HAS THE LIBERAL PARTY LOST ITS TRADITIONAL BASE? – MICHAEL SEXTON

The rise of the Teal independents in unseating long held Liberal MPs in once known as “blue ribbon” seats in the federal election of 2022 has given rise to questions about the Liberal Party’s base. Elected on ALP and Greens preferences, Teal candidates appealed to well off voters who are concerned about climate change and other social issues. Can the Liberal Party win back those Teal seats or does it need to seek a new base in outer suburban and regional seats? To evaluate what might have happened to the Liberal Party’s base, Michael Sexton, author of “The Disestablishment of the Liberal Party” in Tragedy without Triumph: The Coalition in Office 2013-2022 and Jason Falinski, former President of the NSW division of the Liberal Party to address The Sydney Institute on Wednesday 28 August 2024

HAS THE LIBERAL PARTY LOST ITS TRADITIONAL BASE?

MICHAEL SEXTON

There is a sense, of course, in which both major parties have lost their political base.  In the 1950s and 1960s, although it is something of a simplification, the working classes largely voted Labor and the middle classes Liberal.  For those first two decades of the post-war years the Liberals enjoyed unbroken power, albeit in part at least because the political cycle had been disrupted by the Labor split in 1955. There are still classes in Australia but they are much more varied and fluid than they were in that earlier period, not least because of the huge impact of immigration on Australian society over the whole period of the post-war years.

While I am going tonight to focus on what I see to be some particular problems the Liberals have in 2024, I am not suggesting that they cannot – or will not – win elections in the immediate future, although they are currently out of office in seven of the nine Australian polities – the remaining two being Tasmania where they hold office precariously by way of a minority government and the Northern Territory after last Saturday’s election. Moreover, in five of the other seven jurisdictions, the parliamentary margin is such that it would make it very difficult to win the next election.

To this must be added the fact that the Liberals need to gain an absolute majority in those lower Houses because otherwise Labor would almost certainly be able to form government with the support of the Greens and any Independents. It is also true that, even when in government, the Liberals face severe difficulties in implementing their policies because they do not have a majority in the Senate or in the five state upper houses.  The same is true for Labor, given that neither of the major parties has been able to obtain such a majority in recent times, but Labor is normally able to rely on the Greens and Independents to enact their legislative proposals, albeit often after considerable negotiation with these groups.

One obvious exception to all this is Queensland where it appears very likely that the Coalition will take office in October and there is no upper House. It might be noted, however, that the notion of time for a change has a lot of force in Queensland where Labor has held office for almost 30 of the last 35 years.

The first problem for the Liberals that I would point to is that they are no longer the party of the establishment as they were at least up until the 1970s – or, to put it another way, there is a different establishment and it is largely hostile to the Liberals.

Up until the 1970s, the establishment broadly included the corporate sector, the Protestant churches, the medical and legal professions, senior public servants, the ABC and university administrators and academics. These groups largely supported the Liberal Party but, starting in the 1980s, many public and private institutions in Australia were captured by different forces that subscribe to new doctrines of political correctness.  These forces were largely unsympathetic to the Liberal Party, given the tenor of those doctrines which included:

• portrayal of Australian society as essentially racist
• hostility to the resources industry in the context of climate policy
• antipathy to all forms of the Christian religion
• transference of power from parliaments to courts by way of a bill of rights
• advocacy of open borders without any restrictions on unauthorised immigration
• suspicion of the activities of law enforcement bodies
• governance by international bodies, such as the UN, when they disagreed with an Australian government

Looking at some of the institutions that comprised the new establishment, the Australian print media is largely supportive of the policies of Labor and the Greens, particularly the ABC but also the Nine newspapers, including the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age.  Even more hostile are The Guardian, The Saturday Paper, The Monthly, Quarterly Essay, Crikey, New Matilda and New Daily.  There are alternative views in the News Corp publications and on Sky television but there is a degree of diversity in the political opinions of the commentators employed by these publications. It might be assumed that most members in the general community do not take the same obsessive interest in politics as the Canberra press gallery but their exposure over what is now a lengthy period of time to a coverage of political events that is heavily adverse to the Liberals does raise the question of what impact this might have over the long-term.

