The more conservative media has decided that Morrison has “made a good start to his prime ministership”, with his realisation that the Liberal party should be “centre-right, not centre-left”, but takes a crack at his religious beliefs, naming “fiery sermons” and “speaking in tongues”.

Not many of us would be comfortable with fire and brimstone and speaking in tongues; but both are harmless to the general public, who are at liberty to decide what they think about such things. Morrison has been long enough in politics to show that whatever he does on Sundays and in his private life will never impinge on his day job. His “praying for rain” to alleviate the drought hardly indicates that “his faith will be part of his leadership style”, as suggested by one media person. This same person finds it “worrying that he is an enthusiastic part of an evangelical movement that is not mainstream”.

Pardon? A harmless, if eccentric branch of Christianity is a 'worry’, while there are politicians of a certain alien religion in Australian parliaments whose dogma certainly is a worry for non-believers, homosexuals and the freedoms of women and freedom of speech itself. I'm no fan of Morrison as PM, but I take exception when media cowards take a swipe at Christian politicians, but slink away from discussing Muslims in government.

I would like to see Kerryn Phelps run for the seat. I think she would do well. Medical doctors often do well in politics, as they are seen by voters as ‘trustworthy’, whether that is true or not! I doubt the average modern voter will care what her sexual orientation is.

Neither sexual orientation nor religion should have any bearing on politics.
If Morrison brings up his ‘happy-clappy’ weekend activities too much, it will alienate a large number of our secular voters, so he is bound to try and keep it quiet.....

Hi Susi,

//I doubt the average modern voter will care what her sexual orientation is// and nor should it.

//Medical doctors often do well in politics, as they are seen by voters as ‘trustworthy’//

My bloke Michael Feneley is also a medical doctor, a leading cardiologist and head of St Vincent's Hospital, heart department. AND more importantly Michael come with his own (old) bus. Yep a dinky di 1960's bus, all decked out with Michael paraphernalia. Loud speakers on board the 'Mick Express' ready to blast out the good folk of Wentworth. Michael has gone around 4 or 5 times, at state and federal, never won one yet. However went close in 2013 in Kingsford-Smith, out polled Matt Thistlethwaite on the primary vote, but Matt won with Green preferences (thank us for that on Belly). I voted Green/Liberal that time, didn't like MT in those days, thought he was too close to Eddie Obeid, but he's turned out to be a good member. Michael had a couple of runs against Mick Daley in the state seat of Maroubra, unfortunately MD is too much of a local boy to knock off.
BUT Wentworth awaits the good doctor! And he would be an asset, politics in Australia certainly could do with some surgery. All jokes aside I don't know the Liberal candidates in Wentworth, except one, and truthfully Michael Feneley would be a very good local member, and he has done more for the Liberal Party than most males or females.

//Who can win? The Liberals, obviously have the best chance, but a high profile Independent woman, like former AMA President Dr Kerryn Phelps with a low Liberal primary vote, she would require a strong preference flow from Labor/Greens to win. Could happen.//

Vote 1 for the Science Party.

Surely whoever the candidates might be, surely they should be selected on merit not gender?

O sung wu, surely you mean she should be selected on merit not gender?
So much of this debate carries the implication that if selection was on merit, women would not get picked. My reading of the argument for quotas is that this is a process to ensure that women of merit do not get overlooked just because they are women.