It’s time to face the bleeding obvious: Sussan Ley is no leader
Sadly, someone has got to say the bleeding obvious: Ley is not a leader, not the kind to unify the party – and more importantly – deliver a very different kind of government to Labor.
In the top job long enough for a report card, Ley has nailed two skills – sounding like a schoolmarm and being a plodder.
No one likes being wrong. But I would be happy to be proven wrong about Ley. The Liberals need a strong and articulate leader to shake up the party – and the country. Alas, Ley has made no impact. Worse, it’s hard to see how she will.
It’s true, after a devastating election, the party has been riven with disagreements and personal bickering. The fight over net zero is evidence of that. But the party has a problem beyond agreeing to a sensible climate policy – something akin to the Nationals’ position. That problem is Ley.
When the Member for Farrer was first elected as Liberal leader in mid-May, she said she wanted to articulate policy that “meets Australians where they are”. That sounded fair enough, if inane. Ley had just landed the job; she deserved some slack.
Given the phrase has stuck – like an old piece of Wrigley’s Juicy Fruit to her shoe – it pays to understand what Ley means by promising to do things differently by “meeting Australians where they are”.
All politicians should meet voters. And Ley needs to meet many more of them. Scolding the Prime Minister, as a head mistress might do to a kid turning up to school out of uniform, for wearing a lame T-shirt when he arrived back home after an international flight, is not front of mind for Australians.
Her call for Kevin Rudd to be sacked sank like a second lead balloon. Jumping at imagined conservative shadows, presumably to suggest she’d met some Sky News viewers, was unbecoming.
Of course, Ley didn’t just mean she wanted to meet Australians. She said Liberal policies under her would meet Australians where they were. Not as weird as then-prime minister Julia Gillard opening the ALP National Conference in 2011 by saying that “we are us”.
Still, voters have every reason to be confused by Ley’s political mantra. On current indicators, crafting policies that most Australians want means making government even bigger and spending more money. Neither are good for the future of the country, and future generations, but they appear to be on the wish list of most Australians right now.
John Howard was the finest prime minister, and is the most loyal party man, the country has ever had. When has he ever not publicly supported the current Liberal leader? His comments at the weekend about how the Liberal Party could pull itself together were mostly spot on. Except on Ley.
Howard represents a high bar, to be sure. He met a lot of people. But he did something more important – he led them.
Love him or loathe him, people knew what Howard stood for. After all, he’d been fighting for the same policies and principles for years, through bad times and even worse times. Not just cute and cuddly policies either – think IR reform and a GST. When the times suited him, he was known to most Australians.
Ley has been in politics for more than 20 years – the same period of time that I have watched politics reasonably closely. When she became leader, I had no clue what she stood for, what she had achieved during her 20 years in federal parliament. A blank canvas is perfect for an artist; not so much for a political leader.
Senior ministers – treasurer, foreign minister, immigration minister and shadow ministers in these portfolios – will often be remembered for what they did, both the successes and the flops. With all due respect to the health and the environment portfolios, Ley has never held a tough frontline portfolio allowing voters a clear idea of what she stood for. That alone provides some insight into Ley’s lack of political impact.
I asked many well-placed political insiders who know her and who like her: what has Ley done over the past two decades?
One person mentioned something about Ley’s role with the Brumbies. She’s a keen follower of rugby; I thought to myself, fair enough. But what else?
In fact, Ley apparently did a very fine job of articulating a policy to rid the Kosciuszko National Park of feral horses – brumbies. The insider recalled it well. The point is this: how many Australians know anything about that, let alone Ley’s political convictions? Her long political history provides few clues.
At a time when politics is splintering, with main political parties bleeding members and losing voters, a person with a history of expressing what they believe, and having an impact when they express those beliefs, might attract attention from a fractured electorate.
When one reads Ley’s speeches, she says lots of sensible things. The Liberals must focus on economic management – lower taxes so people can keep more of what they earn; increasing productivity to grow the size of the economic pie; lower government spending because every tax dollar spent comes from our pocket; sensible energy policies that serve middle- and lower-class Australians.
The question is whether Ley has the gravitas to make people look at her, and listen, and to harness their vote. Her lacklustre skills are often on show when she speaks. Last Friday, speaking about Tomago Aluminium’s possible closure, everything Ley said was correct. The country needs sound industrial relations policies, and energy settings that support, not kill, business. But even with good material, Ley sounded like a beta version of an old AI bot; it was genuinely difficult to listen to.
It might be that Ley is still nervous in the role – and her office may be to blame. Her youngish chief of staff Dean Schachar has reportedly not had a job outside politics. Alex Hawke, her right-hand man, might be a good numbers man, but a factional hatchet man is unlikely to be the right person to advise Ley about how to win over Australians.
Or it could be that Ley’s underperformance is about as good as it gets.
Liberal senator James Paterson said recently that the Liberals’ apology tour needed to stop. It pays to remember that in late January, barely 10 months ago, the Liberals were head-to-head with Labor. Paterson, by the way, has been in politics for half the time that Ley has. The difference is excruciating. Paterson has long had, and is known for, a set of firm beliefs. When he speaks, it’s with authenticity. It’s a shame he’s in the Senate. One might imagine that any attempt by Paterson to move to the lower house will be fought by some in and outside politics who think leadership is their birthright. That tells you something about Paterson, too.
There is zero joy in pointing out that Ley appears to be a plodder.
The Liberals could do with a terrific female leader. If that’s not available, a terrific leader will do. Right now, the pickings are slim. Ley can keep the seat warm, but that role shouldn’t go on for too long. A new leader needs time to rebuild trust with the electorate, to showcase their long commitment to principles and policies that will cement the country’s future.
Andrew’s ‘poverty’ and Fergie’s tell-all takedown tales – what may happen to disgraced duo
Sussan Ley may be many things. She was a pilot and a punk. We know that because she has told us so many times. She can ride a horse; there are photos of her doing that. She is probably a very nice woman, to boot. She is also the first female to lead the Liberals. Perhaps that’s why everyone is tiptoeing around the difficult issue.