Conservative takeover complete – end of liberalism in Queensland?
The media reports all suggest that, despite some major last minute turmoil on the Liberal Party side, the merger of the Queensland Nationals and Liberal Party has now gone past the point of no return.
Regardless of anything else one could say – and many many things no doubt will be said about all this now and well into the future – it is no mean feat to bring about a merger of two parties. I am mildly surprised that they have apparently managed to pull this off. It is still unclear precisely what ramifications it will have on the non-Labor side of politics federally, but they will undoubtedly be significant and long-term.
A piece in yesterday’s Australian by Nick Dyrenfurth and Paul Strangio of Monash University gives an idea of the sort of impact this change might have on the political landscape, as well as showing that it is in many ways just the latest twist in a central current of Australian politics that stretch back 100 years.
These two academics are writing a book on the centenary of the 1909 ‘fusion’ between the main non-Labor parties in Australia – Alfred Deakin’s protectionist liberals and George Reid’s conservative free-traders. Despite their largely incompatible political ideologies, one key thing that was deeply compatible between both groups was their desire to avoid perpetual opposition against a Labor Party which one year earlier had formally ruled out any form of ongoing alliance with the socially progressive liberals. Just as has occurred in Brisbane over this weekend, the politically pragmatic need to coalasce into a single non-Labor party won out over any philosophical differences.
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.
There will obviously continue to be significant disagreements between elements of the newly merged party, but I think the suggestion by Qld Labor Treasurer Andrew Fraser that the merger is “the biggest sham marriage since Elton John and Renata” is seriously off the mark (and a bit offensive too I think).
Of course, the views of those who run a party are pivotal. Whilst the media focus mostly looks at issues through the prism of what impact they might have on the major parties’ competition to get into or stay in government, it is the direct impact those issues have on people’s lives which really matters.
So even though this change is driven first and foremost by the need to rebrand the non-Labor side of politics in an effort to make them more marketable, the fact that it has led to an outcome where hardline conservatism is even more dominant in the new party is also significant.
Given Queensland Labor governments have a record which is almost as comfortable with authoritarianism and cronyism as the Bjelke-Petersen style conservatives, it does leave genuine liberals with very little place to go.
COMMENT ELSEWHERE:
- Pollbludger
- Larvatus Prodeo
- The Piping Shrike talks of the merger (or as he calls it, a ‘collapse’) in the context of the federal Liberal’s current internal wrangling around climate change)
- Derek Barry at Woolly Days gives his description
- Tim Dunlop at Blogocracy
19 Comments, Comment or Ping
Tony
ANDREW:
Andrew says: ” with authoritarianism and cronyism as the Bjelke-Petersen style conservatives”
I think the Beattie Bligh government would fit into this category as well.
Without an “Upper House” in Queensland, history is destined to repeat itself. I know of many people who would say the Joh was a “Saint” in comparison with the current lot.
I hope the merger is a success, we sure need a change of goverment in Queensland and this may be the start of the move in that direction.
Tony
Jul 27th, 2008
Sam Clifford
I give it two elections until there’s a new party talking about liberalism. While the “Nationals” group remains in power internally, liberalism will be sidelined within the party. Either that or the new party will lose so much support that the liberals will gain control of the party once the rural seats have been lost to independents.
Will Trood fade away after he loses his Senate seat in 2010?
Jul 27th, 2008
Speculator
Will a real “liberal” party please stand up?
Jul 27th, 2008
Marcus
Andrew,
Couple of points
* The problem now is that the Coalition is unelectable because it is dominated by the rural, conservative Nats, meaning urban Brisbane-ites won’t vote Liberal. The Liberals can’t win more seats because they’re dominated by the Nats, yet because they’re dominated by the Nats they can’t win more seats. Classic vicious circle. So to gain more ‘liberal’ MPs something has to change.
* A united, electable conservative party will result in more gains in Brisbane, so the proportion of urban, relatively liberal MPs will increase relative to the Nationals.
* Demographic change and population growth also means that the new party will have to appeal to more urban voters, and that the ‘liberal’ wing of the party will gradually increase as the conservatives fade.
* As you point out, an electable alternative is essential given Labor’s complete dominance of Queensland for a decade.
I’m willing to give the new party a chance to show what they’ve got before being too negative and critical.
Jul 28th, 2008
Steve
I can tell you Liberalism still runs strong in the Party. The Liberal “faction” is as large as it always was.
Jul 28th, 2008
Peter
I can see at least one person fantasizing “Santoro for Premier”.
Our very own Berlusconi?
Jul 28th, 2008
Peter
Technical question:
Do the Liberal and National senators from Queensland retain their seats, now that their parties have disappeared from beneath them?
That would be interesting :)
Jul 28th, 2008
Andrew Bartlett
Peter – they all keep their seats, but there is a crunch coming at the next election when 3 Liberal Senators and 1 National (Barnaby Joyce) all have to line up under one party banner to contest only 3 winnable seats. They ran under separate tickets when they were first elected in 2004, but there’s no way there will be room for all of them this time.
