your heart and mind that you love someone, even for all of their faults and flaws, and that you would be happy for them no matter who they’ve become, and wish them all the best. That’s love. That’s what REAL love is all about, and I guess I’m experiencing bits of it now, although I've still a lot to learn.

1 Corinthians 13:1-13

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

Society and women

I’ve been recently watching a show on television called Californication, and most people that would read this would look at me and say “you’ve been watching what?”, as a response to the gratuitous sex scenes, the misogynistic tone of the episodes, the occasional brilliant bit of dialogue interspersed with more average writing. What is missed, however, are some of the issues and questions that are being asked. In one scene, the main character, Hank Moody, asks the question: “Why is the city of angels (LA) so hell bent on destroying its female population?” This morning, I thought, “Why is the world so hell bent on destroying its female population?

Last night I had a fantastic time with a group of old friends at a Turkish restaurant. It was a night of average food, good conversation, good alcohol (of which I had very little) and good hookah (sheesha). But in between the conversation the males had an intriguing time engaging (specifically with their eyes) the members of the opposite sex. Not the ones on our table, mind, but the others that kept on flitting by our table - be it behind our seats, or across our window vantage point. I enjoyed myself immensely, being the chauvinistic, bitter male that I was last night, although it probably didn’t win me any accolades amongst my peers. In the cold light of morning, I begin to wonder why that we’ve reduced women to an object to be obtained and not understood.

We’ve been brought up in a consumer society, throwaway objects, replaceable devices, buy and buy and buy. Is that now applying to our emotional development as well? Men and women are taught to be more masculine, more feminine, more concerned about how they look, what they wear, what they smell like, how beautiful they are, what is the right bodyshape, what is the wrong bodyshape, what is healthy, what is not, blah blah blah. To achieve this, we consume. Self help books, diet foods, exercise programs with personal trainers, this season’s clothes, next season’s fads, the next big thing, casual sex, one-night stands, alcohol by the barrel, drugs by the line or bag. It’s all about consuming. Unfortunately, does that mean that we become consumers in building something as simple as a relationship?

Women are especially placed in a tough position. Unfortunately, we live in a chauvinistic world. Both sexes glorify and vilify the other in a variety of ways, but the method of how women are portrayed in this new world of ours places this unimaginable pressure on women to conform to an image of what guys would like, forcing them to do crazy stuff such as starve, deny and potentially destroy themselves. Post traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, suicide, rehab clinics, drug overdoses. These are things that, while they may have existed, are more prevalent now than ever before. How possible is it for anyone, male or female (but especially female) to be able to attempt to conform and feel good about themselves, while consuming at a vast rate, and also have a healthy relationship with another person? When it becomes too hard, do we just discard the relationship? It surely feels that way as I delve deeper into understanding the world that I live in. If it doesn’t work, we chuck it, and you apply the same mentality to your TV as you would to someone that you love, cherish, and hope to have a future with.

And why is it also that, across the world, that women are the ones made to suffer? The developed and developing world places unimaginable pressures on women to be in the image of women that men glorify or “worship”, while women in other societies are trampled on through religion, abuse, traditional customs, slavery, rape, torture, assault, in general a loss of any human rights and dignity? Haven’t we gone far enough in destroying women as people that stand side-by-side with men and crushing any hope and dignity that they have in their self affirmation and right to equality? Are women and men not capable anymore of engaging in a circle where both are seen to share the same circle, both with different roles, but half of a full circle, and willing to make the commitment instead of consuming their relationship and then discarding it when the first trouble decides to hit? I sometimes do wonder.