The conservative movement must watch its fringes from encroaching upon the sensible and noble ideals of conservatism. It must be aware it is not immune from those extremist and reprehensible positions that stole the left’s moderate footing. It must uphold its timeless values even when tempted to run with the reactionary mob, and it must focus on critiquing the present failures of government, rather than arguing about what form the movement should take to the detriment of us all.

While disenfranchised Liberal voters demand of its leaders to make sweeping populist policy announcements without the means to actually achieve them – it is my belief that this will effectively seal another term for a government that has done much damage to the economy, to social cohesiveness, and to our standards of living. These horrendous outcomes would have been, in times gone by – and should presently be – enough to send the Prime Minister and his rabble packing, yet even with a meagre primary vote, and through preference flows, the Labor Party was not only able to return to the lodge, but increase its majority comfortably.

Now, much has been said as to why that was the case, and I needn’t delve back into that. What has since occurred is that a branch of the conservative movement has betrayed its own values as it cedes itself from the Liberal Party, it claims no longer represents them.

In the modern digital age, where algorithms feed narrow views, and issues must be digested with lightning speed and regurgitated in echo chambers, nuance has been largely lost from society. We now live in an upside-down order where scientific binaries have become fluid spectrums yet where politics and cultural morality have been beset by rigidity and absolutism.

Take this issue of ‘Net Zero’.

Already a very unclear marketing term – the definition of the term varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction globally. But what matters far more than an aspirational commitment or in-principle position for whatever Net Zero might entail, are the actual policy settings that presently exist, which places undue pressure on businesses and families, drives up costs, risks energy security and has destroyed our standards of living. What must be collectively agreed on among conservatives, is that any alternative to the present settings under this radical Albanese Labor government is a step in the right direction. The present government has choked competition, aspiration and productivity, through high spending and taxation, including its ‘Net Zero at any cost’ ethos that is illogical and ideological.

The Coalition has indicated it would offer a far more reasonable position that places affordability and security above international commitments, whilst still playing a role in limiting emissions.

Now, regardless of whether or not you agree with the ultimate global goal of decarbonising with the likes of China emitting more per year than the next three countries on the list of top emitters, this is the nuance to which I speak. The Coalition have taken a position that is generally reasonable, and that is far more palatable than the position that the present government presses on with.

Yet, the current broad base of ‘conservatives’ has a subset that refuses to back anything other than the dumping of ‘Net Zero’, focused solely on being represented by leaders with a razor-alignment on every issue they perceive as paramount. This is despite the present pressures Australians are facing, being the fault of the present governing body under the Prime Minister. Despite the nuanced, differences of opinion – even between that of the Liberal and National parties, and indeed, One Nation and other conservative movements – we all share in the values of freedom of opinion and small government, and all agree that the present economic and energy settings in which we exist are egregiously incompatible with a successful, stable, reliable, affordable Australia.

This is the point: nuance is incredibly important in a conservative movement that prides itself on shared, timeless, traditional values, whose imperative is tolerance in its truest form. That is, the art of unity within disagreement and divergent positions. This is undergirded by those shared values. If we are unable to return to this mode of thinking, we first betray conservatism on the whole as a principal ideology, and we hand the reins of our national perpetual suffering once more to the present overseers of our demise.

The con of so-called conservatives that ascribe to this all-or-nothing mentality betray the ideals of notional conservatism, and in fact should more accurately be described as populists who seek individual identities and national would-be heroes as saviours to take up their cause against the treacherous horde of nuanced ideas.

These are the noisy throng; the clanging cymbals of cloying and cloistering victims of digital illiteracy, who do more damage to their own movement, and in whom the media are most happy to oblige in their bloodlust.