Latest news with #JohnHoward
The Age
29-05-2025
- Politics
- The Age
For the Liberals to survive, the Nationals need to get tealed
Sometimes, all's not well that ends well. Having rushed up to the electoral abyss and been struck by its unrelenting darkness, the Liberals and Nationals have thought better of oblivion and struck a deal to remain in coalition. But their reunification does little to obscure the abyss that still exists between – and even within – each of these parties. Let one fact suffice: both had members who refused to accept more senior positions so they could remain on the backbench, from which they are free to throw grenades. That's because this crisis is not a moment. It is not the pangs of one terrible night four weeks ago. It is the culmination of decades; the inevitable expression of the contradictory forces that have been tearing away at conservative politics since late last century. In short, these are the forces of liberalism – with its love of individual freedom, globalisation and small government – clashing with the more nationalist flavour of the right-wing politics – keen to pick a fight over cultural values, suspicious of immigration and free trade, unimpressed with diversity. For a time, conservative parties held this together with a mix of liberal economics and carefully chosen culture wars – the high watermark of which in Australia was John Howard. But this past decade, the tension got too much, and the seams finally ripped apart. By 2015, Malcolm Turnbull could only become prime minister by foregoing much of what he believed on climate and energy policy. A decade on, and Peter Dutton had given the Nationals most of what they wanted, which is a major reason he went to the election with a deeply illiberal policy for the government – not the private sector – to build seven nuclear power plants. In short, the Nationals have increasingly held the whip hand in the Coalition, with one very obvious electoral consequence: the Nats keep winning their seats, and the Liberals keep losing theirs. This is the depth of the Coalition's crisis. Their differences are irreconcilable, and their commonalities make them unelectable. The trouble is, the Coalition is being torn apart by a changing Australia. Most simply, the rural/city divide is becoming more pronounced in political terms. Look at a federal map and you'll see a montage of red cities and blue countryside. It's not happenstance: it reflects that fact that these are two quite different Australias. Our urban centres are becoming more and more diverse, our regions older and whiter. About two-thirds of Sydney, for instance, has at least one parent born overseas. More than half of Australians born overseas live in Sydney and Melbourne. As George Megalogenis observed in a Quarterly Essay last year, the children of migrants grew in number by 1.2 million between 2011 and 2021, which was 'double the number added to the Old Australian population – those who have parents and grandparents born here'. The result is the regions are becoming less representative of – and more alienated from – Australia as a whole. That frees the Nationals to perfect a kind of grievance politics that entrenches a divide between city and country, even within the Coalition. The Liberals have no way to bridge this gap, so they end up conceding more and more ground and making the contradictions of contemporary conservative politics only more pronounced, surrendering their traditional constituencies along the way.
Sydney Morning Herald
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
For the Liberals to survive, the Nationals need to get tealed
Sometimes, all's not well that ends well. Having rushed up to the electoral abyss and been struck by its unrelenting darkness, the Liberals and Nationals have thought better of oblivion and struck a deal to remain in coalition. But their reunification does little to obscure the abyss that still exists between – and even within – each of these parties. Let one fact suffice: both had members who refused to accept more senior positions so they could remain on the backbench, from which they are free to throw grenades. That's because this crisis is not a moment. It is not the pangs of one terrible night four weeks ago. It is the culmination of decades; the inevitable expression of the contradictory forces that have been tearing away at conservative politics since late last century. In short, these are the forces of liberalism – with its love of individual freedom, globalisation and small government – clashing with the more nationalist flavour of the right-wing politics – keen to pick a fight over cultural values, suspicious of immigration and free trade, unimpressed with diversity. For a time, conservative parties held this together with a mix of liberal economics and carefully chosen culture wars – the high watermark of which in Australia was John Howard. But this past decade, the tension got too much, and the seams finally ripped apart. By 2015, Malcolm Turnbull could only become prime minister by foregoing much of what he believed on climate and energy policy. A decade on, and Peter Dutton had given the Nationals most of what they wanted, which is a major reason he went to the election with a deeply illiberal policy for the government – not the private sector – to build seven nuclear power plants. In short, the Nationals have increasingly held the whip hand in the Coalition, with one very obvious electoral consequence: the Nats keep winning their seats, and the Liberals keep losing theirs. This is the depth of the Coalition's crisis. Their differences are irreconcilable, and their commonalities make them unelectable. The trouble is, the Coalition is being torn apart by a changing Australia. Most simply, the rural/city divide is becoming more pronounced in political terms. Look at a federal map and you'll see a montage of red cities and blue countryside. It's not happenstance: it reflects that fact that these are two quite different Australias. Our urban centres are becoming more and more diverse, our regions older and whiter. About two-thirds of Sydney, for instance, has at least one parent born overseas. More than half of Australians born overseas live in Sydney and Melbourne. As George Megalogenis observed in a Quarterly Essay last year, the children of migrants grew in number by 1.2 million between 2011 and 2021, which was 'double the number added to the Old Australian population – those who have parents and grandparents born here'. The result is the regions are becoming less representative of – and more alienated from – Australia as a whole. That frees the Nationals to perfect a kind of grievance politics that entrenches a divide between city and country, even within the Coalition. The Liberals have no way to bridge this gap, so they end up conceding more and more ground and making the contradictions of contemporary conservative politics only more pronounced, surrendering their traditional constituencies along the way.
