Who You Gonna Trust?

Kemi Badenoch and Angus Taylor can announce all the Right-wing policies they like – but until they win back trust from voters they betrayed, it counts for nothing, says James Allan. The reputation problem is existential.

6 min read
Subscribe to Listen

The writer is in Australia.

If you were asked to boil down today’s Australian and British Right-of-Centre politics to one short question, this would be it. Who you gonna trust, baby? And it is that issue that is making life for both Angus Taylor and Kemi Badenoch so diabolically difficult. They can repeatedly announce good, or even world’s best, policies till they’re blue in the face. They first have to overcome the threshold issue of whether their core voters – or rather the voters who used to be their base and core supporters, but have now moved off to One Nation and to Reform – trust them to do what they now say they will do. And for many, many of these formerly loyal voters the brutal answer is “No, whatever you now promise I’ve wised up after what you did to us for so many years.” These apostate voters don’t trust them on immigration, on winding back and repealing any of the progressive-Left statutory idiocies, on fighting the desperately-needs-to-be-fought culture wars, on taking on the massively biased legacy media and universities, on moving back to sane energy policies that are prepared to ignore the entire transnational renewables elites, on civil liberties, on not being big spending, big taxing Labour-lite clones, etc.

As the Bard famously wrote, “The purest treasure mortal times afford is spotless reputation – that away, men are but gilded loam, or painted clay.” And both Badenoch and Taylor were senior Cabinet ministers in these supposedly Right-of-Centre governments. What type of governments? Well, ones that didn’t look remotely conservative, small government or low-taxing, while being thuggish and overseeing the biggest attacks on our civil liberties in 200 years.

And here I can’t resist a digression for those who think any sort of bill of rights is anything other than a vehicle to transfer power to a judicial elite that patently leans two standard deviations to the Left of the median voter. There is not a single, solitary example across the entire democratic world of a judge anywhere who used his or her country’s bill of rights to invalidate, enervate or just denounce in some sort of declaration any of the made-up out of thin air and massively heavy-handed Covid regulations. Not a single one, despite the proliferation of senseless diktats for some – not others – to close their businesses, keep kids home from school, stay out of the park or off the golf course, don’t go to church, wear a mask (sometimes, not when eating), social distance at some made-up distance away – the unsupported by any convincing evidence edicts going off into the horizon, and all while they spent and taxed worse than Lefty governments. Put differently, we had a real-world experiment on the worth of bills of rights and it proved old Jymbo has been right for the last 25 years. Buy a bill of rights and you simply buy the moral and political preferences of a judicial elite. They’ll use a bill of rights immediately should someone claim refugee status. But indulge in the most authoritarian attacks on our civil liberties in centuries – attacks that didn’t really hit the judges themselves – and it’s “Nothing to do with us guys.”

But digression aside, both Badenoch and Taylor were senior Cabinet ministers in these governments that sold out their core voters. Neither resigned from Cabinet on principle. (Yes, yes, we all know the tired refrain that “I can do more good staying inside the tent and trying to ameliorate things,” but a lot of voters simply don’t buy that ex post facto rationalisation.) The entire Tory and Coalition teams seemed happy to abandon any sense of fight against the Left and basically to look very much like Labour-lite clones. You simply can’t deny that.

And hence, in my humble opinion, the most pressing, crucial issue for Taylor, Badenoch, the Libs and Tories, is nothing more nor less than “How do we win back trust?”. Every statement, every announcement, every press release should be aimed solely at that goal. Because Shakespeare was right. Reputation matters. Lose it and you have the credibility of painted clay. So Angus can announce he’ll cut immigration. But lots of former Lib voters look at who he’s put in the Shadow Cabinet, they look at what’s happening with the broken delegate system and they flat out do not believe he will be able to make any meaningful cuts, whatever he says. The same goes for ditching Net Zero. Is Taylor infinitely better qualified to make the nuanced changes that will help us escape from the climate doomsterist, self-sacrificing idiocies? Yes. But voters first need to believe that he will and, more importantly, that he can get the changes through a party room that since Turnbull has looked incredibly, well, Turnbullesque. (How else does one explain the MPs’ vote for Sussan Ley after Dutton opted to try to win ‘Coward of the Century’ and run a Seinfeldian campaign about nothing?)

Badenoch, finally, seems to be grasping this brutal reality. She has announced that no Tory candidates can win preselection who do not openly agree to leave the European Convention of Human Rights and to ditch Net Zero. Good. Of course even here there is ambiguity, as it’s not clear whether it applies to current high-profile Tory MPs. But it’s plain Taylor needs to do something similar.

