Impressive first article, I very much enjoyed it, but I do have a criticism:
You spent all that time critiquing that conservatives are reactive against the left and how that is a losing battle (all true) but you didn't seem to define a single conservative value - except to be against the left.
This is where you've already lost the fight, to adopt the tactics of the left without clearly defined values will just lead you to devolve into just another left wing faction.
The defining quality of the left is to seize and exercise power for its own sake and for their own gratification, to do the same is to debase yourself. Yes, power hungry lunatics are effective at gaining power but they are terrible at wielding it.
You don't have to ban transgenderism to be against it, it is perfectly reasonable to say that the state will refuse to acknowledge sex changes, will refuse to fund cosmetic surgery, refuse to fund psychological treatment for transgenderism and refuse to permit state education and indoctrination on the topic.
That is more than enough to stop this fad dead in its tracks without infringing on anyone's civil liberties. You can clearly and sharply draw a line and make it clear that you do not support this corruptive practice without forcing a single person to agree with you.
Principles come first and most conservatives seem to have no idea what they stand for anymore.
Find your footing before you go on the attack, there will be plenty of Libertarians cheering you on when you do.
I think you’ve really misread the situation here. The idea that the left wins just because it’s aggressive or uncompromising misses a much deeper truth: it wins because it often reflects the direction society is already moving—toward greater inclusion, more rights, and a better understanding of complex realities. What you describe as “losing ground” is, in many cases, society adapting to what people actually need in an increasingly diverse world. Immigration, gender recognition, and racial justice aren’t leftist plots, they’re responses to lived experience and historical blind spots that older, rigid ideologies just haven’t managed to address meaningfully.
Framing trans rights as moral collapse is not only reductive, it’s profoundly unfair to real people living real lives. You might not agree with the choices some adults make about their bodies or identities, but calling it immoral or pathological dismisses decades of medical insight and, more importantly, the basic principle of individual autonomy. If anything, denying people the right to self-determination runs directly counter to the democratic values conservatives often claim to uphold. No one’s asking you to agree with everything, but writing off an entire group as a symptom of civilisational decay isn’t the answer.
And your take on race politics, particularly around the Voice, feels more like a refusal to engage than a defence of principle. That referendum didn’t fail because the question was wrong; it failed because we still haven’t built a culture capable of listening deeply to the people most affected by dispossession and exclusion. When the left pushes for change in these areas, it’s not about posturing, it’s about trying, however imperfectly, to fix what’s been broken for a long time.
At the end of the day, conservatism isn’t losing because it’s too polite or soft. It’s losing because it keeps looking backward while the world moves on. The left doesn’t win by default, it wins when it offers a vision that feels relevant, humane, and grounded in reality. Change is happening, whether we like it or not. The question is who’s actually trying to shape it for the better.
You say the left succeeds because it reflects society’s evolving values and lived experiences. But when society rejects a major progressive reform like the Voice, suddenly it’s not that the proposal missed the mark, it’s that society isn’t evolved enough to understand it?
That’s a fair question but I don’t think it’s a contradiction, it just shows how complicated progress can be. The Voice to Parliament failed not because the idea was irrelevant, but because it was poorly explained, easily politicised, and came up against a backdrop of mistrust in government and fear of constitutional change and fear will almost always trump reason if it’s prevalent enough.
I think people think of the referendum and think “First Nations people are going to take my land off me or want money from me” and the right of politics played on this fear and were very successful in their “if you don’t know, vote no” message. For many Australians, it felt abstract or unclear. But for First Nations people, the motivation behind it was very real. They’ve consistently called for a formal Voice because they’re still experiencing the consequences of generations of dispossession, systemic neglect, and exclusion.
The data is undeniable for First Nations Australians. They die younger, are more likely to suffer preventable diseases, have lower educational outcomes, and face far greater rates of incarceration and poverty than the general population. The Voice wasn’t about special treatment, it was about improving policies by giving those communities a say in the decisions that directly affect them.
I would go further and say that a treaty is the best way forward because unlike the Voice, it would be a legally recognised agreement between sovereign peoples, something we’ve never had in Australia. Other countries like New Zealand began that process long ago with the Treaty of Waitangi and have subsequently managed indigenous rights infinitely better than Australia ever has. While it’s had its flaws and challenges, it gave the Māori people standing in law, political influence, and cultural recognition that has fundamentally shaped New Zealand’s national identity I’d argue for the better.
In contrast, Australia still hasn’t formally recognised the unique place of its First Nations peoples in the country’s story. The failure of the Voice doesn’t mean the issue goes away, it just means we need a better approach, and a treaty is a natural next step. It’s not about guilt or division; it’s about dignity, partnership, and finally dealing honestly with our shared history.