Epoch Times
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Nothing More Important Than Preserving the Coalition: John Howard
Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard has emphasised the importance of preserving the centre-right Liberal-National Coalition, drawing on historical lessons to support his position. On May 20, Nationals leader David Littleproud made a
The Advertiser
21-05-2025
- Politics
- The Advertiser
Breakaway party airs plan to still 'work' with Liberals
The end of the federal coalition won't stop the Nationals from working with their ex-political partner to target their common enemy - a rampant Labor government. Nationals leader David Littleproud has pulled the party out of coalition with the Liberals for the first time in almost 40 years, citing policy disagreements following an election drubbing. But Mr Littleproud also said he won't be "unrealistic or stupid" and plans to work with the Liberals to target the federal government, which has a strong majority. "The enemy is still Labor," he told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday. "This isn't a split of the coalition in anger or vengeance, this is one on principle and a time for Liberal Party rediscovery. "I want them to succeed and I want us to succeed but there are principles that we can't walk away from." Leaders of both the Liberals and the Nationals insist the "door is open" to discussions and possible reunification ahead of the next federal election. But until then, neither party has a path to power in their own right, effectively smoothing the road for the government. Former Liberal prime minister John Howard said getting the coalition back together was "more important than anything else" as a prolonged separation would solidify policy differences, making them harder to resolve. Though the decision to pull out of the coalition was not unanimous within the Nationals' party room, Mr Littleproud said he needed to stand up for the voters who sent him and his colleagues to parliament. "It's a simple game of arithmetic - as John Howard has always said - but to get that arithmetic in your column, you actually have to stand for something and you have to protect and serve the people who put you here," he told Sky News. The party leader notified Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of the coalition's split on Tuesday and will meet with him in the coming days to work through the impact on the Nationals' new, and reduced, status in parliament. Seven Nationals, including Mr Littleproud, will take a haircut worth tens of thousands of dollars from their base salary rates of about $230,000 after walking away from leadership positions in a future shadow cabinet. Five are actively taking pay cuts, while the other two will forego promotions. The two parties are expected to get back together in the long term as pressure will build when the next election looms, political expert Henry Maher told AAP. Former Queensland Legislative Assembly speaker John Mickel and former WA Liberal premier Colin Barnett have gone further, calling for a formal amalgamation at a federal level to solve the parties' problems. It could model the Liberal-National Party merger in Queensland in 2008, Mr Mickel said, adding it would stop competition between the two in some federal seats such as Bullwinkel in Western Australia, where they ran against each other. The split comes after Mr Littleproud and Liberal leader Sussan Ley failed to reach an agreement on four key policies. The Nationals remain committed to nuclear energy, divestiture powers to pressure big supermarkets against anti-competitive behaviour and a regional investment fund which the coalition took to the last election. Senior Liberal James Paterson hoped the coalition could re-form before the next election. "It's not in the Liberal Party's interest for us to be fighting the National Party... It's not in the National Party's interest to find any new political opponents," he told FIVEAA radio. "We already have to fight the Labor Party, the Greens, and the teals, we are not looking for any other political opponents." The end of the federal coalition won't stop the Nationals from working with their ex-political partner to target their common enemy - a rampant Labor government. Nationals leader David Littleproud has pulled the party out of coalition with the Liberals for the first time in almost 40 years, citing policy disagreements following an election drubbing. But Mr Littleproud also said he won't be "unrealistic or stupid" and plans to work with the Liberals to target the federal government, which has a strong majority. "The enemy is still Labor," he told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday. "This isn't a split of the coalition in anger or vengeance, this is one on principle and a time for Liberal Party rediscovery. "I want them to succeed and I want us to succeed but there are principles that we can't walk away from." Leaders of both the Liberals and the