The Liberal Right operates in intra-party disputes on a Leninist basis: where moderates are in control of part of the party they make it ungovernable, they leak and stack and conduct whisper campaigns until the place becomes a rabble. Then, they step up as the champions of Laura Norder, shut down discussion, shut down the camaraderie built in campaigns and branch activities and agreeing-to-disagree. Once that's complete, uh, they're stuck. They're like dogs chasing cars: the thrill of the chase and ferocity of pursuit is all, but they've not much to offer in the driver's seat. Labor becomes the default government as the Leninist Liberals have neither the appeal, the policies nor the charm to attract voters.
Examples include this goober, who fancies himself as the Liberal Landeryou but who just looks like a clown. He rubbishes Ted Baillieu's hard work in opposition and seriously believes that all that can be replaced by slogans:
He professes to be a small ‘l’ liberal but wouldn’t know the meaning of the word. When asked what the Liberal Party stands for under his leadership, he stumbles. All he says is that he wants the Party to be “inclusive, broad-based, young at heart and aspirational”. But what does that mean and why would it make ordinary voters want to change government? Why would they want Ted Baillieu to be Premier?
I reckon being “inclusive, broad-based, young at heart and aspirational” would be a nice change from the darkening ecliptic of control-freakery from Brumby, Rudd and modern Labor generally.
The State Parliamentary Liberal Party should stand for:
1. Safer streets and homes: being tough on crime and protecting Victorians.
2. Better education standards: getting the basics of reading, writing and mathematics right.
3. Securing our water: building a real dam for the future.
4. Cutting state taxes and stamp duty: reducing the burden of government and tackling housing affordability.
It's always stood for those things, it's just not convinced Victorians that it can deliver them. The first three points depend upon a deft interpretation of "reducing the burden of government": this is the difficult part of governing (and convincing the public you're fit for government). While Baillieu still deserves the benefit of the doubt pinheads like The Fat Controller, Julian Sheezel, and his acolyte Morgan don't.
The only way these clowns would be useful is in the ironic sense, were Baillieu to rise in popularity by knocking over
But unfortunately we need a new leader to make that happen.
Case not proven. You need a new job Morgan, dealing with the "ordinary voters" whose interests you would champion: something east of Burke Rd perhaps.
Then there was this pathetic admission:
"The thing about Brendan was that he's never had a plan. Beyond getting the leadership, he has had no blueprint at all about where he was going to take us," a prominent Liberal frontbencher and Nelson "supporter" told me. " You need somebody brave ... with a plan, without fear, somebody who doesn't sit around wondering if the time is right." With supporters like that ...
This teeth-pulling admission was what Nelson opponents would regard as simply a clear-eyed recognition of reality. This aspect of Nelson was clear before the election, however clowns like Minchin and Abetz didn't think it was important (you don't have to be as immature as Simon Morgan to be a lousy strategist).
Nelson was their "useful idiot". The Liberals should have turned on those who led them to defeat, and would have if they'd backed Abbott. By backing Nelson they hoped to put a human face on the Liberal Party: but it's a silly face, a nice face at times but not one to set against unfavourable winds.
Liberals built their early success against Leninists. However, once the right started letting in ex-Stalinists who'd claimed to "see the light", while smuggling all their silly assumptions and tactical obfuscations from the Push across to the Right and fooling silly people like Simon Morgan, Peter Phelps and others in the Right's Rank & Vile, the structural weaknesses of the Liberals became exposed.
The moderates have been intellectually and morally lazy. Yet, the fact remains that they and they alone can distance the Liberal Party from Labor and build an organisation that can actually win government, hold government and achieve good results with the tools available to government. They need to chip away at the Leninists, though not (as fools like Ron Phillips or falinski would have it) by using the same tactics and wondering why diffident, facile amateurs come off second-best (or worse) against committed, fired-up amateurs.