Yes, it had to come to this.

As this magazine has long argued, there is a deep structural faultline that runs down the middle of not only the Coalition but also through the Liberal party itself. And that fault line is climate change.

Robert Menzies’ definition of the ‘broad church’ applies not only to the Liberal party, but also to the former Coalition. Over recent years, many have misunderstood or misapplied the term ‘broad church’ to mean a wide range of political views, many at odds with each other, huddling together under one large tent in order to form a government that is not Labor. This was always to miss the key point. Yes, Menzies opposed Labor, but his fundamental opposition was to socialism (and communism). Full stop. Menzies was, correctly, vehemently opposed to socialism to the point where he wanted the communist party banned altogether.

Make no mistake, net zero is communism, or, at the very least, global socialism. There are no longer any environmental arguments whatsoever that justify Australia restructuring its entire  economy, its industry, its manufacturing, its transportation, its farming, its construction industry and everyday lifestyles in order to remove all carbon emissions from our continent. (There never was, but that’s a different story). But that is the net zero by 2050 plan. It is a government-mandated collectivist program to redistribute power and wealth across every aspect of Australian society on purely left-wing ideological grounds. Bluntly, modern communism.

Embracing net zero is not about making the Liberal party more ‘modern’. In reality it is about fully adopting socialism.

One may argue, albeit unconvincingly, that at one time the Coalition was right to support some degree of climate change mitigation policies based purely on the precautionary principle. That was back when the scare campaigns about rising sea levels, melting icecaps, global droughts, soaring temperatures and mass famine were so new they could not be judged on anything other than likelihood. That was over thirty years ago. But since that time every single model has shown itself to be misleading at the least, if not completely erroneous. Not a single ‘dire prediction’ from the original ‘greenhouse gas/global warming’ modelling has come true; what we have been left with instead are spurious claims about the ‘frequency’ and ‘intensity’ of ‘extreme weather events’ which were never the focus of the original theories but which serve to ramp up the fear whilst removing any  quantifiable measuring tools. The swap from the specific term ‘global warming’ to the catch-all phrase ‘climate change’ is the greatest proof of this deliberate deception and disgraceful misdirection.

As people wake up to this fraud, the promise of Australia becoming a ‘renewables superpower’ built on the fantasy of ‘green hydrogen’ becomes untenable. The industrialised world is largely abandoning the net zero scam as economic reality sinks in. The only people making money out of this ‘industry’ (apart from the Chinese), which relies on massive government funding, both explicit and hidden in household and corporate power bills, are those in a position to milk the subsidies systems. As such, it has become important for those subsidies to be maintained at all costs, and that in turn means guaranteeing enough members of parliament are either ideologically or financially wedded to the renewables mantra.

Although they cite the nuclear debate and other issues as being behind the split, the Nationals are clearly contemplating abandoning net zero altogether, but can only do so if they split from the Liberal party. Farmers across Europe and the United States have seen first-hand the disastrous impact of climate policies, and the political ructions have been massive. Australian farmers and those in mining and agricultural industries know only too well that net zero is not only unachievable but will destroy their industries in the attempt.

Almost certainly, most Liberal MPs who voted for Sussan Ley (the ‘moderate’) as leader are in favour of net zero. And equally certainly most who voted for Angus Taylor are sceptical of it.

As James Allan argues in his column, the fracturing of the Coalition is an inevitable development. However, the divorce needs to get even messier. As this magazine has been arguing correctly for years, unless the Liberal party divorces itself from its climate ‘moderates’, it’s finished.

If you support net zero you support socialism. If you support socialism you do not belong in the party of Menzies. It really is that simple.