Nationals insist the "door is open" to discussions and possible reunification ahead of the next federal election. But until then, neither party has a path to power in their own right, effectively smoothing the road for the government. Former Liberal prime minister John Howard said getting the coalition back together was "more important than anything else" as a prolonged separation would solidify policy differences, making them harder to resolve. Though the decision to pull out of the coalition was not unanimous within the Nationals' party room, Mr Littleproud said he needed to stand up for the voters who sent him and his colleagues to parliament. "It's a simple game of arithmetic - as John Howard has always said - but to get that arithmetic in your column, you actually have to stand for something and you have to protect and serve the people who put you here," he told Sky News. The party leader notified Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of the coalition's split on Tuesday and will meet with him in the coming days to work through the impact on the Nationals' new, and reduced, status in parliament. Seven Nationals, including Mr Littleproud, will take a haircut worth tens of thousands of dollars from their base salary rates of about $230,000 after walking away from leadership positions in a future shadow cabinet. Five are actively taking pay cuts, while the other two will forego promotions. The two parties are expected to get back together in the long term as pressure will build when the next election looms, political expert Henry Maher told AAP. Former Queensland Legislative Assembly speaker John Mickel and former WA Liberal premier Colin Barnett have gone further, calling for a formal amalgamation at a federal level to solve the parties' problems. It could model the Liberal-National Party merger in Queensland in 2008, Mr Mickel said, adding it would stop competition between the two in some federal seats such as Bullwinkel in Western Australia, where they ran against each other. The split comes after Mr Littleproud and Liberal leader Sussan Ley failed to reach an agreement on four key policies. The Nationals remain committed to nuclear energy, divestiture powers to pressure big supermarkets against anti-competitive behaviour and a regional investment fund which the coalition took to the last election. Senior Liberal James Paterson hoped the coalition could re-form before the next election. "It's not in the Liberal Party's interest for us to be fighting the National Party... It's not in the National Party's interest to find any new political opponents," he told FIVEAA radio. "We already have to fight the Labor Party, the Greens, and the teals, we are not looking for any other political opponents." The end of the federal coalition won't stop the Nationals from working with their ex-political partner to target their common enemy - a rampant Labor government. Nationals leader David Littleproud has pulled the party out of coalition with the Liberals for the first time in almost 40 years, citing policy disagreements following an election drubbing. But Mr Littleproud also said he won't be "unrealistic or stupid" and plans to work with the Liberals to target the federal government, which has a strong majority. "The enemy is still Labor," he told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday. "This isn't a split of the coalition in anger or vengeance, this is one on principle and a time for Liberal Party rediscovery. "I want them to succeed and I want us to succeed but there are principles that we can't walk away from." Leaders of both the Liberals and the Nationals insist the "door is open" to discussions and possible reunification ahead of the next federal election. But until then, neither party has a path to power in their own right, effectively smoothing the road for the government. Former Liberal prime minister John Howard said getting the coalition back together was "more important than anything else" as a prolonged separation would solidify policy differences, making them harder to resolve. Though the decision to pull out of the coalition was not unanimous within the Nationals' party room, Mr Littleproud said he needed to stand up for the voters who sent him and his colleagues to parliament. "It's a simple game of arithmetic - as John Howard has always said - but to get that arithmetic in your column, you actually have to stand for something and you have to protect and serve the people who put you here," he told Sky News. The party leader notified Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of the coalition's split on Tuesday and will meet with him in the coming days to work through the impact on the Nationals' new, and reduced, status in parliament. Seven Nationals, including Mr Littleproud, will take a haircut worth tens of thousands of dollars from their base salary rates of about $230,000 after walking away from leadership positions in a future shadow cabinet. Five are actively taking pay