Monash academics Nick Dyrenrfurth and Paul Strangio in retelling the story of the “fusion” of the non-Labor parties at the end of the first decade of federation make an explicit comparison with the formation of the Liberal National Party in Queensland a hundred years later.
The Deakinite Liberals of 1909 entered into fusion in a spirit of sorrow rather than enthusiasm. One declared: “I feel very strongly that we are about to make a mistake and yet, I am sorry to say, I see no possible way of preventing it.” The Age, self-appointed guardian of Liberal-Protectionist faith, was dismayed by coalescence: “Fusion is not a political blend in which liberalism and conservatism give and take, fusion is a sort of political boa constrictor (that) has swallowed liberalism whole.”
Writing in Crikey on Friday, Richard Farmer believed he had cut to the heart of the reasons why the foundation of the Pineapple Party has been accompanied by so many alarums and such bitterness:
Underlying the problem is clearly the impossibility of combining liberal thought, free market believers, Neanderthal agrarian socialism and intolerant social conservatives.
Incidentally, one might note that exactly the same problem has been evident in the post-Howardian Liberal Party, absent the dead hand of Howard himself and the glue of office.
In Queensland, of course, the political traditions and electoral and social geography of the state make both the free market strand and the social liberals very much minority constituencies, and there’s no doubt they will now be swamped by the social conservatives and the agrarian socialists within the LNP. This, of course, raises the question of whether ideology matters, a question posed by Andrew Bartlett in commentary on the contemporary Queensland fusion.
On one level, this latest merger moves the major non-Labor party in Queensland even more firmly to the Conservative right. The dominant numbers, the major players and major funders all align strongly with a fundamentalist conservative right-wing mindset that fits comfortably in the Bjelke-Petersen mould that many Queenslanders are still familiar with, and which genuine liberals shunned in the 1980s. That liberal strand has now been completely subsumed.
On another level, one could say that the ideological views of those involved are incidental, and this is first and foremost about a new marketing angle. Like any major party, it will try to focus on a few key messages and themes that it hopes will appeal to a majority of the electorate, a large part of which will seek to focus on tapping into and building upon dissatisfaction with their opponent. Given the history of non-Labor politics in Queensland over many decades, it is totally understandable for them to look for a way to rebrand themselves in way which enables them to paint themselves as something new and credible. Despite every description of the merger talking about the ‘conservative parties’ uniting, the new website of the party uses the description “a new progressive Liberal-National Party”, which I guess is just a reminder that in marketing (and politics) words mean whatever you want them to mean.
I think this is largely right, except insofar as it could be read to suggest that the pragmatism and the marketing/messaging aspects of the merger outweigh the ideological capture of the non-Labor forces in this state by a “modernised” Joh style Queenslandism. Whether that’s so is the big question that needs to be answered. It probably would be possible to keep the different elements together in government, and any chance the LNP has of attaining government depends on achieving a much tighter and more disciplined approach than has been on display on the right around here for many long years. But the endemic disunity on the conservative side of politics reflects more than ideology – or rather it reflects the fact that the ideological strands have social and economic bases.
Particularly since the Queensland Labor Party has more often than not been completely illiberal over its history, and given that much of its present practice still reflects the authoritarian traditions of the state’s political culture, the absence of any vehicle for articulating social liberalism and civil libertarianism on the other side of politics reflects a real loss. Those who would argue that democracy in this state is well served by a strengthened opposition might well ponder that, especially as that strengthened opposition actually represents the “strong leader” vein so richly mined by Joh Bjelke-Petersen for many long and dark years.
If Lawrence Springborg really is the “new face of Queensland”, that’s not a particularly hopeful prospect from where I stand.
Update: [by Kim] More from The Poll Bludger.
So what you’re saying, Mark, is that the new Liberal National Party is neither Liberal nor National?
Yep!
What I want to know is, if this is supposedly a ‘new’ political party that only operates in Queensland, then why does it contain the word ‘national’? Or is QLD a nation unto itself?
It’s the “glue of office” (or the smell of the glue of propsective office) which holds many a political party together I guess. The stronger the chance of office, the stronger the glue (which I suppose means the broader the church that can be held together by that glue before it starts to break apart).
I figure any real liberals in the federal Liberal Party had spent so many years being held fast by the toxic glue of the Howard years that the liberal streak was pretty much mummified anyway.
(pondered whether to make bad pun about sticky situations, but decided against it)
Here’s the LNP website if anyone’s interested:
http://www.lnp.org.au/index.php
Turn down your speakers if you want to follow Kim’s link. Once loaded into your browser, the site launches a YouTube consisting of lots of corporatespeak buzzwords (“aspiration”… “drive”… “initiative”… “confidence”) set to some U2 toon. I suppose Bono’s lawyers would be very interested. (Hint. Hint. Easiest way to get into tomorrow’s Courier Mail, if you are looking for extra incentive.) I am not impressed.