Of course if there’s a double dissolution (reasonably possible), that would change the equation. Its also possible Ron Boswell will retire sometime between now and then, and one of them could switch to fill his vacancy, although that’s a bit messy unless he leaves it 30 June 2011
Jul 28th, 2008
Blair Bartholomew
Dear Andrew
Surely you are not suggesting the Democrats were the last bastion of liberalism? When you say where does the change “leave genuine liberals with very little place to go” what is your definition of a genuine liberal?
I look forward to your reply.
Blair
Jul 28th, 2008
Andrew Bartlett
Dear Blair
I would be pleased if you could point out where I mentioned the Democrats in this post in any way. I look forward to your indication of how the new ‘Liberal National Party’ indicates any interest, let alone capacity, to reflect genuinely liberal views.
Jul 28th, 2008
Simon
Is anyone able to simply explain how this kind of merger actually works technically?
It seems fairly simple from an intra-Queensland point of view. People elected keep their seats until the next election at which time candidates will run under the banner of the new party.
At a federal level do Queensland candidates now run under the banner of the new party? Does the new party become part of the ‘Coalition’?
I should probably know this stuff, but given that it still startles me how little even my politically aware friends understand about Australia’s electoral process, I take heart in the belief I’m still far from ignorant.
Jul 29th, 2008
Tony
SIMON:
The simply way to explain it is this. The 2 State partys merge to form the Liberal National Party. All assets, including cash, property etc become the property of the new party. This party becomes a branch of the federal Liberal party. (Thereby ending the Qld Nationals). As liberals they will be part of the coalition.
Senators are selected as follow: 1 liberal (Sitting) 2. Barnaby Joyce
3. sitting liberal senator. 4 liberal after that will gain party nomination.
(as Ron Boswell predicated to retire, this shouldn’t interfer with the following pre- selection as Barnaby will be the only remaining senator.
All lower house and state members retain their preselection at the next State/Federal election. All future pre-selections will be from the new party. All seats in Queensland will be contested by LNP members at their next election. Is that simple enough.
Tony
Jul 29th, 2008
LORIKEET
From what I saw on the news, a mining magnate paid a huge sum of money to ensure the amalgamation took place.
He got up and said it himself, even waving the cheque. I think he did it for his own financial gain, so he doesn’t have to pay any carbon tax. On that basis alone, I think Andrew Fraser might be right.
I cannot imagine these Liberal/National Party leaders getting elected in Queensland. There doesn’t appear to be ANY leadership in them.
I still can’t even remember the Liberal leader’s name – that’s how inconsequential he seems.
Joh Bjelke-Petersen could easily thrash the ALP on his own. I don’t think these guys can do it, not even together.
I think It’s a marriage of convenience (and that very large donation). They only seem to get together when they can’t win on their own.
None of the major players seems to be interested in financing public education, no matter what they tell us.
Jul 29th, 2008
muzzmonster
Lorikeet: As state governments aren’t making decisions regarding the future carbon trading scheme (which isn not a carbon tax) I can hardly see how any mining interests supoprting the merger of a state party can expect any desired outcome regarding carbon trading.
I suspect that he – not unreasonably – considers one combined party more likely to defeat Labor than 2 separate bickering ones. Perhaps they do, but despite my enduring disappointment with the Labor government, I can’t see myself voting for them either.
Jul 29th, 2008
Franky goes to hollywood
The merger has nothing to do with policy so you are right Mr. Bartlett… Ideology is incidental.
It is part of a marketing campaign starting with ‘the borg is back’ (lets us, for a moment, reflect on the half naked shots of “the borg’ that accompanied the last election campaign).
This merged entity is completley different to a coalition of the parties. A coalition acknowledged their differences, the LNP attempts to fool us into believing that the Liberal and National approach to policy formation is based on the same premise attempting to achieve the same goals. This is simply not true… http://www.nationalstakeover.com/01_cms/details.asp?ID=4
They had difficulty agreeing on their merged entity and when it came to their much heralded conference, resorted to a gag motion to prevent opposition from life members. Queensland is most definatley the winner here…
Jul 30th, 2008
LORIKEET
Muzz:
There is definitely some kind of higher penalty or tax that is going to be exacted from mining companies – could be at a federal level.
A mining magnate financing a LNP merger is certainly plugging for more money in his own pocket.
I think Andrew has already indicated that the merger will cross to federal politics.
Jul 30th, 2008
Simon
A belated thanks to Tony for that explanation. It seems interesting that they become a branch of the Libs given the Nats dominance in Qld.
Jul 31st, 2008
Cassie ST
When I heard about the merger, a new name for the party immediately sprang to mind … “The Natteralls”. (NB: “Natter” – to talk, “all” – encompassing)
Aug 1st, 2008
Reply to “Conservative takeover complete – end of liberalism in Queensland?”