Impressive first article, I very much enjoyed it, but I do have a criticism:
You spent all that time critiquing that conservatives are reactive against the left and how that is a losing battle (all true) but you didn't seem to define a single conservative value - except to be against the left.
This is where you've already lost the fight, to adopt the tactics of the left without clearly defined values will just lead you to devolve into just another left wing faction.
The defining quality of the left is to seize and exercise power for its own sake and for their own gratification, to do the same is to debase yourself. Yes, power hungry lunatics are effective at gaining power but they are terrible at wielding it.
You don't have to ban transgenderism to be against it, it is perfectly reasonable to say that the state will refuse to acknowledge sex changes, will refuse to fund cosmetic surgery, refuse to fund psychological treatment for transgenderism and refuse to permit state education and indoctrination on the topic.
That is more than enough to stop this fad dead in its tracks without infringing on anyone's civil liberties. You can clearly and sharply draw a line and make it clear that you do not support this corruptive practice without forcing a single person to agree with you.
Principles come first and most conservatives seem to have no idea what they stand for anymore.
Find your footing before you go on the attack, there will be plenty of Libertarians cheering you on when you do.
Great article, keen to read more!
I think you’ve really misread the situation here. The idea that the left wins just because it’s aggressive or uncompromising misses a much deeper truth: it wins because it often reflects the direction society is already moving—toward greater inclusion, more rights, and a better understanding of complex realities. What you describe as “losing ground” is, in many cases, society adapting to what people actually need in an increasingly diverse world. Immigration, gender recognition, and racial justice aren’t leftist plots, they’re responses to lived experience and historical blind spots that older, rigid ideologies just haven’t managed to address meaningfully.
Framing trans rights as moral collapse is not only reductive, it’s profoundly unfair to real people living real lives. You might not agree with the choices some adults make about their bodies or identities, but calling it immoral or pathological dismisses decades of medical insight and, more importantly, the basic principle of individual autonomy. If anything, denying people the right to self-determination runs directly counter to the democratic values conservatives often claim to uphold. No one’s asking you to agree with everything, but writing off an entire group as a symptom of civilisational decay isn’t the answer.
And your take on race politics, particularly around the Voice, feels more like a refusal to engage than a defence of principle. That referendum didn’t fail because the question was wrong; it failed because we still haven’t built a culture capable of listening deeply to the people most affected by dispossession and exclusion. When the left pushes for change in these areas, it’s not about posturing, it’s about trying, however imperfectly, to fix what’s been broken for a long time.
At the end of the day, conservatism isn’t losing because it’s too polite or soft. It’s losing because it keeps looking backward while the world moves on. The left doesn’t win by default, it wins when it offers a vision that feels relevant, humane, and grounded in reality. Change is happening, whether we like it or not. The question is who’s actually trying to shape it for the better.
You say the left succeeds because it reflects society’s evolving values and lived experiences. But when society rejects a major progressive reform like the Voice, suddenly it’s not that the proposal missed the mark, it’s that society isn’t evolved enough to understand it?
That’s a contradiction. So which one is it?
That’s a fair question but I don’t think it’s a contradiction, it just shows how complicated progress can be. The Voice to Parliament failed not because the idea was irrelevant, but because it was poorly explained, easily politicised, and came up against a backdrop of mistrust in government and fear of constitutional change and fear will almost always trump reason if it’s prevalent enough.
I think people think of the referendum and think “First Nations people are going to take my land off me or want money from me” and the right of politics played on this fear and were very successful in their “if you don’t know, vote no” message. For many Australians, it felt abstract or unclear. But for First Nations people, the motivation behind it was very real. They’ve consistently called for a formal Voice because they’re still experiencing the consequences of generations of dispossession, systemic neglect, and exclusion.
The data is undeniable for First Nations Australians. They die younger, are more likely to suffer preventable diseases, have lower educational outcomes, and face far greater rates of incarceration and poverty than the general population. The Voice wasn’t about special treatment, it was about improving policies by giving those communities a say in the decisions that directly affect them.
I would go further and say that a treaty is the best way forward because unlike the Voice, it would be a legally recognised agreement between sovereign peoples, something we’ve never had in Australia. Other countries like New Zealand began that process long ago with the Treaty of Waitangi and have subsequently managed indigenous rights infinitely better than Australia ever has. While it’s had its flaws and challenges, it gave the Māori people standing in law, political influence, and cultural recognition that has fundamentally shaped New Zealand’s national identity I’d argue for the better.
In contrast, Australia still hasn’t formally recognised the unique place of its First Nations peoples in the country’s story. The failure of the Voice doesn’t mean the issue goes away, it just means we need a better approach, and a treaty is a natural next step. It’s not about guilt or division; it’s about dignity, partnership, and finally dealing honestly with our shared history.