As he surveys the degraded and demoralised Liberal Party he presides over, Angus Taylor has two major problems – and that’s leaving aside One Nation.
The first is that his own performance is often cack-handed. The second is he is not, as the saying goes, meeting the voters where they are. He should – in theory – be able to tackle the former. The latter is more fundamental.
It always surprises how often Taylor comes out with the wrong line, or is caught out without an answer to an obvious question. Like, after his robust attack last week on One Nation, saying this week that he’d made it “with a heavy heart”. Or recently when, quizzed to the point of embarrassment, he couldn’t say whether he embraced multiculturalism. (Obvious answer: yes, but I want to improve it.)
Taylor struggles to engage properly in media encounters, appearing to think his “lines”, often slogans or cliches, will get him through. (Contrast NSW Premier Chris Minns, or Liberal senator James Paterson, who engage with questions, answer directly where they can, or make it clear if they won’t.)
But Taylor is also trying not to say anything that will put him further offside with the “base”, and that leads him into verbal mazes.
He should be able to be fully prepped and prepared for media appearances. That’s what staff are for. Those around him remark on his intelligence, and despair of his lack of political deftness.
The mismatch between where the public are and what the Liberals are expounding is a much deeper challenge – a gulf perhaps unable to be bridged, at least in the short term.
This came through in Taylor’s major economic address last week that, in addition to its attack on One Nation, critiqued Labor and set out the opposition’s alternative in broad terms. It was traditional Liberal fare of smaller government, lower taxes, and “empowering” people, and reflected the hand of respected economist Steven Hamilton, now on Taylor’s staff.
But the trouble for the Liberals is that these days the public want more from government than they did a few decades ago. They want activist government to find ways to make their lives better. They are not preoccupied with getting government out of their lives. COVID changed thinking about government spending. The threat posed by debt and deficits doesn’t strike the chord it once did. People are preoccupied with their own circumstances, rather than the bigger picture.
Election campaigns always contained promises, but now they are, at least partly, auctions. This is not just tax cuts but big spending, such as the promises in 2025 on student debt relief and Medicare. It’s notable Peter Dutton felt the need to match much of Labor’s 2025 spending.
It’s hard to see the Liberals’ more austere pitch about economic responsibility going down well, especially in such harsh times. People will take a lot of persuading, and the Liberals are not strong on persuasion.
They are very good at talking endlessly about themselves. Paul Keating would call it dogs returning to their vomit. They’ve this week put out publicly a discussion paper from one of their reviews. It’s full of useful statistics (mostly presenting problems for the Liberals) and common sense.
Trouble is, we’ve heard it all before and it just sets off a fresh round of public navel-gazing. Predictably, another squabble about female quotas erupted. The Liberal Party has spent more than a year pondering
itself, to no useful effect (and it’s not finished yet).
Taylor in coming months will have to reshuffle his frontbench. It’s a team that has been repeatedly shaken up and moved around since the election. Such instability fractures continuity, both in drawing up policy and selling it.
But Jonno Duniam, home affairs spokesman and one of the better opposition performers, is quitting parliament when he finishes the immigration policy, so changes are unavoidable.
Before this, a stand-in shadow finance minister must be appointed because Claire Chandler is off on maternity leave. Finance is a key area and Chandler has been much less seen and heard than her predecessor James Paterson. Paterson should never have been moved but he was one of those instrumental in Taylor’s rise to the leadership and so could not be denied the defence post he craved.
The Liberals’ economic team in general needs to greatly improve its performance. Tim Wilson might require more time to find his feet as shadow treasurer, but should have learned that playing the jokester doesn’t work in this role. Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has a high profile – but not as small business spokeswoman. Small business is core to the Liberal constituency; the position needs someone more suited to it.
On Wednesday Taylor was glib in his first response about Albanese’s announcement of an Office of AI, located in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Just more bureaucracy, he said dismissively. He should be careful: this is a huge policy area and one the opposition should be leaning into in a very considered way.
Taylor is not just looking across the centre right spectrum at the Liberals’ rival, One Nation. He is also looking over his shoulder at leadership aspirant Andrew Hastie.
Some argue that if the Liberals are still floundering at New Year, Hastie should (or will) replace Taylor.
There is little doubt about Hastie’s ambition.
But, muses one Liberal greybeard, would that be very sensible – from Hastie’s point of view? It’s about as safe a bet as you’ll get that the Coalition won’t win the next election. Indeed, given the uncertainty created by One Nation, the map of the centre right after that election could be all over the place.
If Hastie stepped up before the election and had a bad loss, that would burn him for the next term (assuming he held off One Nation in his own seat). It would be better for Hastie, on the greybeard’s reckoning, to leave the 2028 election to Taylor and then take over as opposition leader – provided there’s still a viable Coalition opposition to take over.
