Do you agree with this?

[Filthy]

Makes a compelling argument and is no fool.

Electoral loss will mean death of Liberal Party

By Norman Abjorensen
January 19, 2007

In a few weeks the Liberal Party will raise its collective glasses in celebration of 11 years in office at the national level, but it might well be the last celebration: the party, in both senses, could soon be over.

It is by no means inconceivable that the party that under John Howard has so dominated the political stage for more than a decade and through four election wins could simply fall apart in the event of a loss at this year's federal election.

How could this happen? Just as the former Soviet Union simply collapsed because there was nothing holding it together, so too will the Liberal Party if it loses the only asset it has - federal office. The party, as a whole, is in a parlous state; the state branches are weak and demoralised, and true power resides in the federal secretariat in Canberra and the Prime Minister's office.

Just how impotent the Liberals are outside the federal scene will be demonstrated in March when the most incompetent and accident-prone Government in the country, Morris Iemma's Labor Government in NSW, will be returned, albeit with a majority somewhat less than its present 17 seats. Government appears not to be in the sights of the NSW Liberals, now controlled by a hard right-wing element whose main concern appears to be a moral crusade against anyone and anything remotely liberal.

Elsewhere, the Liberals in Western Australia, where another incompetent and possibly corrupt Labor Government rules, are a divided and squabbling rabble; in Victoria they are still licking their wounds from last year's thumping defeat; in South Australia and Tasmania they are irrelevant, and in Queensland, invisible as well as irrelevant.

John Howard has exerted more influence than did Robert Menzies on the Liberal Party as a whole. Whereas Menzies regarded it as a truly federal body with the state branches autonomous, both constitutionally and in practice, Howard has been the great centraliser. For example, all state directors of the party have had to be approved by Howard himself before appointment - the closest thing to a politburo Australia has seen.

Of course, this has paid off handsomely for Howard. Not only has the possibility of potentially damaging dissent emanating from state branches and prominent party officials been eliminated, the party machine itself has been mobilised to oppose elements within the party, be they MPs or officials, who are regarded as not sufficiently pro-Howard. The well-organised but ultimately unsuccessful campaign against Petro Georgiou last year in Kooyong is a case in point.

What this has meant in practice is that even though state branches of the party are festering sores of discontent, Howard's forces have been able to impose a tight discipline in the interests of unity. "Don't rock the boat" has become the key mantra.

Howard of all people knows the price of disunity; it was this that cost him the prime ministership in his first tilt at the 1987 election, and then subsequently the party leadership two years later. Public disunity was electoral death to the party in those days, and Howard learned the lesson well.

But it has come at a cost. If the Liberals lose this year, they will be out of office in every jurisdiction in the land; holding national office has supplanted all else as the party's fundamental raison d'etre. Once that is taken away, all hell will break loose in the form of years of pent-up dissent, disillusionment and frustration.

Even the most cursory glance at history shows that non-Labor has not adapted to losses of office. The Nationalists did not survive defeat in 1929 nor did the Liberals' immediate predecessor, the United Australia Party after it lost office in 1941. Had Whitlam's government not self-immolated in 1975 before it was sacked, another electoral defeat for the Liberals would have seen their simmering discontent escalate to schism, even greater than the loss of Don Chipp and his supporters. And, more recently, who can forget the long period of infighting and instability that followed Hawke's victory in 1983, as the wets and the dries did battle?

Howard has been, by his own admission, the most conservative Liberal leader ever; he has also presided over a party that now openly calls itself conservative (a term, incidentally, discouraged and shunned by Menzies when it was suggested as a name for the new party). The Georgious and the Moylans, who have courageously opposed some of the Government's more extreme measures in regard to immigration detention, will be expected to be vocal, as will the other more timid members who have opted, or been persuaded, so far to hold their tongues; they might even find a modicum of common cause with what remains of the Australian Democrats.

It is not inconceivable that a realignment of sorts will take place, most probably involving the rise of a new centrist party. Is there, perhaps, a new Don Chipp in the wings biding his or her time?

A coalition defeat in 2007 will almost certainly herald a major realignment on the non-Labor side of politics, but it is problematic whether the Liberal Party, as now constituted, will survive.

Dr Norman Abjorensen is at the School of Social Sciences at the ANU. His book on leadership in the Liberal Party will be published in March.

Interesting.

[temporary stevo]

that argument was made by Beazley just a few days ago.

some interesting comments have been made here.

[swoodley]

Not too many years ago after another Labor defeat, the "experts" were forecasting the demise of the Labor Party.

