3 weeks ago
9
Opinion
February 5, 2026 — 5:02am
In their darker moments, which these days strike more often, run deeper and last longer, Liberals of every hue concede the problems confronting their party and the Coalition more broadly are unfixable.
They fear the Coalition is beyond repair, that the Nationals will fall victim to a rampaging One Nation, and that the Liberals’ path to government could take a generation to build, assuming a path even exists and assuming also the Liberal Party continues to exist in its present form, which they doubt.
Naturally there are those who think it is fixable and that by the next election many voters who have deserted to One Nation will come to their senses and return to the fold.
There is still some whistling in the dark, and a helluva lot of dog whistling in the dark right now in the former Coalition.
Those fearing the worst are right. It has taken two catastrophic election defeats and the prospect of a third to recognise, understand and accept the crisis in centre-right ranks.
After the 2022 election, Liberals avoided working out what they stood for and did next to nothing to win back those they had lost. After the 2025 election it was obvious the only way to resolve their identity crisis was to separate from the Nationals.
It was a mistake to reunite so quickly after the first split, and there is no great enthusiasm for another hasty reunion, particularly, but not only, among moderate Liberals. One senior Liberal described the second split as “the UAP moment”, referring to the disintegration of conservative forces that precipitated the founding of the Liberal Party by Robert Menzies 81 years ago.
A growing number of MPs privately concede the differences within and between the parties are intractable and irreconcilable, so entrenched that neither leadership changes nor a re-formed Coalition can resolve them.
Liberals with a flair for black humour predict it will get worse before it gets much worse, as Australia’s centre-right parties prepare for a painful, inevitable and essential realignment.
Former Liberal Party official Tony Barry, whose Redbridge polling group reported One Nation had soared to 26 per cent, overtaking the Coalition on 19 per cent, was brutal about the failure to face reality: “These guys are arguing over who gets to be mayor of Hiroshima as the Enola Gay appears over the horizon.”
Voters yearn for alternatives. That is part of One Nation’s appeal, which should subside if it is exposed as a haven for professional whingers who despise modern Australia and policy wonks with solutions on how to improve it unless they want to Make Australia White Again, and if the once-major parties concentrate on economic reforms.
Other entities could emerge. In what form and with whom nobody knows, including for those in the middle of the storm.
There will be more defections. Moderate Liberals are talking and working on a breakaway progressive party. Conservative Liberals could merge with the Nationals. The teals cherish their independence, so lean towards a formalised central bureau to help MPs and candidates with policy research, campaigning and fundraising. If they could be guaranteed the same freedoms they have now with a new kind of party they might be tempted.
Meanwhile, leadership changes loom. Senior Nationals say David Littleproud is safe for now. Senior Liberals – except Sussan Ley’s numbers man, Alex Hawke – agree she is toast.
If Angus Taylor has the numbers next week, likely boosted by another devastating poll, he will use them. If not, he aims to strike before the budget in May. Like many others, Taylor is in no rush to reform the Coalition. He wants freedom to zero in on the economy – the one issue that can unify the party – without worrying what the Nationals might do.
The right, and certain moderates, hope Taylor can do better than Ley. They stop short of predicting he will succeed. One senior conservative put it this way:“Taylor will be our next opposition leader, but Hastie could be our next prime minister.”
Andrew Hastie has withdrawn from the leadership race and despite requests is unlikely to run as deputy. He needs experience in an economic portfolio – which both Ley and Peter Dutton denied him – and to be ready to run if Taylor crashes and burns.
Ley’s gender and branding as a moderate have little do with her dire predicament. She failed to stand up on policies like net zero and quotas, then mishandled the response to the Bondi massacre. Left and right were exasperated by her passive posture on climate change. One MP described her as no more than a notetaker during party room discussions.
Many of her colleagues see her as an opportunist, driven by concerns for her leadership rather than core beliefs. As revealed in my book Earthquake, many do not trust her. They believed she and/or her office leaked to the media and canvassed votes for the leadership before and during the election campaign.
Ley treated Bondi as her path to resurrection. According to both moderates and conservatives who heard them say it, Ley and her office were convinced it would have the same impact on Albanese as the loss of the Voice referendum. Colleagues were unimpressed by the overtly political nature of her approach.
Albanese’s colleagues say he was poleaxed by the immediate, unwarranted and unedifying blame heaped on him for the killings on December 14.
He struggled for weeks, stubbornly refusing to establish a royal commission, then, after he did, pretended he planned to call one all along. Watching him and Ley was excruciating and embarrassing.
It is a rare thing in Australia that after a national tragedy all three leaders of the main political parties lose support.
In this environment Liberals have to be fully transparent about the reasons for their existential crisis. The party’s federal executive wobbled in December when Peter Dutton messaged the federal president, John Olsen, while it was discussing the formal election review and threatened to sue the party if it was released unedited.
Next month the executive has to decide whether to publish and be damned or censor and be damned by its membership and voters for wilting and modifying the report into why they suffered the worst result in their history.
Although I have not seen the review by former federal cabinet minister Nick Minchin and former state cabinet minister Pru Goward, neither renowned for pulling punches, I understand it mirrors findings detailed in Earthquake, which has been on sale since November.
Niki Savva is a regular columnist. Her column will appear on the first Thursday of every month.
The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.
