Centrist message right, but Turnbull loses on philosophy

Malcolm Turnbull delivers the Disraeli lecture at the Policy Exchange in London. Picture: Kym Smith

In his London speech, Malcolm Turnbull has invoked the Liberal Party orthodoxy of governing from the centre and endorsed the Menzian mantra about the Liberals being a progressive party, but he failed to offer a persuasive philosophical position for his own times. The speech was a mixture of truisms and wisdoms that will not repair a divided party in which Tony Abbott crusades for the soul of the Liberal Party and the government faces a haemorrhaging of voters to rivals on the right with the potential to ­destroy Turnbull.

The speech casts Turnbull as a largely non-ideological politician living in an ideological age. He is strong on his philosophy of government: you govern from the centre, a proposition on which Turnbull and Abbott agree. But he is weak on offering an inclusive view of his own values and philosophy for the Liberal Party that ­becomes an instrument to hold the party together at this juncture.

The key to Turnbull is that he is a pragmatic policy centrist but not a cultural conservative. He ­believes in the Liberal Party tradition of governing from the centre but not in the Liberals’ technique of the leader giving living express­ion to the party as the embodiment of the two great traditions, liberal and conservative.

It was John Howard who brought this philosophy to its zenith. Turnbull, while praising Howard, and endorsing Howard’s “broad church” philosophy is distinctly different to Howard in cultural outlook. In his speech he cast himself in the tradition of Robert Menzies, a necessary step for any Liberal leader.

Turnbull captured superbly the climate in which Menzies founded the Liberal Party and his determination that it not be “a party of ­reaction” — hence Menzies wanted a “progressive” party in the context of the times. The conclusion is that Turnbull, like Menzies, believes the Liberals must keep being a “progressive” party in the context of these times. This is Turnbull’s real vision for the party.

Such a conclusion is deeply provocative for Abbott-led conservatives. The record, moreover, is clearly weighted to Menzies governing over a long period as both a conservative and a liberal. But Turnbull believes Abbott took the party too far to the right and his leadership is tantamount to a correction ­towards what Turnbull would call the centre ground.

Yet Turnbull’s speech is subject to conflicting interpretations. Is it an ­effort to depict Turnbull, not ­Abbott, as the true interpreter of the Menzies tradition? Yes, though Turnbull would probably deny it. But also on display is Turnbull as a political rationalist.

Turnbull, correctly, highlights the absurdity of labels, saying they have “lost almost all meaning”. For instance, he says supporting free trade and open markets, as he and Theresa May have done this week, is a conservative position. They are being true conservatives (and liberals too) but, as Turnbull says, many protectionists these days also call themselves conservatives, notably in the US. His point: playing with labels can be confusing.

Sure. But defining yourself against your opponent is the classic art of politics, and branding and labels are its essence. If Turnbull shuns this, he shuns the art of politics. Bill Shorten was more effective at branding Turnbull than vice versa, as the 2016 campaign proved to Turnbull’s cost.

Ideological branding offends Turnbull’s mind and his view of the complexity of the world. Yet modern politics is riven with volatility, populism and the clash of values. This is the ocean in which Turnbull must swim and prevail.

The conservative wing of the Liberal Party is in ideological crisis, divided between loyalty to the party and disillusionment with Turnbull. The figures are alarming, the latest Newspoll showing the primary vote for the Coalition at 35 per cent, Labor at 36 per cent and One Nation at 11 per cent. The Liberals face ruin on the right and Turnbull needs to confront this.

What is Turnbull’s message to the conservatives to halt this trend? Saying labels are a distraction is not an answer. Telling people Menzies said the Liberals were a progressive party is no answer. Turnbull has still not yet found a way to speak to the party conservatives in the language of the party.

When I interviewed Howard this year, he identified the Liberal dilemma: “There is a danger for the Coalition in losing people who are instinctively conservatives to parties like One Nation. People who vote for One Nation would be, in the main, cultural conservatives and these people should find their natural home in the Liberal Party or National Party. We’ve got to hold on to those people.”

In London, Turnbull should have spoken directly and explic­itly: he should have said the Liberal Party under his leadership is the home of conservative voters — but he didn’t. He should also have said it is the home of liberal voters.

Turnbull tried to dodge or transcend the conservative-liberal tensions by saying the Liberals, above all, stood for freedom. “The Liberal Party stands for freedom or it stands for nothing,” he said. He ­argued this principle dates back to Menzies and “combines both the liberal and conservative traditions” of Howard’s broad church.

Significantly, however, Turnbull did not define or champion his leadership by embracing the Howard conception of the party in which the leader himself seeks to embody both the conservative and liberal traditions. This is pivotal. Turnbull, it seems, cannot do this.

Howard constantly presented his leadership as a mix of conservative and liberal values: consider gun laws, border protection, privatisations, budget surpluses, tax reform, family support, traditional marriage, fighting Islamist terror, honouring the Anzac ethos and backing the fair go.

Turnbull spoke as a centrist PM recruiting “freedom” as his overarching framework. Defending the Coalition’s refugee policy, he said “strong borders are the foundation of a free society”. He warned “the safety of the public” must prevail over the “the privacy of a terrorist”. He said the internet must remain “free and secure” but not “ungoverned”.

Turnbull is effective here ­because he fits his policy with a philosophical stance. But too often this does not occur — the reason being he cannot speak across a range of issues as a values-based cultural conservative. This is the missing link and it shows.

In a Sydney speech yesterday, global strategist and former Liberal director Lynton Crosby said (in generic terms not directed at Turnbull) that success today ­depends on leaders being able to project values aligned with those of the public.

“Policies are the prism through which people make decisions about your values,” Crosby said. In short, don’t expect people to ­reward centrist policies in their own right. What matters is what the policies tell you about the values of the leader. Put another way, the link between policy and values is key. Both need each other. Yet people still complain they are unsure about Turnbull’s convictions.

What is the secret of the Liberals’ success from Menzies through Malcolm Fraser to Howard? It was keeping the party united under the same philosophical umbrella and launching not just policy but values-based attacks on Labor ­reflecting both liberal and conservative philosophy.

Turnbull was right to speak this week on his philosophy of Liberal leadership. As leader, he needs to put his stamp on the party. But how he opts to reconcile the Liberal tradition with his own brand of leadership will decide his fate.