Peter van Onselen has written a bizarre piece in The Australian suggesting a split in the Federal Coalition would be political suicide.
Van Onselen claims: “… it would be absolute folly for the conservative side of politics if the Coalition were to disintegrate, and it would hurt the Liberal Party at least as much as it would the Nationals.”
He makes some spectacular leaps of logic, most of which are so fanciful I don’t know where to begin in pointing out how ridiculous they are.
I’ll work through them in his order.
1. The Nationals would lose a share of power incumbency brings.
Why? They’re in opposition, they don’t have any power. Quitting the Coalition would not preclude them from sharing power after a future election, not to mention the influence they could exercise from the cross benches like the Greens.
2. The Nationals are a political force able to disproportionately deliver for regional communities because they are regularly part of a Coalition in government.
The Federal Nationals are in terminal decline because of the Coalition. People can’t distinguish them from the Liberals. It’s arguable how much they delivered under the Howard Government.
3. The Western Australian standalone model is high risk.
Van Onselen claims the Nationals would have been sidelined if Colin Barnett had won an absolute majority. That’s wrong because there was no way the Liberals could have won control of the Upper House. Brendon Grylls admits his luck in holding the Lower House balance of power, but always expected to hold it in the Upper House.
4. If the Coalition splits, Barnaby Joyce would become Nationals leader and take the party down a regional populist route.
Yes. I can’t see the political downside to this for the Nationals.
5. The loss of support for the Liberals if Nationals run against them in a large number of electorates would be fatal.
I don’t imagine the Nationals would be serious contenders in city fringe seats. If they did stand in seats like McEwen to bolster the Senate vote, chances are preferences would flow to the Liberals anyway. The Liberals have won marginal seats in three-cornered contests, eg McMillan.
6. The Nationals may offer voters double-sided how-to-vote cards with the option of preferencing either of the main parties.
I’d like this to be true, but it’s pure fantasy as far as the eastern states are concerned. If there is a Coalition split, preferences will still go to the Liberals.
7. Frome is an example of why a split would be political suicide.
The Liberals can thank themselves for the Frome debacle. See point 6 for the more realistic scenario in the eastern states.
8. A Federal Coalition split would cost the New South Wales Coalition victory in 2011.
Why? The NSW Coalition is solid and the government is in terminal decline.
9. Different coalition arrangements at the state and federal level would be “nothing short of dysfunctional”.
Van Onselen should read some political history. The Victorian and Queensland Country Parties stood alone during many years of a stable Federal Coalition. The Victorian Nationals contested the 2006 state election independently. It wasn’t their fault the Liberals didn’t win.
10. A federal break-up would destabilise the WA Government.
It would have no impact.
11. The Nationals would probably try their hand in Tasmania.
Fanciful. If they did it would be unlikely to succeed and would not damage the Liberals.
12. The alternative to coalition is electoral oblivion.
The Federal Nationals are staring down the barrel of electoral oblivion if they stay in coalition, especially while in opposition.
I had to check the byline on van Onselen’s article. It reads like something John Howard might have written.
Howard was masterful at massaging National Party egos to keep them on a short leash. I may be wrong, but I don’t think Howard ever needed the Nationals to form a majority government.
However, like Jeff Kennett in Victoria, bringing the Nationals into the tent by offering white cars silenced a potential critic in the bush.
Quitting the Coalition would enable the Nationals to articulate their own policies in the lead-up to the next federal election.
There is no reason an alliance or coalition could not be formed after the election.
×0
