The Liberal Party’s future can’t be teal progressivism

There have been many interesting reactions to the Liberal Party's catastrophic loss on May 3. But surely one of the most bizarre has been how leading progressive voices in the party have declared it needs "modernisation" and a focus on the values and priorities of contemporary Australians, while at the same time referring to a speech given in Britain almost 25 years ago as a guide to the party's future.

With odd uniformity, luminaries such as George Brandis, James McGrath, Simon Birmingham, have pointed to the words of Theresa May who, at the turn of the last century, labelled her party the "nasty party"

These figures argue this was a turning point. It led to David Cameron – "a liberal Tory somewhat resembling Malcolm Turnbull," in Brandis's words – taking control. Cameron's agenda promoted renewable energy regardless of the cost, embraced practically all left-wing social liberal causes, while at the same time implementing an economic "austerity" which was borne by the less fashionable parts of the country.

Organisationally, McGrath talks of the need for a Cameron-style reform, where progressive A-list candidates are selected by an elite group. Apparently, this is what we need now.

The most obvious response to such grand theorising is to ask: have any of these people picked up a British newspaper lately?

No one sensible in Westminster believes Cameron-style politics is the future for the centre-right in Britain. Indeed, it seems the only people in the world talking like this now are some provincial Australians. News flash: last year the British Conservative Party suffered one of its worst ever defeats.

It is widely recognised that this was due to the party's failure to do anything about mass immigration. For years they had promised to "take back control" but instead let numbers get completely out of hand with more people migrating to the UK in the last 20 years than in the last thousand. The Tories are now dramatically changing course on this and other issues.

They have now said net zero is impossible and would bankrupt the country. Their leader, a woman, has no difficulty defining one – unlike Liberals in Australia.

Across the board their leadership are talking about cutting immigration drastically, not just trimming the sides.

If progressives in the Liberal Party want to use examples from Britain as their model for the future, then they need to get with the times. The advice they are providing is about as delusional as saying the royals need to become more like Meghan Markle to save the monarchy.

They also need to look out the window. Currently the largest jurisdiction in the entire Anglo commonwealth with the centre-right government is Queensland. But Premier David Crisafulli did not owe his electoral success to using Cameron-style slogans. He won by promising "adult time for adult crime".

Progressive Liberals love to talk about the need to reach out to women, but if they summoned the courage to talk to some of them in real-life they would discover some interesting things.

If you push them, even "teal yoga mums" are surprisingly receptive to cuts to immigration. The ridiculous scenes in Sydney's eastern suburbs, where the riot squad was called in to restore order in selective school exams, are viewed with dismay. They worry what mass immigration will mean for their kids' ability to afford a house. Australian women, like those in Europe and elsewhere, also have growing concerns about their personal safety in increasingly "diverse" neighbourhoods. Simply saying the answer to this is more female candidates is patronising.

Now they don't want to hear these issues discussed by yahoos or from those simply looking for cheap social media likes. They will listen to reasonable arguments on immigration and other subjects if delivered by professional people in a mature adult way.

The wannabe teal Liberals do a great disservice to Theresa May. She was about more than cosmetic window dressing. By the time she became prime minister she recognised that politics had changed. She knew what was required was more than a Thatcherite revival or creating a team blue version of Tony Blair.

While she is criticised for the way she handled the difficult politics of Brexit, it is often overlooked that she won more former Labor "red wall" seats than Boris Johnson. She did this with a more "Red Tory" economic nationalist agenda, one focused far less on financial trading in the city of London and more on building industry in the regions. Philosophically, May urged people to look more at the thinking of leaders, such as Benjamin Disraeli and Joseph Chamberlain, rather than just Milton Friedman.

If the Australian centre-right is genuinely looking to Britain for models for the future it could do far worse than focus on what Danny Kruger, Miriam Cates, Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick are saying. It is not only immigration but trade, foreign policy, family policy and the entire economic model of modern western countries that needs to be radically re-examined.

Of course, all politics is local. But there are trends and new ideas to bear in mind.

Australians don't like Donald Trump's bombastic style. They also find the over-the-top rhetorical Oxbridge performances of Boris Johnson a bit silly. But they are up for a genuine discussion on how to repair our country delivered in a plainly worded, down-to-earth Australian way.

At some level, most people recognise that a dramatic restructuring of the existing bipartisan policy framework needs to happen. What is in place now is not working.

The future of the Liberal Party is not teal progressivism pushed by those from yesteryear. Nor is it some open-borders market-above-all utopia, which sees Australia as nothing more than an economic zone. The future is a thoughtful new conservatism.