Lawrence Springborg is one step closer to achieving his grand dream of five years’ standing – a united conservative party in Queensland. This courtesy of new Liberal President Gary Spence, who, to the fury of some Liberals, has responded to the Nationals’ plebiscite by agreeing to a vote by rank and file members – and appearing to prejudge the result by embuing the “Liberal National Party” with an aura of inevitability.
That may be a tad premature, as the announcement of the “breakthrough” was quickly followed by anonymous Libs leaking about the possibility of a break away party should the Pineapple Party become a reality. There’s also the position – articulated by Brendan Nelson – that nothing should happen until discussions on amalgamation at federal level are finalised – at some indeterminate time in the future.
Unhappy Liberals are characterising the new party as a Nationals takeover.
So exactly who’s doing the assimilation? Resistance is futile, as the Star Trek version of the Borg intoned monolithically, because Lawrence Springborg has already been anointed leader in advance of any decision by the new party, and no democratic process is apparently envisaged for the division of the spoils of opposition. In fact, as Graham Young reports, so undemocratic is the process that former assimilation critic George Brandis has gone quiet after a deal for Senate preselection, which also protects Barnaby Joyce’s interests by giving him a Senate seat (Ron Boswell’s) even if he loses at the next election.
Springborg’s “mini-campaign”, which simultaneously attempts to bounce members of both parties into his tent and to put pressure on Premier Anna Bligh, is quite an odd piece of political theatre. Devoid of policy content, the “Borg is back” push features Lawrence – “the new face of Queensland” – with a makeover – gone are the moleskins and any rural signifiers. In with the urbane suit and a new haircut, and a Dave Cameron tieless look.
But political realities have a habit of intervening in the most ambitious exercises in reinvention and branding. Springborg’s surrounding himself in the symbols of Brisbane, with a website banner featuring the iconic Story Bridge bathed in Liberal blue. And Brisbane – where the Liberals hold just two seats – is where the ground has to be made up. However, even with Barnaby Joyce on board, the potential exists for rural discontent to torpedo the LNP in the Nats’ heartland. And Lawrence’s new found urbanity is going to be a hard sell to metropolitan voters.
All the conservative eggs will be in one basket – Springborg’s. And he’s a two time election loser.
Let’s not forget either that Springborg has to beat not just a new and popular Premier, Anna Bligh, but also the tagteam of native son Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. It’s a very big ask, and any conservative cracks that may be able to be papered over through the amalgamation are likely to re-emerge as crevices in the event of an election loss.
Cross-posted at PollieGraph.
Update: Andrew Bartlett’s take on Springborg’s campaign. And more from Andrew Elder.
And I’ve yet to hear or read a convincing explanation of how the Pineapple Party is going to bring together Hansonoids, loyal Nats, loyal Libs and Beattie/Bligh/Rudd/Newman suburban SEQ Laberal voters, with their divergent and in some cases diametrically opposed world views, together behind it.
Sprinborg has as much chance of becoming Queensland premier as Bjorn Borg.
Next.
“Resistance is useless, as the Star Trek version of the Borg ”
uselessfutile‘Useless’ was the Daleks.
Heh!
Sorry, but same diff, n’est-ce pas?
Fixed, though. Thanks, FDB.
Spiros: thank you linesmen, thank you ball boys
On a somewhat offtopic note, did anyone else notice the similarities between the Borg’s website and Barack Obama’s website (namely the blue glowing background)? Borg - Barack
The Borg campaign is a weird grab bag of themes from whatever appears to have worked or be working at the moment - Kevin07, Dave Cameron, McCain, Obama. I’m sure that the Obama resemblance is not a coincidence - Springborg is known as a US politics junkie, and I also hear that his rebranding has *a lot* of personal input.
That may be a tad premature, as the announcement of the “breakthrough” was quickly followed by anonymous Libs leaking about the possibility of a break away party should the Pineapple Party become a reality.
Interesting… I wonder what these new parties will be called?
Maybe the ‘Liberals’ and the ‘Nationals’? Or possibly the ‘Nationals’ and the ‘Liberals’?
Heh!
It’s strange that the pressure for a merged party would come from Quinceland - surely that state supports the greatest divide between urban based Liberals and regional Nationals (although perhaps the pressure is greatest in QLD).
I’d have thought it would be a state like Victoria that would provide an easier transition to a single party - you get less of the out-and-out rednecks in regional Victoria and you’d never get a Bob Katter, and you don’t have the creepy Opus Dei NSW types to run spoiler.
I suspect that Bob Katter is the future for old-school conservatives though - lots of high profile independents and no actual party. There’s only so much lip service you can pay to neo-liberal economics without actually implementing them before even the RWDB’s wake up to the shenanigans.
