by MARK WHITE – A LOT of people joined the Liberal Party back when it was determinedly the Party of small business and family values.
My own story reflects this; I was attracted to a Party that encouraged effort as I worked to establish something lasting and profitable on its merits.
- The Libs have a serious meritocracy problem and the voters know it – both male and female.
- Gender-based preselections have repeatedly proven disastrous for the Liberals.
- The Party is being destroyed by edicts driven from Party bureaucrats and activists.
Which could explain why I repeatedly bump into likeminded business owners who no longer feel the Party stands true to a belief in “government that nurtures and encourages its citizens through incentive…”.
Why? Because Australians who make a living in business understand that the “incentives” the Party once believed in were merit-based, not distorting incentives driven by edicts from Party bureaucrats or activists.
DIVERSITY
And merit works. If you don’t believe me let me know how you’re feeling next time you’re flying to Bali in a plane piloted by a 21-year-old selected by a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion commissar.
Merit-based selection is neither sexist nor racist, which makes it more depressing to learn that the Party’s leadership keeps falling for the “Liberals have a women problem” trope.
The truth is, the Libs have a serious meritocracy problem and a whole lot of people who once supported the Party know it – male and female.
Exhibit-A of this was on display at the 2022 Federal Election, when the only constitutionally-legitimate Liberal candidate, Lincoln Parker, was rolled by a three-person committee led by then PM Scott Morrison.
Mr Parker is a long-term active member, chaired the NSW Defence & National Security Branch, is a polished media commentator and locally engaged father.
He was replaced by this Orwellian committee by a woman, Katherine Deves, who few had ever heard of – and fewer still had seen at a Party branch meeting.
Gender-based preselections have repeatedly proven to be a disaster for the Liberal Party.
In this case, the Party’s primary vote in Warringah fell 5.66 per cent and it failed to regain a seat that only years before had been held by a Liberal prime minister – Tony Abbott.PC
I might debate some aspects of Mark White’s commentary. I have no problem with the overall criticism of Liberals getting flustered by the “Liberals have a problem with women” rubbish. Labor have just as many “problems with women mentality” as Liberals etc., (but the usual media suspects ignore that), and I fervently adhere to the merit only philosophy (in commerce as well as politics), but I think it unfair to target Katherine Deves the way Politicom has.
With many others I worked strenuously to try and help Deves defeat Stellall.
As a campaign worker I met Deves a few times. From the outset she made it unequivocally clear to everyone that she accepted and was prepared to face pre-selection against other Liberal opponents. It might be that on balance Lincoln Parker was the superior candidate (out of 3), but it was not Deves’ fault the Morrison camp parachuted her into top spot. What was she supposed to do ?
Withdraw.
Whilst a novice, as it turned out she was a genuine, intelligent, and hard working candidate, prepared to do the hard yards, and more, and there was daylight between Deves and the Independent Hypocrite for Warringah; but the latter won, (with an increased margin). Go figure. Liberal hard heads need to very carefully analyze the new mentalities and “alchemy” of the Warringah electorate.
If there is to be any further analysis/criticism in this area it should continue to fall heavily on Alex Hawke, who precipitated the candidate imbroglio from the outset, and Matt Kean, whose disloyalty and foolish criticism (of Deves) has been fully exposed as nonsense by domestic and international comment on the “post puberty trans women in sport” issue. (Deves position has been very fully vindicated).
(And as well as Matt Kean, his little side kick Felicity Wilson should not be exempt from criticism).
Further, I thought Deves’ nomination and attempt to replace the senate spot vacated by the late Jim Molan was excellent; and Molan would have fully approved (in my view). If successful Deves could have sat beside Tasmanian senator Claire Chandler. The latter a gutsy Australian with a bloody good brain in her head. (Regrettably Deves’ legal work interrupted her idea of standing for the Senate).
Peter M. Wargent.
Peter,
Mark’s article exposes the folly of gender versus merit based selection, it’s not a demolition job on Deves. She managed that all on her own.
What of Lincoln Parker? What of his opportunities? How should he feel? And what of those who supported his candidacy? I’ll tell you – betrayed, despondent, and motivated to lift not a finger to assist the rotting carcass of a party that is now owned by its factions.
“Whilst a novice, as it turned out [Deves] was a genuine, intelligent, and hard working candidate […]”.
I spoke to her at pre-polling, and I can tell you that you are dead wrong: she is not particularly intelligent. I don’t care how “hard working” she may be, because strenuous efforts by clueless wannabes are invariably counter-productive.
“[…] it was not Deves’ fault the Morrison camp parachuted her into top spot. What was she supposed to do ?”
It was indeed her fault: Lincoln Parker was the duly selected candidate, and Deves allowed herself to be used as a pawn by Morrison, who is just one of many the muddle-headed mediocrities who still infest the so-called Liberal party, and whose ignorance is exceeded only by his arrogance. Instead of playing a pathetic dupe by acquiescing in what was an entirely cynical rort, she should have pointed this out to Morrison, and she should have declined to contest the seat (it’s called “integrity”; perhaps you may have heard of it). In any case, women have no business being in parliament, as can be easily deduced by their collective record to date, pitiful as it is.
Anyway, we all know how well things worked out for the “Liberal” party in that election (my family and I all voted informally, so impressed were we by the touchy-feely vibe that was engendered by the Liberals having given ambitious female blow-ins an entirely unwarranted leg-up).
Preferrential treatment for female candidates has been caused by constant attacks from leftists screaming for unqualified equality and diversity, the mainstream media have also been unrelentlessly attacking the Liberal and National partys. We know from decades of experience women (in general) are inclined to be in favour of socialist beliefs, their increased presence has caused conservative politics constant pain. Candidates should only ever be elected on merit, experience, and commitment to true conservative values.