With all eyes on Brendan Nelson’s wobbly leadership, it would be tempting to dismiss the talk of amalgamations in Queensland as background noise, considering the appalling state of the local Libs and Nats. Contemplating a decision on the leadership by tossing a coin, and crumpling under poll results for Anna Bligh rivalling those of Peter Beattie’s glory days are hardly good looks. Neither is the “draft Brough for leader� plan being touted by one of the Lib factions – no one seems to have noticed that Mal Brough lost his seat with a swing of 10.3%, the fourth largest swing of any of the seats Labor won.
But there’s a little more going on in the Sunshine State on the Libs/Nats amalgamation front than meets the eye. Despite there being a process in place for amalgamation discussions, the Nats are waving the banner of forming a “new conservative party� in any case. An invitation for public feedback on their website poses this as an alternative to an amalgamation with the Libs.
Using rather intriguing rhetoric, the Nats have asked voters to agree or disagree with the proposition that a “single conservative force� could take the form of “A New Party with one plan, one leader and one voice�. I contacted the Queensland Nats to ask how many votes had been cast, and how many had supported this option and an amalgamation with the Libs, but a spokesperson had no comment to make.
The 2007 election saw the firewall that had been erected between the dysfunctional antics of the local Tories and the federal Libs burn down. And there’s every chance that the Queensland shenanigans, as well as providing Anna Bligh with a big free kick to aid her chances of winning in 2009, will continue to work in Labor’s favour in the federal arena.
Conventional wisdom has it that the amalgamation proposal will fail, just as the last one pushed by former Nats leader Lawrence Springborg did. Current opposition leader Jeff Seeney’s interference in the Libs’ party room woes is sure to be counter productive, and many Libs see the amalgamation talk as a blatant takeover bid by the Nats.
On the other hand, Warren Truss would be easier to roll on the issue than Mark Vaile was, now that the federal party is in the wilderness, though damaging the leadership of a fellow Queenslander might give some Nats cause for concern.
But what’s largely been missed in all the discussion is the Nats’ trump card – the idea that rather than an amalgamation, a completely new party could be established.
There’s more than a suggestion of “Joh for PM� hubris here, and there’s also a guarantee that whichever way the Libs jump, the conservative disunity theme won’t be going away in a hurry.
It’s hard to see the orthopaedic surgeons in Clayfield joining together with the sugar farmers from Innisfail and the real estate spivs from Robina, as one big happy conservative family, but I suppose stranger things have happened.
There is a leadership meeting in the Queensland National Party called for Monday.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/nationals-to-vote-on-leadership/2008/01/18/1200620177853.html
Ah, interesting. Thanks, steve.
Suggest thee name of the new party be “Opposition Party” because that will be as good as it gets.
As was said last time, this wouldn’t lead to one party but three. You’d have:
* the compromise entity full of people wanting to make it work but disappointed by the compromises necessary to make it happen.
* urbanites (including high-density dwellers on the Coasts south and north of Brisbane, and major centres) who have more in common with people in Sydney or Melbourne than with bushies.
* bushies looking for their own Bob Katter/ Pauline Hanson/ Tony Windsor to roll out the pork barrell for their community at the expense of everyone else.
Since when has the fact that an idea is stupid prevented it from getting up?
Well, look here I really think some of yew might need a little bit of commonsense knocked into yew, eh? my very word, look we’ve got Mister Mister Mister Whitlam running amok down there in in Canberra, golly, and so I think you put these technicalities up but I see that also with the other Canberra business, and only the other day Flo was saying before Church, she said that this “Joh for Canberra” business had a good ring to it – aaah , yes, a good ring to it and yew can say what you like but the voters aren’t too worried never you mind, so you see that’s getting a bit technical on the detail of I haven’t got a seat in the Federal Parliament – by gosh I’m the Premier don’t you forget that and they need me to go to Canberra and just sort it all out for everyone yes the whole country I mean and you know I think well if Mister Mister Brough is a fine young fellow and he can be Leader without technically having – yew know how it goes – the people and so Sir Terence can sort that type of detail out pretty quicksmart. Don’t you worry about that!
