In rough and ready terms there are two theories about what is happening with Australia’s Liberal party. One is the establishment line that implicitly favours the ‘wets’ or ‘moderates’ or ‘Labor-lites’ in the party room. These are also the people who have seized control of the party machinery and dominate the nerve centre of the party.  They have outsized say in pre-selections.  They block changes to the NSW party rules.  They have no concern at all that the party’s membership across the country is now down to about 20,000 paid-up members, or even fewer (as an example, Canada’s Conservative party has near on 800,000 paid-up members). In fact this dominant left-leaning wing of the party seems to have little interest in attracting new members because that would likely dilute their iron control on the party itself. And these types seemingly make up a controlling faction in the federal party room. Or how else can anyone explain Sussan Ley’s continued survival as leader with this week’s eighteen-per-cent polling?

For these types the theory is that the Liberal party can win again by moving left and trying to win back the inner-city Teal seats. Indeed, many of the ‘wet’ Liberal MPs have these sort of seats. (Think Tim Wilson. Think Julian Leeser.) They want to keep Sussan ‘remind me what I have accomplished in a quarter century in Parliament’ Ley as leader.  And they want this despite the worst leader’s polling results probably ever. Worse, it was exactly these same wet, lefty Libs who used the polls as a pretence a decade ago to knife Tony Abbott – despite his polls being infinitely better than Ley’s and despite Abbott being in a position still to win an election then (which I believed at the time Tony would have done, and still do). These types are also the ones who pushed for supporting Labor’s ghastly, thuggish anti-free speech bill and are all-in on big immigration.

This first theory also wants to see the unprecedented rise of One Nation as an aberration, a fluke. For them, it’s all just a sort of ‘steady as she goes and she’ll be right mate’.  It is sad to report that even some stalwarts of the party seem to buy this theory. Former prime minister John Howard is one.  He was a first-rate prime minister, as I have written many times. Sure, he initiated in small levels some of the diabolical policies we see now (such as the renewables craze, too high immigration, big middle-class spending).  But he left the country with no Commonwealth debt, good financial books, solid borders, and a functioning Liberal party. Since leaving office, though, it’s hard not to feel that Mr Howard would have been better off keeping his political views to himself. It was Mr. Howard, recall, who helped convince Malcolm Turnbull to stay in politics the first time he was rolled as party leader – which directly led to Turnbull orchestrating Tony Abbott’s defenestration despite him having led the party to a massive majority win only two years earlier. And that ditching of the conservative Abbott for the inner-city, renewables-obsessed, Labor-lite-to-not-so-lite Turnbull, dear readers, was the most important cause leading to the disastrous state of today’s Sussan-Ley-led outfit. Heck, it still bothers me when ex-Liberal politicians go on Sky News Australia TV and spout all sorts of admittedly good conservative views but are then never pressed on why they voted for Turnbull over Abbott back in 2015, as we know some did. Likewise, there are Libs in the party room still today who purport to be conservatives who voted for Turnbull back in 2015. Do you trust their instincts?  At the very least I’d like to hear grovelling, hair-shirt apologies for their actions. And back to Mr Howard, he has counselled against knifing Sussan Ley in a way I never heard him do to protect Tony Abbott against the machinations of Malcolm Turnbull.

I could go on and point to how Peter Dutton before the last election protected Sussan Ley and Alex Hawke and Paul Fletcher from preselection battles. Why? It’s as though supposed conservatives, having abandoned every value and principle they claimed to have on entering parliament what with their unflinching support for lockdown thuggery and lockdown spending on steroids and surrender to the insane net zero zealots, can’t remember what it is to have small-government, freedom-oriented values and principles. So, hey, why not vote for the worst speech-infringing Labor legislation going a few weeks ago? In for a penny, right?

Here’s theory two. It starts with a recognition that the current state of the party is a diabolical mess. The Labor-lite, Black Hand gang has been driving the party towards the clifftop as fast as the electric vehicle can go. It realises that the only hope is to change direction fast. That means ditching Ley pronto. And given the way Hastie sold out all principle voting for Labor’s hate speech heavy-handedness that means putting in Angus Taylor as leader (who, only a tad more credibly, was overseas at the time and so didn’t vote for the bill). Then, goes theory two, Taylor needs to make huge policy shifts.  We need to hear a promise to cut immigration below what One Nation is offering. We need a promise to cut all renewables subsidies and all genuflecting before the false ‘Gods of Net Zerotry’. I’d like a promise to reverse course and repeal this Labor hate-group monstrosity as soon as they’re back in office. Plus, I think we also need to see Taylor push hard to change the party rules so that the party membership picks the leader, in line with Canada’s set-up (and the reason why there are so many more party members up there) and also with the program Graeme Haycroft has laid out in his Liberal Reform Association (visit reclaimthedream.com.au for more details.) The ‘moderate’ party brokers will hate it and resist. Cave in to them, Angus, and that’s a sign of the weakness you’ll be bringing to the table. The Libs also need open preselections, so the likes of Julian ‘I supported the Voice and Labor’s thuggish hate speech bill’ Leeser can have their local support tested.  Oh, and this second theory rightly realises that elections can be won by the right side of politics wholly without inner-city Teal seats, not vice versa. It’s the suburbs and rural areas that can win it. Just go and look at Tony Abbott’s 2013 results.

Broadly speaking, then, those are the two main viewpoints or theories as to what the party of Robert Menzies needs to do to survive. Because right now it is an existential, open question whether the Libs will survive or die a lingering, ‘slowed down because of our unique preferential voting system’ death.  Do they deserve that fate? Hard not to answer ‘yes’, isn’t it, given what nine years of Liberal governments, not least a dalliance with Covid thuggery and illiberalism, an out-of-the-blue ScoMo signing us up to net zero betrayal, and a total sell-out of free speech did to the country?

So do readers think theory two will prevail inside the party?  If not, that would likely see National Party MPs decimated next election.  More to the point, theory one would be the best possible news for One Nation.  And I’d then be all-in with them.  So what’s it going to be Liberal Party?