And staying in Australia, once you realise you’re in the game of trying to win back trust the first thing that would help is an open, frank apology that lists what the party did that you now accept was wrong. Not vague generalities about getting a few things wrong. Specifics. And in this attempt to win back trust, tell me why anyone would promise to wind back Net Zero but not be willing to leave the Paris Accords? It’s political malpractice. I have heard lawyers say it would call into question our commitment to international agreements. So? It was Morrison’s bogus genuflections at the feet of transnational bodies and international financiers’ supposed pressures – a pathetic excuse from this man who gives Turnbull a close run for being the worst Liberal Prime Minister ever – that partly got us into the plight we’re in now. When One Nation says, plainly and simply, we’ll leave Paris on day one, that wins an awful lot of votes. Because voters trust that will happen (and for non-lawyers it’s an executive power that the Senate, where the Greens will have the last word, could not block). And they trust Hanson actually to cut immigration. Were I Taylor, I would immediately name a maximum number of yearly immigrants for the first two years, not higher than 100,000, and combine that with an explicit promise that he and his entire Cabinet will resign from Parliament if that’s not met. Worry about linking immigration to housing after that.

You simply cannot win back anywhere near enough trust by focusing on economic details and attacking One Nation for dealing in values and big-picture policies. They are the party conservative voters trust. You are not. It’s asymmetrical. So everything you do should be to win back trust, a Herculean task.

Right now it’s not clear that the Libs even see that this is their core task. Let’s be blunt. They don’t have a spotless reputation. So act as though you knew that and were trying to fix it.

Dr James Allan is the Garrick Professor of Law at Queensland University. This article was first published in Spectator Australia.

Comments

This week across the site:

Email me alerts for this discussion
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

21 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Howard Arnaud
Howard Arnaud
1 month ago

I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that the only way to save democracy is to do away with universal suffrage.

It’s becoming harder to defend to idea that people who contribute nothing to society by way of productive or strictly necessary activity should have the same voting power as those who make a positive contribution to the nation’s wealth.

In the UK (and the US) there used to be a sound understanding of the relationship between property ownership, freedom, and wealth, and for almost 500 years property ownership was a condition of the franchise, only being finally removed in 1918.

Is it any coincidence we’ve been going downhill ever since?

Put simply, property ownership means skin in the game.

A restricted franchise wouldn’t do away with party politics of course, but at least we might have people in power who understand where wealth comes from, instead of those who are elected to take from the productive and give it to the indolent.

Pretty radical, but without radical change, this country is headed to the poorhouse.

Howard Arnaud
Howard Arnaud
1 month ago

I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that the only way to save democracy is to do away with universal suffrage.

It’s becoming harder to defend to idea that people who contribute nothing to society by way of productive or strictly necessary activity should have the same voting power as those who make a positive contribution to the nation’s wealth.

In the UK (and the US) there used to be a sound understanding of the relationship between property ownership, freedom, and wealth, and for almost 500 years property ownership was a condition of the franchise, only being finally removed in 1918.

Is it any coincidence we’ve been going downhill ever since?

Put simply, property ownership means skin in the game.

A restricted franchise wouldn’t do away with party politics of course, but at least we might have people in power who understand where wealth comes from, instead of those who are elected to take from the productive and give it to the indolent.

Pretty radical, but without radical change, this country is headed to the poorhouse.

jsampson45
jsampson45
1 month ago
Reply to  Howard Arnaud

It has more to do with becoming godless.

Howard Arnaud
Howard Arnaud
1 month ago
Reply to  jsampson45

Socialism is a direct replacement for Christianity.

Burngate
Burngate
1 month ago

Possibly.
Badenoch was expecting to lose, but was shocked by the scale of the disaster.
So she’s trying to do something about it.
Faberge, meanwhile, is just on a bandwagon of his own making. People hope he won’t be worse, but have no data.

Purpleone
Purpleone
1 month ago
Reply to  Burngate

I don’t think it’s possible for Reform *to* be worse…. Never again will I trouble the conservatives with my vote, as long as I live…

RTSC
RTSC
1 month ago

“Trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair.” 

I don’t care what Badenough and the CONs say; we had 14 years of deliberate betrayal the last time they were in power and both she and many of the others participated in it at senior level.

Badenough lobbied to increase 3rd world immigration by students and their dependants.
She refused to repeal 3,400 pieces of EU legislation already scheduled to go.

The CON Party is stuffed with the people who betrayed their voters and they have not had a Damascene Conversion:

Cameron, Osborne, Hague, May, Johnson, Sunak, Mitchell, Hunt, Hammond, Wallace, Goldsmith …. all those who colluded with Labour and tried to overturn Brexit and then blocked LEAVE and supported the Windsor Treachery …. are still there.