“this wouldn’t lead to one party but three”
Perhaps as many as five. In Parliament currently you have 2 Liberal Parties, 2 National Parties and then there would be the new one.
As for Brough, he was defeated by a former State MP who shows no sparkle.
I think the dawns a long way off.
I don’t mean to be rude and all, coming from NSW, but what is it wityh the Queensland Nats? Do they still ytearn for the days of Joh, or something? Delusions of grandeur, never having accepted the Fitzsgerald Commision? I mean, down here the Uglies in the Libs just try to kill off their moderates. Bugger these yearnings for Government.
Springborg is the Nationals’ best hope and the best hope the conservative forces in Queensland have of winning 2009’s election. Whether they do it with one party, two or fifty, they need Springborg as he’s the only credible Nat in the state.
“A New Party with one plan, one leader and one voice�
Err, wouldn’t that also be a party with one member?
At least unambiguously calling it a conservative party would once and for all destroy the perception, however delusionary, that the Liberal Party is about liberalism.
Don’t forget there are some Liberals pushing the notion of an amlgamation strongly too – Ian MacDonald is one that’s been quite loud about it. Some Liberals know they will eventually be the senior party – if and when Labor starts losing seats the majority will go to Libs – and are prepared to wait. Others figure they may as well do it now, and they’ll do it by default from within one organisation without having to go through the public angst that will inevitably happen otherwise. Even though the practical diferences between the average Lib and Nat is fairly small these days, Im not sure how well the public perception will go with a merger – but that’s for them to decide.
An early big stumbling block would be the Qld Senate ticket at the next federal election – 4 incumbent Senators likely to recontest (Libs Brandis, Mason and Trood, plus Joyce from the Nats), but no real hope of winning more than 3 seats. What position do they put Barnaby on a joint ticket?
Mal Brough actually had the biggest swing against from him on any incumbent Liberal who lost their seat – the three bigger swings were Leichhardt and Forde (both with retiring members and thus three-cornered contests) and Dawson, which was a National seat. Having said that, parachuting him in is probably not a bad option for the Libs given all the others they face (assuming Mal is interested which he may very well – and quite wisely – not be). He might not be as proven a vote winner as might be assumed, but he is (a) quite well known, (b) would probably have more chance of being a unifier in a small team which is more badly split than the Democrats were even at their worst and (c) might be the circuit breaker to make the mainstream media (which in terms of state politics is not very many people) start taking the state Liberals seriously. If he could nothing other than (b), he’d be a big leap forward for them.
How it would work in a newly merged conservative party is an extra unknown – but if I had to bet, I’d say the merger will prove too hard and awkward and fall over again.
You might like to go back and look at some of the focus group research Graham Young and I did on Springborg in 2006, RR. His gloss had well and truly come off by the 2006 election. It wasn’t just the Libs’ implosion that led to the Beattie walkover. The Nats went backwards in a lot of seats too, and Springborg had a major “whinger, sick of him” factor to contend with. He only looks good compared to his abysmal replacement.
Oh, and by the way, the thing that Springborg was most remembered for was having gone jogging with no shirt on.
He was also prone to the “wouldn’t vote for a country hick” factor among Liberal supporters in SEQ.
“Oh, and by the way, the thing that Springborg was most remembered for was having gone jogging with no shirt on.”
Mmm, can’t remember that one. Presumably, he did not, sans shirt, resemble Vladimir Putin.
Looking in from N.S.W., Barnaby Joyce seems an entirely acceptable human being,although as soon as I can I will be a member of the Democrats,and as a realist,which isnt the same as being an oppurtunist,it is unlikely there is any benefit for views that find the Nationals unacceptable,for whatever reasons,to try to influence them.A lot of matters of research re farming and conservation could bridge the gaps between say Conservative values and those who would like more evaluations other than the established order of monies ,property and social values that are often inept.The next State and Federal Elections will probably about matters of very personal choices and what government and industry are doing.I think Australians are showing a distinct need to be independent as individuals,and individuals come in all sorts of values and concerns, that may not necessarily mean voting for Individuals as Independents.It may mean that those elected may need to bend in all sorts of directions,and not dispute that people like them do not need labels all the ,and excuse me,bloody time.
