Malcolm Turnbull has certainly made a name for himself since he became leader of the Liberal party. The party that I joined when I was fifteen was a party that stood for some basic principles that were worth defending, the principles so effectively promoted by Tony Abbott. They were supported by enough voters over the years to form a succession of effective coalition governments. It is now virtually unrecognisable. Its decline to its present state of despair has been brought about by the Turnbull experiment which must now be seen as an abject failure in every way. I cannot discern a single benefit that has come from it. The Turnbull experiment was supposed to provide leadership that the party allegedly needed, although I was never persuaded that any such change was needed. In any event, it certainly failed miserably in that regard, and if one thing has emerged from the election it is that the public do not want the leadership on offer from the Prime Minister. The Turnbull experiment was also supposed to bring stability; instead, it has brought chaos. It was supposed to win votes; it has lost a million. It was supposed to have as its centrepiece an economic plan; but if it had one, it was well concealed and buried under a mountain of gobbledegook and three word slogans that must have been incomprehensible to most of the public. It was supposed to be a new zephyr of modernity that would usher in a revolution in ideas and innovation, as we apparently had never had any before; and of course it was promoted in a language completely foreign to the people. Just what was supposed to be conveyed by the relevant minister, Wyatt Roy, when he said that ‘failure is essential’, I have no idea, but it sounds like the weakest war cry that could possibly be devised for a revolution. The Turnbull experiment even failed in the mechanism so skilfully contrived to implement it. The decision to manipulate the Senate voting system to exclude minority views was too clever by half, insulting to the whole democratic process, alienating a lot of people as it did and, as some of us predicted, it did not even work. People are understandably wary of the motivation of politicians in moving the goal posts because they feel, rightly in this case, that it is being done solely for self interest. On top of this, to link the Senate changes to a double dissolution, when the industrial relations legislation was scarcely mentioned in the campaign, when the election of at least some independents was guaranteed, and with an eight week campaign from which the government could not conceivably benefit, was clearly a reckless plan. The result: the loss of so many seats in the House and a Senate more polyglot and unmanageable than it was before.

But moving the goalposts came easily to the Turnbull government as we then saw in the discreditable changes to the tax on superannuation. They were clearly retrospective and even if they were not, they showed a propensity to use retrospective laws if and when the government found that it wanted more money. Worse, it was aimed squarely at those relying on themselves to provide for their own retirement and, more than anything else, alienated traditional Liberal voters. I have already written of the Liberal voters in Higgins who told me they were ‘shafted’ and others who refused even to find where they could vote overseas.  The only thing more disturbing than the changes themselves was the cringe-making effort of economic ministers trying to explain and defend them. Even the man who handed the Liberal card to me at the polling booth did better; when I said I would not vote for a party that relied on retrospective legislation, he replied ‘But they are only half retrospective.’

All of this amounts to bad judgment, the potential weakness in Turnbull that always threatened to come to the surface under pressure and which manifested itself in his lack of a persuasive narrative, the shifty mechanism designed to win the election, and his ungracious speech on election night. But perhaps it is not just a matter of judgement with Turnbull. It is his real beliefs that worry me and the default position to the left to which he is clearly inclined. None illustrates this more than his statement that the British settlement of Australia was an invasion. This strikes at the foundation of the nation and is the basis of the whole left wing attack on all of our institutions. Worse still, I was shocked that such a thing could be said by the leader, with none in the party prepared to deny it. The Liberal party can have this as a principle if it wishes, but it will be doing so without me. I supported Tony Abbott through thick and thin because he has always subscribed to good and traditional Liberal values; given a fair go from his own side and with the alternative on offer, the contrast with the Labor party would have been so monumental that his government would have easily been returned. What Australia has got from the Turnbull experiment is, at worst, a loss and, at best, a government with a rejected platform and team. What the Liberal party does with the PM and his policy is the party’s own business. He is so discredited and his government so tarnished that it is unsurprising there are calls for his resignation. Frankly, I could not care less whether he resigned or staggered on. All I can say is that I will not vote for it while he is their leader and there seem to be a million or so people who are thinking along the same lines. No wonder so many of us are saddened, disappointed and angry.

The post Brown study appeared first on The Spectator.