What went wrong? This time a year ago, Peter Dutton and the Coalition were riding high in the polls, still surfing the extraordinary Voice victory wave. In July of last year, we wrote: ‘The next federal election is there to be won. Peter Dutton and the Coalition have the ability to win it, although polls at the moment suggest a minority government one way or the other. So what does Mr Dutton need to do to turn a likely narrow miss into a narrow win?’

We then listed a series of policies that the Coaliton needed to adopt, many of them so-called ‘culture wars’ issues: ‘The Coalition needs to rekindle the fighting spirit that saw Peter Dutton and Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price comprehensively defeat the Voice across every state and territory bar the ACT… on the principle that “you cannot divide Australians by race”’.

We also suggested: ‘The Coalition should commit to banning all “queer ideology” from the school curriculum, banning transgender medical intervention for minors and banning biological males from all female-only places and activities. Senator Claire Chandler should be put in charge of this initiative.’ And we added: ‘The Coalition needs to oppose Labor more strenuously on immigration, and commit to introducing a German-style test for legal immigrants to determine whether they hold any anti-Semitic attitudes or beliefs.’

As 2024 wore on, and Peter Dutton appeared keen to articulate sensible policies such as ditching the multiple flags favoured by the Prime Minister, and even hinting that Welcomes to Country could be curtailed, this magazine, followed by many other media outlets, predicted a possible win for the Coalition at the 2025 election. Moreover, as economically things went from bad to worse for Australians, it seemed highly unlikely stressed voters would return a Labor government, the cause of their hip-pocket pain.

So what went wrong?

A pivotal turning point can be found in our editorial of 21 September, 2024, headlined ‘The narrow church’, in which we wrote: ‘As Labor sinks in the ideological mire of its own making, Peter Dutton’s Liberal party, and the Coalition, continue to rise in the polls. Many attribute this success, and the increasingly likely return of the Coalition to government within the next eight months, to Mr Dutton maintaining unity within the party, in keeping with Mr Howard’s ‘broad church’ doctrine. But is this true? Or is it, rather, that every time Mr Dutton heads in a more conservative and less ‘woke’ direction he is successful? The success of the Coalition in winning the Voice referendum against all perceived wisdom (other than, of course, this magazine) was because Mr Dutton wholeheartedly embraced the conservative position and rejected those ‘bedwetters’ within the Liberal party who supported the Yes campaign. In other words, it was the ‘narrow church’ that led to such a resounding victory. And it is the ‘narrow church’ of the Liberal party that is driven by conviction; namely, traditional conservative, ‘Thatcherite’ convictions around smaller government, free speech, freedom of expression, patriotism, encouraging business, supporting nuclear power, and so on.’ We continued: ‘The irony is, of course, that at the very moment Mr Dutton can sniff victory in the wind, he has fallen into the socialist, authoritarian trap of “online safety” that is the very antithesis of those convictions….’

Indeed, towards the end of last year, Mr Dutton began to appear less confident about his conservative leanings. Senator Price disappeared from sight, and one after another, the opposition leader began to adopt Labor-lite positions, including voting for the disgraceful anti-free speech ‘hate speech’ laws and backing the Orwellian eSafety Commissioner.

Whereas the election of President Donald Trump should have galvanised the opposition leader, it instead appeared to terrify him. As we wrote, somewhat presciently, on this page in March: ‘Shortly after the re-election of Mr Trump, Mr Dutton made a rather peculiar comment along the lines that there was “nothing to be afraid of” from Mr Trump’s re-election. Hardly a full-throated endorsement. This was then followed by the single greatest error Mr Dutton has made as leader of the Liberal party, and one which could well cost him the election; which was to explicitly rule out quitting the Paris Agreement and abandoning net zero.’

From thereon in, the Coalition simply turned to mush. No policy was made with any conviction, decisions were adopted then just as swiftly abandoned, and Mr Dutton lumbered around the election campaign all by himself like a lost new boy on his first day at school, eager to make friends of whomever he met.

A month ago, midway through the excruciating campaign, we asked whether Peter Dutton ‘had any of the mongrel in him?’ The campaign itself was not only devoid of meaty policies, and certainly nothing to force waverers to make a hard choice on (which is what occurred with the Voice referendum), but worse, had no fighting spirit to inspire undecided voters.

Australians deserve much better. Adhering to the ‘broad church’ led directly to this result. The Liberal party will only ever be successful and relevant again if it offers a clear and passionate alternative to Labor’s ever-increasingly socialist agenda. Not a sad and pale version of it.