In the case of universities, most academic and administrative staff share a politically correct agenda that is unsympathetic to the Liberals.  American studies of the politics of college professors have found Democrat supporters outnumber Republican adherence by a ratio of over ten to one and I suspect that the political breakdown of university staff in Australia would be very unfavourable to the Liberals. The notion of a university as a place where all questions can be openly debated has little role now in Australian academia. In 2018, for example, Sydney University in 2018 rejected a proposal by the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation to initiate a course on this subject. The rejection came after a group of its academics engaged in a public protest.  They issued a statement claiming that “the only people who invoke ‘Western civilisation’ in anything other than a critical spirit are members of the racist right”, adding that “Western civilisation is a favourite umbrella term sheltering all manner of toxic and paranoid prejudices”.  Those students who do not share the views of most of their lecturers would know that public contradiction of those views would be likely to endanger their academic progress significantly.

The various curriculums governing teaching in schools now reflect a high degree of political correctness, particularly in the areas of history and literature, so that, as in universities, students who might hold contrary views would know that to express them would be very likely to endanger their academic grades.

It might be expected that the welfare sector, exemplified by its peak body the Australian Council of Social Services, is essentially part of Labor’s constituency but in their establishment days the Liberals were strongly supported by the corporate sector in the form of both big and small business. This is still true to some extent in the case of small business but, many of the boards of major public corporations have embraced the doctrines of political correctness, perhaps out of genuine enthusiasm or perhaps also to seek the approval of the new establishment. This attitude is reflected in a degree of caution about political donations to the Liberals. The union movement, on the other hand, provides active support for Labor whether in government or in opposition and donates very large sums for election campaigns. It might be noted that at recent federal elections peak business organisations have been largely silent, seemingly unwilling to risk offending what may be an incoming Labor government.

In relation to the cultural world – literature, music, film, arts – there is a high degree of political correctness and little support for the Liberals. In the case, for example, literary festivals, of which there are quite a number now in Australia, there is seldom any disagreement amongst the speakers on political and social questions where a politically correct consensus is the norm. As it happens, there seems little appetite in the audiences to have these views challenged and they can be confident that their opinions will only be reinforced by those on the stage.

The second problem that I would particularly identify for the Liberals is the voting intentions of young voters, that is, those between the ages of 18 and 34, as reflected in recent polls. If one takes, for example, the Newspoll published in the Australian on 8 July 2024, it will be observed that the primary vote support for the two major parties and the Greens was as follows:

• Labor: 30%
• Coalition: 27%
• Greens: 27%

It might be said that the Labor vote is only slightly ahead of the Coalition vote, but it can be assumed that Labor and the Greens will essentially exchange preferences. One factor in these figures is no doubt the climate in universities that has already been referred to, given the number of persons in Australia now taking some form of tertiary education. Another factor is that voters in this age group have never known of any form of economic recession and no doubt assume that economic growth can never falter. It is easy – and correct – as it happens, to say that the Greens’ economic policies are totally irrational and impractical but that does not stop them having some appeal where they have the apparent attraction of simplicity and equity.

The third problem that I would point to is that the Liberals’ traditional reputation for responsible economic management has lost much of its electoral attraction. It is extraordinary to recall that in the 1950s and 1960s Menzies made great political capital during election campaigns out of Labor’s rather modest spending proposals, often directed to apparently worthy areas like aged pensions, asking rhetorically: “Where is the money coming from?”

Such a question would cut little ice today when increased government expenditure is seen by much of the electorate as the solution to any particular social or economic problem in society. At the same time community groups jostle for increased funding in their own areas, indifferent to the overall budgetary position. The nexus between expenditure and revenue is never really addressed and has led to the disproportionate reliance for tax revenue on salary and wages in contrast to other more efficient forms of taxation. There is no real notion of the allocation of scarce resources in the discussion of modern budgets.

In these circumstances it is difficult for the Liberals to stake out a different – and more rational – position on economic policy from Labor and the Greens without the risk of alienating at least some of numerous – and very vocal – interest groups that are vying for government funding. These groups are capable of generating media storms if they feel that they have been short-changed in relation to grants of funds. It must also be said that Liberal governments in recent times, particularly at the federal level, have presided over ever-increasing government expenditure in a wide range of areas so that in the community’s mind there is really no point of differentiation in this area.  Similarly, in relation to government regulation of various sectors of the economy and society generally, the federal Liberal government of 2013 to 2022 was just as enthusiastic as Labor in government, even in such once unlikely fields as sport and charities.

All this may sound very pessimistic for the immediate future of the Liberals but, as I suggested at the outset, there are no guarantees in politics as last Saturday demonstrates. But I would say that these structural problems do pose some real difficulties for the Liberals in the short and medium term and that is perhaps reflected in the position in most of the parliaments around the country at the federal, State and Territorial level. I would not, however, make any dogmatic predictions – these are almost always a mistake in any discussion of future political events.