cuts, while the other two will forego promotions. The two parties are expected to get back together in the long term as pressure will build when the next election looms, political expert Henry Maher told AAP. Former Queensland Legislative Assembly speaker John Mickel and former WA Liberal premier Colin Barnett have gone further, calling for a formal amalgamation at a federal level to solve the parties' problems. It could model the Liberal-National Party merger in Queensland in 2008, Mr Mickel said, adding it would stop competition between the two in some federal seats such as Bullwinkel in Western Australia, where they ran against each other. The split comes after Mr Littleproud and Liberal leader Sussan Ley failed to reach an agreement on four key policies. The Nationals remain committed to nuclear energy, divestiture powers to pressure big supermarkets against anti-competitive behaviour and a regional investment fund which the coalition took to the last election. Senior Liberal James Paterson hoped the coalition could re-form before the next election. "It's not in the Liberal Party's interest for us to be fighting the National Party... It's not in the National Party's interest to find any new political opponents," he told FIVEAA radio. "We already have to fight the Labor Party, the Greens, and the teals, we are not looking for any other political opponents." The end of the federal coalition won't stop the Nationals from working with their ex-political partner to target their common enemy - a rampant Labor government. Nationals leader David Littleproud has pulled the party out of coalition with the Liberals for the first time in almost 40 years, citing policy disagreements following an election drubbing. But Mr Littleproud also said he won't be "unrealistic or stupid" and plans to work with the Liberals to target the federal government, which has a strong majority. "The enemy is still Labor," he told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday. "This isn't a split of the coalition in anger or vengeance, this is one on principle and a time for Liberal Party rediscovery. "I want them to succeed and I want us to succeed but there are principles that we can't walk away from." Leaders of both the Liberals and the Nationals insist the "door is open" to discussions and possible reunification ahead of the next federal election. But until then, neither party has a path to power in their own right, effectively smoothing the road for the government. Former Liberal prime minister John Howard said getting the coalition back together was "more important than anything else" as a prolonged separation would solidify policy differences, making them harder to resolve. Though the decision to pull out of the coalition was not unanimous within the Nationals' party room, Mr Littleproud said he needed to stand up for the voters who sent him and his colleagues to parliament. "It's a simple game of arithmetic - as John Howard has always said - but to get that arithmetic in your column, you actually have to stand for something and you have to protect and serve the people who put you here," he told Sky News. The party leader notified Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of the coalition's split on Tuesday and will meet with him in the coming days to work through the impact on the Nationals' new, and reduced, status in parliament. Seven Nationals, including Mr Littleproud, will take a haircut worth tens of thousands of dollars from their base salary rates of about $230,000 after walking away from leadership positions in a future shadow cabinet. Five are actively taking pay cuts, while the other two will forego promotions. The two parties are expected to get back together in the long term as pressure will build when the next election looms, political expert Henry Maher told AAP. Former Queensland Legislative Assembly speaker John Mickel and former WA Liberal premier Colin Barnett have gone further, calling for a formal amalgamation at a federal level to solve the parties' problems. It could model the Liberal-National Party merger in Queensland in 2008, Mr Mickel said, adding it would stop competition between the two in some federal seats such as Bullwinkel in Western Australia, where they ran against each other. The split comes after Mr Littleproud and Liberal leader Sussan Ley failed to reach an agreement on four key policies. The Nationals remain committed to nuclear energy, divestiture powers to pressure big supermarkets against anti-competitive behaviour and a regional investment fund which the coalition took to the last election. Senior Liberal James Paterson hoped the coalition could re-form before the next election. "It's not in the Liberal Party's interest for us to be fighting the National Party... It's not in the National Party's interest to find any new political opponents," he told FIVEAA radio. "We already have to fight the Labor Party, the Greens, and the teals, we are not looking for any other political opponents."