I don't place too much credence in this latest prediction. Sure, when Howard/The Liberals eventually lose, there will be some bloodletting but to say that the whole Liberal machine will fall apart is stretching it a bit much (imo).

[pevfan]

Really can't see it happening Filth. IMO the fact that Labor governs in all States helps the Libs federally. As the Rodent so rat cunningly pointed out during the last election... If you vote labor you will have wall to wall labor governments in this country. I genuinely believe many voters would be afraid of this....For one thing I reckon voters would be afraid they would all agree on raising the GST from it's current 10% After all that's what's happened in most other countries where it's been introduced, including Britain where it's now up to 17% I think.

[BERT]

It will be interesting to see how the NSW election pans out in a couple of months. If the Libs can't win that they ae in trouble in NSW. The Government here is a shambles with a MP getting done for assulting his Mrs on the weekend. Another now ex ALP MP is on child sex charges. The trains here are a shambles.

The libs would have shitted it in if the ex leader didn't sexualy harass some girls and have to quit. He was young and was going really well. He just committed career suicide.

If the ALP win it will be unbelievable.

[temporary stevo]

Bert, I think the problem for the NSW Libs is that they've been hijacked by far Right nutters. they really should be a more credible option, because Iemma is far from convincing.

Pevfan - if Howard runs the "only Labor governments" line against the possibility of electing a federal Labor government, Rudd can simply reply that it will make federal-state relationships more congenial and thus lead to better services. the only people Howard will persuade with that argument are those who wouldn't vote Labor anyway.

[spikefan]

I think the argument is quite plausible. The Howard electorate is quite diverse and in the aftermath of a Lib defeat could well fall apart; I see four groups:

1/Voters who give undue credit to Howard for their current prosperity (due IMO to external factors) and would quickly discover that labor can do as well.

2/ Fiscal conservative, that vote for a conservative economic policy but are socially progressive. These voters also could quickly discover that Labor is not necesarily fiscally irresponsible. These voters are currently disturbed by Howard foreign policy, Hicks, ....

3/Social conservatives that really hate anything progressive.

4/ Far right looneys nostalgic of the White Australia policy.

It will take a long time to put these four groups back together. Blair destroyed the British conservative for 10 years by rallying group 1/ and most of 2/ behind "new labor".

[Filthy]

I think the argument is quite plausible. The Howard electorate is quite diverse and in the aftermath of a Lib defeat could well fall apart; I see four groups:

1/Voters who give undue credit to Howard for their current prosperity (due IMO to external factors) and would quickly discover that labor can do as well.

2/ Fiscal conservative, that vote for a conservative economic policy but are socially progressive. These voters also could quickly discover that Labor is not necesarily fiscally irresponsible. These voters are currently disturbed by Howard foreign policy, Hicks, ....

3/Social conservatives that really hate anything progressive.

4/ Far right looneys nostalgic of the White Australia policy.

It will take a long time to put these four groups back together. Blair destroyed the British conservative for 10 years by rallying group 1/ and most of 2/ behind "new labor".

Rudd will not worry about 3) and 4) as they are not in his constituency.

Economically, I cannot understand why they have to prove their credentials when:

a) They are running 8 Governments in Oz with huge surpluses.

b) They Internationalised the Australian Economy in the 80's when before 83 the Rodent as Treasurer didn't have the guts. This laid the foundation for the modern Australian Economy. There have been 16 consecutive years of economic growth. The Rodent has infested us for 10.5 years. Who was in charge before that? One of Beazleys big mistakes was that he didn't trumpet that and stood on his and his colleagues economic achievements in office in very difficult World Economic conditions. Stupid.

c) Iraq, Hicks, Kids overboard, raising interest rates, AWB, lack of Ministerial responsibility generally etc etc etc surely must start to bite. The Rodent is a liar and a cheat and every day that goes by, more people are finding this out. His lording over us at Kirribilli leaving the Lodge empty, costing the Taxpayers tens of millions each year as he uses the RAAF as his private airline must also start to piss people doing it tough.

[temporary stevo]

Rudd will not worry about 3) and 4) as they are not in his constituency.

i think you're wrong about 3), Filthy. Labor does have a large conservative constituency. for example, trade unions tend to support protectionist economic policies; on "values" questions like gay marriage, affirmative action, stem-cell research, there are many Labor voters who would line up on the conservative side.

and also Rudd's rhetoric suggests that he wants to appeal to conservative voters. i don't think Rudd would do this if there were not a large conservative element in his constituency, because he risks alienating Labor's progressive constituency.