Yes, and that’s why it’s likely to fail. It’s a response to Beattie’s very successful exploitation of optional preferential - “Just Vote One” - which has given us a de facto first past the post system where the massive disunity on the conservative side outside the cities can’t be papered over by preference transfers. The Nats’ takeover of the Libs is also a recognition that the seats have to be won in Brisbane, and thus it’s unlikely that there would ever be a Nationals premier again. What’s amazing is that the Libs are falling for it.
I should add that I totally agree with Paul N’s comment at 1.
Mark - yeah, maybe pedantic. But then Daleks are ALP faction bosses, so maybe the LibNats deserve their own distinct boogie man reference?
Good point, FDB!
the Borg intoned monolithically,
Picky picky I know, but for monoliths go to Clarke’s 2001, and for monotones, well, I think you know.
The choice of words was deliberate, catlick!
“maybe the LibNats deserve their own distinct boogie man reference?”
Vogons?
Sorry Darryl, but I reckon Vogons belongs to the NSW ALP - developers, shady alliances, bad poetry…
Mark, FDB,
What about Cybermen? The classic Lib/Nat “shiny” look is there and the fact that they all look exactly the same when in rural areas (RM Williams must make a fortune before each election).
That said thinking back to the Borg movies the disturbing combination of flesh and (party?) machine is remarkable :-p
Yep, I think Lawrence is on to something - inadvertently I suspect!
Update: Andrew Bartlett’s take on Springborg’s campaign.
I think the claim by the Nats of 10 000 members is odd too. Thats about 110 members in every electorate throughout the state. As if. No wonder only 50 to 60% voted.
It’ll be interesting to see how many Liberal members respond, steve. It might give the Libs a clue as to what margins they’ll be outvoted by in the Pineapple Party (if they’re ever allowed to vote on minor matters such as leadership and preselection, that is!). Note also Graham’s info on how the internal structure of the Pineapple Party is going to be a Joh style gerrymander!
I think the Libs and Nats in Qld have reached the stage of “if not this, what?”.
It puts Warren Truss in an interesting position. One would assume that Federal LNP MPs would sit with whichever Coalition Party they felt most comfortable, as happens with the NT CLP. Fancy having a political party (the Nationals) where neither the leader nor the deputy are actual members of the party they lead!
Anna Bligh isn’t going to be a novelty forever, and there will come a time when closeness to Kevin will not be the unrelenting positive it is today. The LNP seem to be making preparations for that day rather than launching an all-out assault on the new girl (whose success, let’s face it, has been helped by poor opposition. We take poor opposition for granted these days but it is not necessarily a given. Vigorous opposition can mean something other than infighting, as Rudd showed last year).
Is Andrew Fraser all that? Really?
Do you think that Joyce is going to play silly buggers with this, when he’s clearly heavily invested in this process? If he wanted to dump all over the city he’d be railing against this proposal right now. You’re always going to get some parish-pump attendant who wants a six-lane freeway and a rail line from nowhere to nowhere else - but if that person starts frightening suburban voters, that person will be sat upon, I suspect. If I were a Qld ALP supporter it would appear that Birnam Wood is starting to move a bit.
Anna Bligh and other Labor people may mock or sneer publicly, but if they do so privately they’re being complacenent - and thereby letting down Qld Labor supporters.
The loose wording - possibly, dare say it, due to loose analysis - here is the term “urbane”. Part of Brisbane’s growth means that it does appear to have developed a chi-chi inner-city populated with bien-pensants whose demographics and opinions separate them from the lumpen suburbs. This has been a regular part of politics in Sydney, Melbourne or Adelaide, but in Brisbane it is recent and significant. Paddington Qld has more in common with Paddington NSW than it does with Mt Gravatt. Just because Anna rates in New Farm doesn’t mean she necessarily rates in Strathpine or Mansfield. If you see someone in suburban Brisbane wearing RMs and driving a LandRover, don’t assume he must be the fullah from Cunnamulla.
So have I - but the characteristic of an unsuccessful political movement is not that it has such divisions, but that it cannot manage them. What appears to be happening here is that the resources, and the structure, for managing them are under construction.
Never mind the question: who knows whether they will succeed? The question you should be asking here is: who would deny they are giving this their very best shot?
I think Joyce knows he’s probably doomed with the rural discontent vote, having voted for the sale of Telstra, his major selling point in 2004, against his explicit promise. Hence he’s organising himself a lifeline to get back into Parliament even if he loses the election. Pathetic.