The Advertiser
21-05-2025
- Politics
- The Advertiser
It will be hard for the Nats to fight back if the Libs want their seats
In the aftermath of the recent election debacle the much-vaunted, seemingly permanent coalition, between the Liberals and the Nationals that has dominated Australian national politics since 1922, has this week collapsed. The impasse in the negotiations between the two parties over policy issues like nuclear power, net zero and regional funding along with demands by the Nationals for more portfolio allocations at more senior levels, has ended the Coalition. Such a split is not for the first time. Following the Coalition's 1972 federal election loss, the Nationals went their own way blaming the Liberals' disunity for the election failure. Nevertheless, driven by self-interest, they came back a year later. And the 1987 Queensland Nationals' "Joh for PM" stunt split the federal Coalition and cost John Howard the election. It was temporary, but it left lasting wounds. The Coalition has long been described as "marriage of convenience" with the parties bound together by mutual self-interest of winning office than a real partnership of shared values. For the Liberals, the Coalition "convenience" was allowing them to win and retain office that, with only a couple of exceptions, would otherwise have been impossible. For the Nationals, Coalition brought them to office enabling them to hold numerous portfolios and to extract policy goodies for their regional electoral base and so to ward off regional predators. But these conditions of being in office no longer apply. The Albanese government looks set to be in power for some time ahead. So, for some Liberals, the Coalition ending provides long yearned for opportunities. It means no longer having to accommodate the Nationals' expensive subsidies for their regional fatted sacred cows that undermined the Liberals' more economic approach. Now too the Liberals can adopt a more progressive'social agenda previously constrained by the Nationals, that made many Liberals believe had caused them to lose support from a changing modern Australia. Also, the Liberals now can openly compete for any National Party seat, not restricted by coalition agreements. Liberals have been gradually doing this for some time. Liberal leader Sussan Ley won Farrer once held by Nationals leader Tim Fischer. Now, there will be no holding back. There might even, in the wake senator Jacinta Yangapi Nampijinpa Price's recent defection to the Liberals, be more. The Nationals have another view. They see the Coalition's loss of office as the consequence of the Liberals' policy me-tooism with Labor, restraining the Coalition from having a real point of difference, betraying its core values and disillusioning its base. While the Liberals lose a swag of seats at elections, the Nationals point to their stability, ignoring the location and demography of their seats that make them easier to retain. The Nationals have also long been smarting that despite gifting the Liberals office, they have not enjoyed the number or seniority of portfolios they deserve. All this overlooks how the Liberals and Nationals in coalition together gave the non- Labor cause a breadth and range of members and policies that Labor could not match. But now, separate, the limitations of each party will be exposed. The Liberals may be a largely urban party but their base is probably less progressive than thought. Being in coalition with the Nationals sometimes restrained them from adopting too easily some of the more fashionable policy trends and thus losing support. Remember, it was the Nationals who came out first against the Voice referendum, despite Liberal misgivings, and which eventually gave the Coalition a considered significant win. As for the Nationals, despite dropping the Country Party nomenclature decades ago, they remain regionally based, confined to three states and with a narrow policy repertoire. They have little retaliatory power to Liberal incursions into their vulnerable seats and have long been in retreat from their traditional areas. Now, in the wake of this split, many issues will need to be resolved like how the two parties will co-operate in opposition concerning parliamentary tactics and policies? Who will speak on what issues where there might be shared interests but competing politics? Also, expect embittered three-corner contests campaigns, costing considerable resources. This broken Coalition will stand in stark contrast to the more united and tactically adroit Albanese Labor government. Voters desert divided political parties as Labor learnt during the 1950s. In the aftermath of the recent election debacle the much-vaunted, seemingly permanent coalition, between the Liberals and the Nationals that has dominated Australian national politics since 1922, has this week collapsed. The impasse in the negotiations between the two parties over policy issues like nuclear power, net zero and regional funding along with demands by the Nationals for more portfolio allocations at more senior levels, has ended the Coalition. Such a split is not for the first time. Following the Coalition's 1972 federal election loss, the Nationals went their own way blaming the Liberals' disunity for the election failure. Nevertheless, driven by self-interest, they came back a year later. And the 1987 Queensland Nationals' "Joh for PM" stunt split the federal Coalition and cost John Howard the election. It was temporary, but it left lasting wounds. The Coalition has long been described as "marriage of convenience" with the parties bound together by mutual self-interest of winning office than a real partnership of shared values. For the Liberals, the Coalition "convenience" was allowing them to win and retain office that, with only a couple of exceptions, would otherwise have been impossible. For the Nationals, Coalition brought them to office enabling them to hold numerous portfolios and to extract policy goodies for their regional electoral base and so to ward off regional predators. But