Lawrence Springborg has defeated his successor, Jeff Seeney, for the leadership of the Queensland Nationals. Whether that makes him also leader of the “United Conservative Party� is probably an unknown known.
Springborg is marginally better placed to take up the fight to Anna Bligh, at least in presentational terms – he doesn’t have the boofhead image Seeney has. But that begs the question of what sort of image the latest political Lazarus does have. Focus group research Graham Young and I conducted during the 2006 state election found that his gloss had well and truly come off by that stage – the biggest positive respondents could find in many instances was that he looked good while jogging with no shirt on.
Springborg is really a single note politician – beyond the “United Conservative Party� project, he doesn’t stand for an awful lot more. The 2006 platform read like a grab bag of pork barrelling wishlists compiled by and for marginal seat MPs. His attempts to shift blame onto the Libs for an appalling loss hardly endeared him to the folks he needs for his new party, and he didn’t escape the disdain the urban Liberal voters have for rural leaders.
There are a couple of object lessons in Springborg’s resurrection for the federal Coalition.
The first might be for Peter Costello. Springborg was just 21 when he entered politics – and he made the mistake of musing before the campaign about leaving for a career in business. It’s easier of course rather than working for a living to loll around on the backbench doing nothing much but undermining your successor, and waiting for his leadership to implode.
But aside from the fact that the new party project will most likely end up as a complete schemozzle one way or another, the broader plight of the Queensland opposition is a warning for their federal colleagues. While Seeney was at least trying to make an impact, most of his frontbench were either asleep at the wheel or beavering away intriguing for the spoils of opposition. Laziness and infighting do not a credible alternative government make.
But while it’s more than possible that Brendan Nelson might match the PM for manic energy (if a lot less focussed), the other dilemma oppositions face against Labor administrations is more profound. As long as they’re credible, and make a decent fist of economic management and service provision, carping negativism is not a very powerful shot in the locker. And the state parties have been unable to do much ideological differentiation either – because the Kennett model of privatisation and hardline IR proved so unpopular in the end. The right wingers on Nelson’s frontbench might care to take note.
Elsewhere: More from Possum and Sam Clifford.
Further update: And another post from Sam Clifford. And Woolly Days weighs in. More from Graham Young.
What have the Queensland Libs had to say of late about the merger/united/whatever concept?
Springborg looks good in a towel, but he really lacks the capacity to get across his message on the TV.
Nothing much, as far as I can tell. Probably brawling amongst themselves about it, but perhaps they’ve actually learnt not to do that in public.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23090576-29277,00.html
‘Nats, Libs agree to form one party’
National Liberal Agrarian Socialist Conservative Party?
Ah interesting, a statement from the leader of the Libs whom I suspect no one outside political junkiedom has heard of.
There’s the three clues to how it’ll all fall apart. On the last one, one Nats MP was pushing for the inclusion of One Nation last year.
Got to love this one, Anna Bligh will time the next election whilst the parties are in the midst of creating the new party and they will be in disarray. The new party would be at least a year off from being a reality. Funny how the same day this in announced they’re also begging Bligh to bring in 4 yr fixed term elections. The Libs and Nats should stick with what they know, and that’s losing.
Further update: And another post from Sam Clifford.
Another Brisbane blogger has his say:
http://nebuchadnezzarwoollyd.blogspot.com/2008/01/born-again-borg-lawrence-springborg.html
It almost certainly was. This method of developing policy was developed to a high art by the apparatchiks in the Government Members’ Secretariat during Howard’s years.
If the Libs & Nats merged on the NT CLP model where federal MPs elected under the ‘Liberal-National’ banner could caucus with either party in Canberra then such a party would be domianted by ex-Nats, more MPs and many more members. Shouldn’t the Nats aim for this?
The do nothing, sulky attitude of the state Libs has been adopted by Gridlock Campbell in the leadup to the Brisbane City Council elections.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/mayor-rowell-trade-barbs-over-burst-pipes/2008/01/23/1201024952956.html
The current proposal (probably unworkable) from Seeney is that Liberal and National parties would continue to exist in Queensland for federal purposes, and that the UCP would only exist for state purposes. Go figure.
So it is just a scam devised solely for getting around the state voting system by the sounds of it.
Was a scam. I reckon it’s already dead in the water after four Liberal Senators came out and opposed it.
Poor old Lawrence. He might actually have to think up some policies rather than internal organisational navelgazing.
More from Graham Young.
1. It is a common misconception that CLP members can caucas with either of their coalition partners. By convention they are divided between the parties. Until he was turfed out in Solomon Dave Tollner was counted as a Liberal; Nigel Scullion is still counted as a Nat.
2. I don’t see how the nats could possibly dominate a merged national party. They might have more rank-and-file members, but only in country electorates. The libs would dominate any such party.
Paul Williams view here
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/24/2145296.htm
The Borg is basically demanding Liberal senators to STFU and support the merger. Last I heard the merger hasn’t happened yet, so what hold does a state National Party leader have over federal Liberal senators?
On top of this all, Rudd should feel like he has been ‘me too-ed’ by the Borg since he is now on his ‘conversation with Queensland’ tour (aka ‘listening tour’). Thing is Rudd was never a 2 time loser like Borg, so really how is this going to help Borg?
Springborg demands senators back merger
Brough has been fingered as potential leader of a UCP. Can he be the next Don Chipp?