Malcolm Turnbull’s knifing of Tony Abbott is proven to be a disaster, not only for the Liberal Party but also for the nation. After calling this pointless election, the government has scraped back only because of the Nationals and also Victorian Labor’s attack on their volunteer firefighters which significantly reduced the Labor vote in that state.

This is a Pyrrhic victory with the Liberal Party trashed, the heartland betrayed, our AAA credit rating put under greater threat and Abbott’s hard-won gains squandered.  And even though they were the very triggers Turnbull chose for the double dissolution yet hardly campaigned on, passing Abbott’s bills to clean up the building industry and ensure all trade unions are run for the members and not as union bosses’ personal fiefdoms is now unlikely.

Turnbull has enhanced, refreshed and empowered a totally unreformed Labor opposition who have learned nothing from the excesses of the Rudd and Gillard governments. Shorten, who proved a more effective campaigner, realized that Labor would significantly improve their position thanks to this ill-chosen election.

But by his reliance on a misrepresentation of Turnbull’s words, the lie that became known as ‘Mediscare’ and a determination to be profligate, he has demonstrated why he should not be prime minister.

As for the party, until Labor places itself under the financial tutelage of someone of the inestimable quality of Hawke’s great finance minister, Peter Walsh, it can never be fit to rule. Walsh, imbued with traditional Labor values and the financial understanding of a successful farmer, slashed spending and delivered not one, but three surpluses. That he also voted No against the constitutionally dangerous politicians’ republic − he told me so− is testimony to his political wisdom.

Turnbull, no paragon of financial virtue, needs his Peter Walsh. He succumbs too easily to the folly that any problem, real or imagined − such as global warming − can be solved by spending billions of taxpayers’ dollars or imposing wildly excessive pricing such as that for electricity.

Another example of a gross misuse of funds is education, constitutionally a matter for the states and the states alone. The more money Canberra dispenses, the more standards decline in comparison with other countries.

In the meantime the commentariat, who had confidently predicted a comfortable win for their protégé, are now prescribing the ways in which he should change.

Although he now smiles when he once scowled, does ‘selfies’, is filmed on public transport, and may well soon eat raw onions, Turnbull is unlikely to change in any fundamental way.

Whether or not he suffers from the narcissistic personality disorder diagnosed by Dr Brendan Nelson, he regularly demonstrates a curious lack of judgment and common sense, the latest being calling this election.

Another was his pre-election assault, like a thief in the night, on superannuation, contrary to proper process and despite the government’s promises and assurances including Treasurer Morrison’s that they would “not be coming after people’s superannuation”.

This was perceived as a treacherous attack not only against the Liberal base, but also against uncommitted aspirational voters in marginal seats.

Morrison’s insistence that because this signal breach of trust would only affect a small minority it was justified was as appalling as Kelly O’Dwyer’s bloodcurdling assertion that superannuation concessions are the ‘gift of the government’. So everything we earn and own belongs to the government and it is only through the politicians’ grace, favour and benevolence that we may keep some of this. This is apparently the mindset of the elites in the Turnbull government; it is totally unacceptable.

Exit polls confirmed this with over one-third of voters regarding this is an important issue. Polling in marginal seats found 50 % of those under 33 and 35% overall believed they were affected.  Turnbull should not have been surprised when party members went on strike and donors closed their wallets.

Turnbull will not go voluntarily, but for the sake of the government, the party and the country, he must. When knifing Abbott he claimed he would provide such a slogan-free economic narrative that he would lead the polls and win in a landslide probably better than Abbott’s.   He has failed spectacularly.

Nor should his succession be left in the hands of − as Alan Jones described them, the ‘bed wetters’ − those who naively condoned the knifing of Abbott on performance indicators they should have known he could never achieve.

Surely it is time that the Liberal Party followed the example set by so many parties in comparable countries and involve their members as well as, I would suggest, its registered supporters in the choice of the new leader.

The Liberal Party in recent years has, like the Labor Party, lost members as it has become, at least in New South Wales, the preserve of a cabal of powerbrokers some of who are also lobbyists and who thus have a serious conflict of interest in being involved in any preselection.

There is one important aspect of Liberal Party membership and governance which must be considered. This relates to the oft-repeated mantra that the Liberal party is a broad church. This is true to the extent that the Liberal party is a mix of Tories and Whigs, or in Australian terms, conservative and liberal traditions.

But this does not extend to it being yet another institution to be occupied in the long march of the left in taking over and undermining our democracy. Otherwise the Liberal Party will join the myriad of left wing parties over-represented in Parliament. A true Liberal Party is not profligate, does not misuse the defence budget to shore up seats, does not join in the persecution of farmers, is not opposed to dams, does not support a Marxist designed program in the schools to change society and abuse children, does not tolerate treacherous interlopers who refuse to accept fundamental institutions and values and certainly does not go after the superannuation scrimped and saved by Menzies ‘forgotten people’ who try never to be a charge on the taxpayers.

The power brokers, lobbyists and ‘bed wetters’ are as likely to agree to the members taking back their party as many politicians are to Australians taking back their country. If there is no progress after a reasonable period from the election, the members must themselves take back their party just as the Australian people took back the federation process from the politicians in 1893 at Corowa.

David Flint is presenter of ‘Safe Worlds – Conversations with Conservatives’ on Safe Worlds TV and YouTube