these conditions of being in office no longer apply. The Albanese government looks set to be in power for some time ahead. So, for some Liberals, the Coalition ending provides long yearned for opportunities. It means no longer having to accommodate the Nationals' expensive subsidies for their regional fatted sacred cows that undermined the Liberals' more economic approach. Now too the Liberals can adopt a more progressive'social agenda previously constrained by the Nationals, that made many Liberals believe had caused them to lose support from a changing modern Australia. Also, the Liberals now can openly compete for any National Party seat, not restricted by coalition agreements. Liberals have been gradually doing this for some time. Liberal leader Sussan Ley won Farrer once held by Nationals leader Tim Fischer. Now, there will be no holding back. There might even, in the wake senator Jacinta Yangapi Nampijinpa Price's recent defection to the Liberals, be more. The Nationals have another view. They see the Coalition's loss of office as the consequence of the Liberals' policy me-tooism with Labor, restraining the Coalition from having a real point of difference, betraying its core values and disillusioning its base. While the Liberals lose a swag of seats at elections, the Nationals point to their stability, ignoring the location and demography of their seats that make them easier to retain. The Nationals have also long been smarting that despite gifting the Liberals office, they have not enjoyed the number or seniority of portfolios they deserve. All this overlooks how the Liberals and Nationals in coalition together gave the non- Labor cause a breadth and range of members and policies that Labor could not match. But now, separate, the limitations of each party will be exposed. The Liberals may be a largely urban party but their base is probably less progressive than thought. Being in coalition with the Nationals sometimes restrained them from adopting too easily some of the more fashionable policy trends and thus losing support. Remember, it was the Nationals who came out first against the Voice referendum, despite Liberal misgivings, and which eventually gave the Coalition a considered significant win. As for the Nationals, despite dropping the Country Party nomenclature decades ago, they remain regionally based, confined to three states and with a narrow policy repertoire. They have little retaliatory power to Liberal incursions into their vulnerable seats and have long been in retreat from their traditional areas. Now, in the wake of this split, many issues will need to be resolved like how the two parties will co-operate in opposition concerning parliamentary tactics and policies? Who will speak on what issues where there might be shared interests but competing politics? Also, expect embittered three-corner contests campaigns, costing considerable resources. This broken Coalition will stand in stark contrast to the more united and tactically adroit Albanese Labor government. Voters desert divided political parties as Labor learnt during the 1950s. In the aftermath of the recent election debacle the much-vaunted, seemingly permanent coalition, between the Liberals and the Nationals that has dominated Australian national politics since 1922, has this week collapsed. The impasse in the negotiations between the two parties over policy issues like nuclear power, net zero and regional funding along with demands by the Nationals for more portfolio allocations at more senior levels, has ended the Coalition. Such a split is not for the first time. Following the Coalition's 1972 federal election loss, the Nationals went their own way blaming the Liberals' disunity for the election failure. Nevertheless, driven by self-interest, they came back a year later. And the 1987 Queensland Nationals' "Joh for PM" stunt split the federal Coalition and cost John Howard the election. It was temporary, but it left lasting wounds. The Coalition has long been described as "marriage of convenience" with the parties bound together by mutual self-interest of winning office than a real partnership of shared values. For the Liberals, the Coalition "convenience" was allowing them to win and retain office that, with only a couple of exceptions, would otherwise have been impossible. For the Nationals, Coalition brought them to office enabling them to hold numerous portfolios and to extract policy goodies for their regional electoral base and so to ward off regional predators. But these conditions of being in office no longer apply. The Albanese government looks set to be in power for some time ahead. So, for some Liberals, the Coalition ending provides long yearned for opportunities. It means no longer having to accommodate the Nationals' expensive subsidies for their regional fatted sacred cows that undermined the Liberals' more economic approach. Now too the Liberals can adopt a more progressive'social agenda previously constrained by the Nationals, that made many Liberals believe had caused them to lose support from a changing modern Australia. Also, the Liberals now can openly compete for any National Party seat, not restricted by coalition agreements. Liberals have been gradually doing this for some time. Liberal leader Sussan Ley won Farrer once held by Nationals leader Tim Fischer. Now, there will be no holding back. There might even, in the wake senator Jacinta Yangapi Nampijinpa Price's recent defection to the Liberals, be more. The Nationals have another view. They see the Coalition's loss of office as the consequence of the Liberals' policy me-tooism with Labor, restraining the Coalition from having a real point of difference, betraying its core values and disillusioning its base. While the Liberals lose a swag of seats at elections, the Nationals point to their stability, ignoring the location and demography of their seats that make them easier to retain. The Nationals have also long been smarting that despite gifting the Liberals office, they have not enjoyed the number or seniority of portfolios