Arresting the slide
Up until 20 years ago, the Liberal Party was the preferred choice among female voters. To win back this key demographic, the Liberals must do better at articulating the enduring appeal of its core values for a new generation of females - and abiding by them even when under challenge. By Amanda Stoker.
The midterm elections in the US highlighted a demographic trend that is reflected in Australia, and that we should heed if we are to ensure the electoral success of the Liberal Party into the future.
It is the rise in the number of single women in the Australian community, and the consistency of their recent voting behaviour.
That demographic change presents a challenge, and offers an opportunity, to our Party.
Yet, one thing is absolutely true: we ignore women at our peril.
None of this is to dismiss the importance of other demographic groups, nor is it to suggest that identity politics should play a greater role in what we do. It is, however, to confront an electoral reality: single women have never been less inclined to support the Liberal Party.
This is particularly interesting given that, in Menzies’ time, women were the Coalition’s most numerous and consistent supporters.
Of the 44 federal electorates with the highest proportion of single adults under 35, Labor, the Greens or Independents hold every single one. One of the Coalition-held seats with an above average proportion of single adults is Forde, in the southern suburbs of Brisbane, largely in the Logan City Council area, and very ably represented by Bert Van Manen MP. There, the single women usually have children and are living a very different life, with very different concerns, from the single women of inner Melbourne or Sydney.
Given the passionate engagement of highly educated, professional and urban women in the public debate about women and politics, it is easy to miss the fact that most single voting women have a Forde-style life, rather than an inner-city one.
The data shows that as a Party we currently do a better job of listening to and appealing to the needs of the women, single and otherwise, of the suburban belt, than we do of the comparatively well-educated, professional and well-to-do in Australia’s inner cities.
Yet, whatever path they are walking, all Australian women’s ambitions, hopes and anxieties matter.
It’s also worth observing that the same social change that has delivered a consistent trend of higher numbers of unmarried women, higher numbers of women in defacto relationships and higher numbers of women who raise children alone, has also seen the weakening of the bonds of civil society that once helped women through the hardships that can arise as a consequence.
The number of unmarried women in Australia has increased steadily over the last two decades.
None of this is to judge the lives of women: we all walk our own path, for our own reasons. Individual choice is a fundamental belief for which we stand.
But it is not a surprise that, when faced with the difficulties of life that so often are borne alone by the women on this life journey, many women find the promise of big government and social redistribution appealing, especially when dressed up as “compassion”.
This demographic story is yet another example of the way in which politics is downstream from culture. The choice that the Liberal Party faces is whether it will handle that by simply aping the policies and values of the parties to which those women are currently attracted, or whether it will seek to win those women over by showing the way that Liberal values are relevant to, and present their best hope, even in current challenges.
For small government isn’t about denying help to those who need it; it is about unleashing the creativity and ingenuity of people everywhere in a way that provides for human need and supports human progress in a way that rigid, one-size-fits-all governments never could.
Our belief in individual choice and individual responsibility isn’t about leaving the needy out in the cold; it’s about observing that a successful life grows when we learn from our mistakes, rather than being insulated from them. It’s about the truth of human diversity – that we all have a different definition of what makes a satisfying life. No socialist promise of equal outcomes can account for the richness of life that doesn’t manifest in dollars and cents.
And in our willingness to defend fundamental rights of free thought, association, worship and speech we protect the institutions that have delivered a liberty and prosperity transcending any fashion of the moment. It is an intellectual and practical consistency that means we can be trusted in good times and bad.
Living within our means, equality of opportunity, the power of capitalism to lift living standards for those most in need and sound stewardship of our society, institutions and environment are as good now as they have always been.
They are as sure a recipe for electoral success as they were in the time of Menzies or Howard – if we are prepared to boldly articulate them for a new generation and abide by them even when under challenge. But that will take work, courage and a willingness to engage in, rather than just concede, difficult arguments, whether they arise in relation to women’s concerns about work, housing, the cost of living, planning for retirement, educating and caring for their children, safety, supporting their elders as they age or being valued and treated fairly.
There is only one non-option: to ignore the needs, aspirations, hopes and fears of this formidable and numerous section of the Australian community. To do that would be electoral suicide.
Amanda Stoker is a former LNP senator for Queensland and a distinguished fellow of the Menzies Research Centre.