Good heavens! There is a ‘Make a Mal a Leader’ campaign?
No, let’s do it.
It’s so reminiscent of Johfacanbra.
[Good heavens! There is a ‘Make a Mal a Leader’ campaign?
No, let’s do it.
It’s so reminiscent of Johfacanbra.]
And in WA, the Libs should run with “Troy is One Of The Boys”
With footage of him stumbling into Parlaiment half tanked.
He looked a lot better than Peter Beattie would have, I dare say, Anita!
Ein Volk – Ein Reich – Ein Fuhrer?
This is exactly how Nazi Germany started!
Why isn’t fascism just outlawed forever? We could start in Blogistan and work out.
Just say no to fascism
Mark [12]:
Springborg was certainly the most improved politician in Queensland – from utter dropkick to respected leader overnight – and all without a sign of Alladin’s lamp or the Fairy Godmother’s wand either. Brough was a very capable politician too [pity about the permanent scars of being a "Howard" minister]. So there is some talent around to form the nucleus of a new party – if a NEW party is what is actually needed ….
The most serious problem for such a party would be how to finance itself yet exclude and ban and lock-out all the ratbags who now infest both the Lubberals and the Notionals and have reduced both parties to a very sick joke. For instance, how would such a party keep out those parasite who have been sucking on the public tit for decades, through the jiggery-pokery of creative accountancy, and yet who scream blue-murder about single mothers, dole bludgers and Aborigines? Any party that allowed such boofheads to join would quickly degenerate into Act II of the current Lib-Nat circus – “You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”
Since Andrew Bartlett called in here – I’ll say again what I said on his own blog a while back: the Australian Democrats should make a home for all the formerly active supporters of the Coalition parties, he ones who are disgusted at all the tomfoolery, all the betrayals of principles, all the wasted opportunities, all the socialism by the back door. The Australian Democrats have the framework but lack the people; the Lib-Nats have the people but only a collapsing rusty framework on foundatins that have been eroded away …. perfect fit, IMHO.
Meanwhile in WA as Frank has said we got a new Liberal leader who like Pat Farmer has decided to move to the City as well,trouble is it looks like the women of the Liberal Party ain,t to happy about.
Still Troy did the rounds of the talk back radio and kinda said nothing of interest,still maybe the Worst will like him.
God knows I,m a Labour voter but the state Labour party should win by default,don,t know about you Frank but I think the Party could use a good clean out,and maybe promote some of the younger members in WA,the present lot to be honest are not that inspiring
Graham Bell: As if calling Australia’s conservative party the Liberals wasn’t confusing enough- the Democrats?
The sad thing about the complete collapse of the Liberals under J.Winston is that Kevin Rudd appears to be going all wimpish on us. It looks like he is going to give us a repeat of the last 11 years albeit-a milder and more compassionate version.
The only hope for the Libs is to form a new party. If Brendan is the best you can come up with-even as a caretaker-you are doomed.
John Ryan,
See my latest comment in Saturday Salon, it seems THe Sunday Crimes are still with Omodei, with an article in tomorrow’s paper which mentions that his comments to Katie Hodson Thomas weren’t just sexist, but of a sexual nature and were direct to her.
re the ALP, I think you’ll find people like Kobelkie, KUcera and others might decide to call it a day at the next election, and with the affirmative Action quota, will see women pre-selected in those seats.
And speaking of Unflattering pics, here is Mr Buswell in his Corey phase
http://www.imagedump.com/index.cgi?pick=get&tp=525079
Michael [22]:
Yeah, well, I suppose …. in the absence of anything else likely to work or have any stability for long, the Australian Democrats.
People get the government [or political system] they deserve. So Australians must have been damned terrible.