And can anyone understand what this paragraph is meant to convey?
Our capacity to generate renewable power isn’t to be measured as a quantity – as our vast reserves of coal and minerals, prime agricultural land, or fishing grounds have been measured in the past. Across Queensland, our diverse regions offer diverse opportunities to generate energy to drive our homes, our commerce and our way of life and keep on driving them in perpetuity.
Are they for renewables or against it?
Springborg might have written that himself. It makes about as much sense as most of what he says aside from “We’ll fix the roads, we’ll fix the schools and hospitals (details later).”
Interesting as always Mark.
So what now? The party that might have at least once represented a liberal standpoint (although by your reckoning not so much in QLD) is gone, replaced by the type of social conservatism that I’m finding more unpleasant by the day. And Labor showing little more restraint, with unnerving mumblings of moral outrage and a reactionary policy approach (using the nice words today for a change). Leaving us with yet more unpalatable choices for an election that could happen either later this year or next.
It’s not going to change is it, not until someone changes it for us, ‘Special Economic Region of Australia’ here we come … OK a little melodramatic maybe
but what we are getting now is what a population as apathetic to its leadership as ours ends up with and ultimately deserves.
PinkyOz
“finally deliver to the people of Queensland what they
so desperately deserve”
“Desperately deserve” now that’s The Borg.
I suspect that Anna is already contemplating legislation that will rent them asunder. More gun restrictions? Daylight saving?
Mal Brough will now be a member of what?
Nevertheless, Clive Palmer will be well satisified. He has financed a successful takeover.
It seems from their website we will soon have fully costed policies on traffic congestion, fixing the Education system, fixing the hospital system and an improvement on the Nationals lazy four page water Policy.
This along with their policies on daylight saving, tree clearing, gun laws and child safety changes will make the next day or two busy for them as their combined wisdom comes off the printing presses.
Perhaps Mark McArdle could quickly get out his policy for protecting seniors from being ripped off by unscrupulous investment schemes.
It’s going to be a busy couple of days but I will read it all with interest.
Well, he’s the President of the Queensland Liberal Party, he says. Which doesn’t exist. But he might still have a political career, he says.
Does that mean:
(a) Brough will seek to be the new new saviour of the Liberals federally, and become the next member for Higgins? (…as was mooted earlier in the year)?
(b) Try to get some sort of continuing Qld Liberal Party going at state level?
Or does it mean – he’s played his hand so badly he’s completely screwed?
It’ll be very interesting to watch what Bruce Flegg does. I wonder if he was at the Borg’s love-in.
I’ve heard nothing yet on when the Pineapple Party intend pruning some of their worse performing members from the Shadow Ministry either. Messanger, Stuckey,Hobbs,McArdle are standout Duds who have been missing in action. Langbroek, Simpson, Seeney and Nicholls also been struggling to make an impact.
None have produced any policy that will progress their cause. Surely the Pineapple Party is not going to tolerate the laziness and unproductivity we have seen from these members when they were Nationals and Liberals.
Update: More from The Poll Bludger.
“Underlying the problem is clearly the impossibility of combining liberal thought, free market believers, Neanderthal agrarian socialism and intolerant social conservatives.”
Huh? The ALP has done a decent job of it in NSW and Victoria.
BBB
It is better than Bligh. That is New Farm at the moment Mark. Bring it on is the response!
Will the new Nationals-dominated party appeal to former Liberal voting (or potentially Liberal voting) metropolitan South-East Queenslanders, though? Weren’t some of them already scared off by the thought of voting Liberal and ending up with Springborg in a coalition?
tomd – That was my thought too. Springborg made a great deal of noise about how the new party will be as much Liberal as National. The colour blue (rather than the Nats’ green) featured prominently in the promotional campaign. But the end result is still a takeover of the Libs by the Nats. Whether SE Qlders recognise it as such will depend a lot on the ensuing marketing campaign.
Not to mention those ardent souls, the greenhouse denialists and Marohasian anti-environmentalists in general.
It is better than Bligh. That is New Farm at the moment Mark. Bring it on is the response!
Better than Bligh? Really? I’m not that impressed with her, but she ain’t no Morris Iemma. How are the LibNats going to improve on her performance?
I had a WTF? moment this morning, when I heard Springborg descibing the Pineapple Party as ” … a new conservative progressive party … ”
Still, South Australians of a certain age will hear faint resonances of Tom Playford’s Liberal-Country League.
Liberal democracy post television as we all know is about marketing. The construction of Liberal vs Conservative politicians in struggle in a new party is misleading. What is more important is the struglle to retain both Liberal and conservative voters. Howard and Costello were perfect complementary products that enabled this to happen. Does the LNP have the same marketing ability?
David at 20, years ago, The Borg went on a study tour to Canada to look at the amalgamation of the Reform and Tory parties there. The Canadian Tories’ full name was “Progressive Conservatives”. That’s where I think he’s getting it from.