What I mean is that it’s much more likely that the Katters of this world will be able to occupy that space more effectively. Don’t forget that the Pineapple Party is also supposed to be able to hoover up the One Nationesque vote in the bush. In actual fact, most of it went to the ALP post 98 at state level and now federally with Rudd. Don’t underestimate how buggered the Nats are - they never recovered much in terms of votes and seats from their ON wipeout in 98.
So it’s quite bizarre that they should be allowed to takeover the Libs. But as per Queensland Lib custom, people are scrambling to protect their own narrow personal/factional interests.
She rates in both. Check out the polls. Ahead of Beattie at his best. She’s a very good pollie.
There’ll be a state election either later this year or some time next year.
As to poor opposition, everyone was waiting for Lawrence to follow up his negative ad with something positive. Any sort of policy - no matter how implausible - would be almost a novelty for him. And he’s a very flimsy peg to hang a trust factor on.
Bligh’s latest preferred premier result was 64-18, which makes the Borg more popular than Nelson I spose.
[link]
Oh, I don’t - and neither does anyone else, apparently. The Nats have clearly failed to win back ON and other seats. The fact that all the heavies are behind the merger and that opponents have been bought off is significant. Money and discipline and other indicators/guarantors of success are set to follow.
Hardly unique to Qld, or the Libs.
Quite possibly - but even the best of them come a gutser, get overtaken by events, or people just get sick of them.
“which makes the Borg more popular than Nelson I spose.”
Please refer to Nelson by his borg name: “9 of 100″.
Yeah, Andrew, but she’s still all shiny and new, as far as the Qld public are concerned?
As Mark said, though, what happens to Lawrence if he becomes a three time election loser next time around? Particularly when this whole edifice has been constructed around a (contentless) cult of personality? As Andrew Bartlett said, it’s hardly as if he is on much of a roll to start off with. What then for the “united” conservative force?
Hahahahahaha!
That’s great, Lefty E!
I’m frankly horrified by the blind panic going on in the ranks of both conservative parties. So Brisbane is the only place they hold elected office; so what? Last I heard, elections will still be held in the future.
Our Liberal and National friends must stop this nationwide mindless and meaningless funk-fest (mistaking activity for progress) and get on with the job of rebuilding policy platforms.
That aside, the Borg is just creepy and no-one in south east Queensland takes him seriously. I blame the nude ironing.
Topless ironing, wasn’t it!
Let’s be fair.
My apologies
There may have been a towel
You know, I did actually feel sad for ol’ niney tonight, as media heads all nodded and agreed that Turnbull’s response to tomorrow’s budgie is the only thing that actually matters.
But that’s the thing. At state level, elections keep happening and they keep losing, even when they should win. Hence the constant search for an organisational or leadership fix. They don’t stop to think:
(a) They really have little to offer in terms of ideological difference with managerialist Labor parties (or maybe they do know that);
(b) You have to actually do some policy work and stop making up crap when an election is called. In both NSW and Qld last time, policy was either completely absent or obviously concocted on the back of an envelope during the campaign;
(c) This implies putting some effort in to something other than infighting and organisational navel gazing!
I notice my earlier question about Andrew Fraser has gone unanswered.
Kim, I’ve said a bit more on this matter here, but to address your points:
I’ve seen ‘em come and go and so have you, Kim.
Depends what you mean by “loser”, really - in an 89-seat Parliament the coalition currently have 25 seats, I reckon they’ll win 40 if the merger goes through. There, I’ve said it: a ridiculously long time out from the election with equally absurd lack of on-the-ground knowledge, but when has ignorance been a barrier to punditry?
Notice how Graham Young keens for Mal Brough, an eminently suitable replacement should Lawrence stumble. Then there’s Can-Do looking for something after he Has-Done the BCC. Would Fiona Simpson be that repellent to the middle-outer suburbs, really? There’s three cults of personality before you start.
I like Andrew Bartlett, but I wouldn’t rate him as any sort of expert in How To Win An Election In Queensland.
Couldn’t agree more - but Howard ‘96 puts the lie to that.
Anyway, as I said earlier, it’s the machine that’s being assembled rather than the state leadership. The speed and the sheer lack of spoiling and ratbaggery is impressive/worrying.
What was the question about Andrew Fraser, Andrew? I’ve looked back and can’t find one.
Big call. If you could nominate the 15 seats, I’d be interested. Most would have to be Brisbane ones, and that’s where I don’t think it’s doable. Anna has played her hand very cleverly since coming to power - differentiated herself from Beattie on a number of fronts without dissing him, kept a lower profile but broadened her own image, and she’s got big biz as well as the media eating out of her hand. Don’t forget any stuff ups in health and education can be justified thusly - our problem in the past was that the Feds weren’t coming to the party, now Kevin is helping, but it’ll take some time. Beattie did the blame the Feds thing effectively last time, and Rudd’s “Rome wasn’t built in a day” message is going to be good for one Queensland election at least.