they deserve. All this overlooks how the Liberals and Nationals in coalition together gave the non- Labor cause a breadth and range of members and policies that Labor could not match. But now, separate, the limitations of each party will be exposed. The Liberals may be a largely urban party but their base is probably less progressive than thought. Being in coalition with the Nationals sometimes restrained them from adopting too easily some of the more fashionable policy trends and thus losing support. Remember, it was the Nationals who came out first against the Voice referendum, despite Liberal misgivings, and which eventually gave the Coalition a considered significant win. As for the Nationals, despite dropping the Country Party nomenclature decades ago, they remain regionally based, confined to three states and with a narrow policy repertoire. They have little retaliatory power to Liberal incursions into their vulnerable seats and have long been in retreat from their traditional areas. Now, in the wake of this split, many issues will need to be resolved like how the two parties will co-operate in opposition concerning parliamentary tactics and policies? Who will speak on what issues where there might be shared interests but competing politics? Also, expect embittered three-corner contests campaigns, costing considerable resources. This broken Coalition will stand in stark contrast to the more united and tactically adroit Albanese Labor government. Voters desert divided political parties as Labor learnt during the 1950s. In the aftermath of the recent election debacle the much-vaunted, seemingly permanent coalition, between the Liberals and the Nationals that has dominated Australian national politics since 1922, has this week collapsed. The impasse in the negotiations between the two parties over policy issues like nuclear power, net zero and regional funding along with demands by the Nationals for more portfolio allocations at more senior levels, has ended the Coalition. Such a split is not for the first time. Following the Coalition's 1972 federal election loss, the Nationals went their own way blaming the Liberals' disunity for the election failure. Nevertheless, driven by self-interest, they came back a year later. And the 1987 Queensland Nationals' "Joh for PM" stunt split the federal Coalition and cost John Howard the election. It was temporary, but it left lasting wounds. The Coalition has long been described as "marriage of convenience" with the parties bound together by mutual self-interest of winning office than a real partnership of shared values. For the Liberals, the Coalition "convenience" was allowing them to win and retain office that, with only a couple of exceptions, would otherwise have been impossible. For the Nationals, Coalition brought them to office enabling them to hold numerous portfolios and to extract policy goodies for their regional electoral base and so to ward off regional predators. But these conditions of being in office no longer apply. The Albanese government looks set to be in power for some time ahead. So, for some Liberals, the Coalition ending provides long yearned for opportunities. It means no longer having to accommodate the Nationals' expensive subsidies for their regional fatted sacred cows that undermined the Liberals' more economic approach. Now too the Liberals can adopt a more progressive'social agenda previously constrained by the Nationals, that made many Liberals believe had caused them to lose support from a changing modern Australia. Also, the Liberals now can openly compete for any National Party seat, not restricted by coalition agreements. Liberals have been gradually doing this for some time. Liberal leader Sussan Ley won Farrer once held by Nationals leader Tim Fischer. Now, there will be no holding back. There might even, in the wake senator Jacinta Yangapi Nampijinpa Price's recent defection to the Liberals, be more. The Nationals have another view. They see the Coalition's loss of office as the consequence of the Liberals' policy me-tooism with Labor, restraining the Coalition from having a real point of difference, betraying its core values and disillusioning its base. While the Liberals lose a swag of seats at elections, the Nationals point to their stability, ignoring the location and demography of their seats that make them easier to retain. The Nationals have also long been smarting that despite gifting the Liberals office, they have not enjoyed the number or seniority of portfolios they deserve. All this overlooks how the Liberals and Nationals in coalition together gave the non- Labor cause a breadth and range of members and policies that Labor could not match. But now, separate, the limitations of each party will be exposed. The Liberals may be a largely urban party but their base is probably less progressive than thought. Being in coalition with the Nationals sometimes restrained them from adopting too easily some of the more fashionable policy trends and thus losing support. Remember, it was the Nationals who came out first against the Voice referendum, despite Liberal misgivings, and which eventually gave the Coalition a considered significant win. As for the Nationals, despite dropping the Country Party nomenclature decades ago, they remain regionally based, confined to three states and with a narrow policy repertoire. They have little retaliatory power to Liberal incursions into their vulnerable seats and have long been in retreat from their traditional areas. Now, in the wake of this split, many issues will need to be resolved like how the two parties will co-operate in opposition concerning parliamentary tactics and policies? Who will speak on what issues where there might be shared interests but competing politics? Also, expect embittered three-corner contests campaigns, costing considerable resources. This broken Coalition will stand in stark contrast to the more united and tactically adroit Albanese Labor government. Voters desert divided political parties as Labor learnt during the 1950s.