And that’s before we get onto the Covid Tyranny and the subsequent policies.

I have 4 million 3rd world reasons, plus tens of thousands of Wallace’s unvetted Afghans, for never voting to be CONNED again.

Never forget, never forgive.

shred
shred
1 month ago
Reply to  RTSC

Kemi is continuing her scheme of stealing Reform policies and trying re-educate socialist/green MPs such as Sir Roger Gale. Is he expected to change his beliefs after a lifelong existence as chameleon? It would be more convincing if she just retired him.

DiscoveredJoys
DiscoveredJoys
1 month ago

David Cameron immediately resigned when the Referendum produced a result he didn’t respect.
Theresa May strove mightily to implement a Brexit In Name Only.
Boris Johnson did get a half assed Brexit done but crumpled when faced with COVID lock downs.
Liz Truss immediately fell foul of the Very Important People who cared more for their own concerns.
Rishi Sunak turned out to be a place holder.
And all of them nodded along with Tony Blair’s constitutional damage.

If the Conservative Party was a soap opera it wouldn’t get a new season, no matter how well the new script was written.

Tyrbiter
Tyrbiter
1 month ago
Reply to  DiscoveredJoys

All this is true, but I was watching Peter Hitchens on Triggernometry and I agree with him that the British voter will have to learn to vote against what is not wanted rather than voting for what is.

I’d love to say I will never support the uniparties again, but I am beginning to think that sometimes you have to break your new rule for fear of finding something worse.

GroundhogDayAgain
GroundhogDayAgain
1 month ago
Reply to  Tyrbiter

He was saying this in 2024 pre election. He wasn’t wrong about us getting a dangerous labour govt, but his remedy was to vote blue. In other words, more of the same. I just couldn’t do it, although labour won by a mile in my town so my vote for Reform did nothing.

Although I understand his point, that’s not the way to change anything.

EppingBlogger
EppingBlogger
1 month ago

For Badenock the history is worse than you say. She was not just an MP during the 14 years. She did not have done obscure departmental responsibilities that kept her away from the debate on social, woke and justice issues. She was not remote from the immigration complaints.

Dhe was deeply involved. Culpable.

transmissionofflame
transmissionofflame
1 month ago
Reply to  EppingBlogger

A lockdown enthusiast.

Lockdown Sceptic
Lockdown Sceptic
1 month ago

Kemi Badenoch was joking about Binface and Farage in the Commons a couple of days after Anne Widecombe was murdered. Obviously this drew great guffaws from the 600 or so MPs currently destroying this country.

transmissionofflame
transmissionofflame
1 month ago

There’s nothing in the US Bill of Rights that is overly applicable to lockdowns. Plenty of other parts that are upheld, most notably freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, searches and seizures, confront the witnesses against you.

EppingBlogger
EppingBlogger
1 month ago

Freedom of speech doesn’t work if social media and the press close the doors to alternative opinions. Which they did in the USA as much as here and in cooperation with the political class.

transmissionofflame
transmissionofflame
1 month ago
Reply to  EppingBlogger

The 1st amendment only applies to the Federal Government and by extension to the States and Federal and State bodies. It doesn’t apply to private entities and I am not sure how it could, in practice, and I am not sure it would be a good idea. The Bill of Rights was intended to curtail government interference in people’s private business and lives.

Tyrbiter
Tyrbiter
1 month ago

And that is the big lesson of why the US needed to amend the constitution for the first time to extend this limitation on government power.

We could really do with exactly that arrangement in Britain but no doubt our rather biased Supreme Court (thanks B.Liar) would not be as robust in defending such a requirement.

transmissionofflame
transmissionofflame
1 month ago
Reply to  Tyrbiter

A written document is no guarantee but at least it’s a reference point, though ultimately it is up to the people to defend their freedoms.

GroundhogDayAgain
GroundhogDayAgain
1 month ago

But when Musk bought Twitter and released the email trails, it was proven that the US government was breaking the spirit of the 1st Amendment while also saying it’s a private company’s right to curtail speech.

We noticed, but no outpouring of rage from anyone else.

transmissionofflame
transmissionofflame
1 month ago

Yes they sailed close to the line. This decision Murthy v. Missouri – Wikipedia hinged on whether the plaintiffs had standing – the majority said they didn’t. The almost always reliable Thomas and Alito dissented, to their credit, as did the somewhat libertarian Gorsuch. Barrett, Kavanaugh and especially Roberts can be a bit wishy washy. I am no legal expert and have not read the opinions in detail but would think that in a free speech case, everyone has standing because everyone is affected.

Thank you for reading. Please help us keep the Daily Sceptic going by becoming a donor.