They should have got 40 seats last time. The polls said they would, before their pathetic leadership (including The Borg) had its day in the election spotlight. And it only took one day for it all to collapse.
Ah, but I have a lot of experience with losing them, which does give me an idea about what NOT to do! More seriously, I don’t claim to be an expert on how major parties should win elections. Apart from anything else, they have access to mountains of polling and research which I don’t (and apart from selective (and therefore not always reliable) leaks, neither do any other commentators). Also, successful strategies for major parties seem to inevitably involve excessive insistence on assertions which are highly misleading, which I find hard to recommend as a strategy despite its occasional succcessfulness.
My experience is mostly with the even more helllishly difficult task of minor parties trying to succeed/survive in a two party system. Despite recent times, I have had some modest successes in that area, but that’s not really the topic of this post - beyond I suppose any speculation about whether a Lib/Nat merger might open up some extra electoral space for the Greens (which I can’t see much likelihood of as things stand, unless some very serious splintering happens)
In any case, as I said on my website, I actually don’t think Springborg is as hopeless as he is often painted by commenters here. Nor do I think Anna Bligh has shown much sign of reversing the increasingly problematic performance of the Qld Labor government, which to me seem to be on a fast road to Iemma-ville. (which as NSW also shows, doesn’t mean the Libs & Nats will automatically benefit)
I find it hard to imagine advertising can be very effective when it seeks to portray a ‘buzz’ which doesn’t exist (thinking of that horrendous Hillary Clinton mockumentary advert of a guitar band). And I also find it hard to see this Lib/Nat merger actually coming off without some sizeable eruption along the way. But it is also true to say that it is hard to see the Libs & Nats in Queensland making much progress at the next state election as things currently stand, which is no doubt why dramatic options and leaps of faith are being fervently floated.
Graham Young may be right that Mal Brough will be some sort of huge circuit breaker for the Libs but I can’t see it myself, mostly because of the way the Lib’s are behaving organisationally, rather than any pros or cons about Mal. If they can’t stop the internal shitfighting, it won’t matter who they have leading them, organisationally or on the parliamentary side.
“If they can’t stop the internal shitfighting, it won’t matter who they have leading them, organisationally or on the parliamentary side.”
The funny thing is, this statement applies exactly to the Liberals in Victoria (most obviously), NSW and Western Australia. (Dunno about SA and Tassy.)
“Sizeable eruption” arrives on schedule!
[link]
“..stuff ups in health and education …… problem in the past was that the Feds weren’t coming to the party..”
Rather a novel way of describing a situation which has arisen due to complete & total inability to run so much as a chook raffle.
Health (particularly) is a stuff-up due to culpable incompetence.
The “Libationals” have some uphill battles.
Due to the traitorous activities of Gough Whitlam, & the patriotic actions of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, my district was stiffly National Party. Seeminly forever.
Thanks mostly to pork barrelling, subsidising & handouts, it is now majority ALP territory. Even the “RSL of the anti-Gough” campaign are quite likely to be ALP voters these days. I doubt the Libationals will ever get them back.
Even among their hard-core previous support base, there is a big hurdle to overcome:-
(Overheard recently in my barroom) Born & bred conservative voter to a National party tin-shaker: “You get my vote back when I get my guns back!”
They ain’t never comin back - the guns or the voters!
So you don’t think the amazing powers of The Borg will be enough, steve?
Some of the members of the local party branch think he has what it takes. They are also very browned off with Anna Bligh & particularly that zealot offsider she has.
At a meeting this morning it was the opinion of one of the cooler heads in the party that Borg will be a better premier than she is, and that for the good of Qld she has to go, even if it means a term of National Party in government.
Myself, I have no idea. Seemingly indestructible governments can fall like a house of cards (ie, the Howard govt). The Australia public voted in a nearly un-reelectable (Paul Keating) as PM, and Borg does have some appeal (ie, ALP ladies this morning talking warmly about him & most frostily about how Bligh “has to go”)
Apologies for the snide aside Andrew B, I see now that the Liberals’ determination to go from a major party to a minor one puts them squarely within your range of experience.
Are you concerned that the Democrats might get stacked out (”swamped”, as small-party animal Pauline might say) by moderate Liberal refugees?
Kim: I basically asked whether Andrew Fraser justifies the faith Bligh has in him.
Hard to know, Andrew - he hasn’t been there long!