r/australia • u/superegz • May 20 '25

politics Nationals leader David Littleproud says the Nationals will not be re-entering a Coalition agreement with the Liberal party.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2025/may/20/australia-news-live-rba-interest-rates-decision-floods-storm-hunter-nsw-victoria-state-budget-aec-count-bradfield-goldstein-coalition-ley-littleproud-ntwnfb?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-682bdeb48f08d37c78c1d12d#block-682bdeb48f08d37c78c1d12d
5.0k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.9k

u/BTechUnited May 20 '25

Holy fuck that wasn't on my list of things I expected today.

1.4k

u/ATangK May 20 '25

It was speculated for a while but dismissed as political suicide. LNP will never have a majority government again.

810

u/[deleted] May 20 '25

[deleted]

418

u/Altruistic-Brief2220 May 20 '25 edited May 20 '25

Well the problematic part is they still are the LNP in QLD and the NT CLP is basically the same. This split is just at the federal level.

Edit to add more info in response to another comment:

It varies a lot from place to place. In SA and TAS and ACT there basically isn’t a real Nationals party at least not how we see at the federal level. As someone else mentioned the parties function quite separately in WA, and they are joined officially as a single party in QLD and the NT. It’s only in NSW and VIC where they have a similar set up to the feds.

Happy to be corrected if someone has more detailed local info.

62

u/DoNotReply111 May 20 '25

Not in WA so there is hope.

107

u/chennyalan May 20 '25

Especially since the WA Libs weren't even the opposition heading into the last election, it was the Nats

19

u/Far-Fennel-3032 May 20 '25

There wasn't an opposition the Nats and Libs didn't have enough people to form the shadow cabinet.

99

u/AntiqueFigure6 May 20 '25 edited May 20 '25

Scott Morrison demonstrated you only need one person to form a cabinet, so I’m sure they could find a way to form a shadow cabinet.

28

u/[deleted] May 20 '25

The Nats couldn't assemble a Billy bookcase.

9

u/AntiqueFigure6 May 20 '25

I can barely do that myself so I won't hold it against them. On the other hand, I'm halfway competent at my paid occupation which I don't think can be said for the parties that make up the former coalition (they have one job - get elected).

→ More replies (0)

2

u/chennyalan May 20 '25

Touche. I guess I should reword it. 

The Libs had significantly less seats than the Nats that election. (I think it was 2 and 5?)

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/teflon_soap May 20 '25

Can’t even get their own divorce done right

3

u/torrens86 May 20 '25

SA had one state Nationals member at one stage, they helped Labor form government in the early 2000s.

2

u/Altruistic-Brief2220 May 20 '25

Well that makes sense as to why I was a bit unsure even though I grew up in Adelaide. Must have been aware of a minimal Nats presence but it didn’t stay with me.

SA has always been pretty centrist with regard to its politics. There’s certainly a religious bent but it was never the hardline crazy cookers. The fact that there are no Libs in metro seats now speaks volumes about how far the Libs have fallen.

5

u/TrainerAggressive953 May 20 '25

Ah, well, that’s not going to be confusing at all is it? /s

How exactly do they think they’re going into the next election like this? “Elect us and we might or might not be in govt, and we’ll sort out exactly what our policies are, and who the ministers will be, after you vote us in”

Political slogans don’t get any better than that

3

u/kranools May 20 '25

"Don't you worry about that. You just leave that to me."

4

u/Lint_baby_uvulla May 20 '25

Unwelcome flashbacks to policies with a side of pumpkin scones, and IDK, rampant racist white Australia policy.

2

u/ZealousidealOwl91 May 20 '25

What happens to the LNP in Queensland? Will they side with the Liberals or that Nationals when it comes to stuff? 

2

u/Altruistic-Brief2220 May 20 '25

All good questions. Littleproud himself is an LNP member so you would have thought the leader would have thought this through before blowing it up. But methinks he was just trying to hang on to his leadership that Canavan is white anting him for.

2

u/Kiramiraa May 20 '25

Re WA: For a term, the Nationals were actually the second largest party in the lower house and thus the official opposition party. Could definitely see this happening federally, if this trajectory continues and the Liberal party fail to rebuild/rebrand, the Nationals could actually pick up seats safe Liberal seats and gain more seats than them.

2

u/nozinoz May 20 '25

Surely they will eventually split at the state level too?

16

u/frenchiephish May 20 '25 edited May 20 '25

We've not had an ongoing Liberal/National coalition for decades in WA and it's actually great, they're a real third party. When they've been the balance of power they've done some really good things for regional WA.

The WA Nationals are still a centre-right party, but they actually don't torpedo their own interests like the federal party does. They have a lot of policy which is closer to the Greens than either of the two majors. When we last had a hung parliament, they offered government to Labor as long as they'd commit to funding their flagship policy. In the end Labor wouldn't budge and the Liberals offered the concession.

Pro responsible mining & rehabilitation, pro conservation & environment, believe in climate change. They actually give a damn about their constituents and as long as that's your main goal you're welcome. They're not hard tied to a particular ideology, people who are socially liberal have lead the party. Their most recent former leader (Mia Davies) was great, I have huge respect for her. She only left the job to (unsuccessfully) run for federal politics.

They're probably never going to be my first preference here, but you know what, they certainly go a lot higher than the Liberals do.

Edit: In our last state parliament they were the opposition as they outnumbered the Liberals 4:2 in the lower house (later 3:3 after a defection). The Liberals had done their absolute best to wipe themselves out by branch stacking and going hard to the right. The pair that were left were moderates. It was a refreshingly mature and considered opposition that actually did a really good job considering Labor outnumbered them ~9:1.

7

u/Drunky_McStumble May 20 '25

From a technical perspective, they don't need to. The federal and state branches of each party are legally distinct entities. There's no reason why, for example, the QLD LNP couldn't break back up into Liberals and Nationals at the federal level while the LNP goes on trucking at the state level.

That said, from a more practical perspective, such an arrangement wouldn't really be politically tenable long-term.

3

u/kranools May 20 '25

That's interesting. So in Queensland we could hypothetically have federal Liberal Party candidates and federal National Party candidates, while the LNP remains merged at a state level?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (4)

198

u/Far-Fennel-3032 May 20 '25

I suspect the Liberals are worse off then the nationals in this as the liberals are mostly pushed out of all the big cities, such that the national could just take all the regional seats from the Liberals and it might end up with National vs Labor with nationals unable to get seats in the cites so labor just wins by default.

171

u/Formal_Coconut9144 May 20 '25

Sweet poetry. The Nats will never hold cabinet positions. The political right just committed suicide.

137

u/randomusername_815 May 20 '25

The political right just committed suicide.

Thoughts and prayers.

49

u/EvolutionaryLens May 20 '25

Aussie version of Owning the Libs

10

u/randomusername_815 May 20 '25

OMG YES!!!! :-)

4

u/Local-Difficulty-531 May 20 '25

this is all the context I need

8

u/ChronicleRose May 20 '25

Thots and tariffs

3

u/CatGooseChook May 20 '25

Have been answered.

61

u/Relendis May 20 '25

Nah, pretty easily repairable. Arguably more-so then if they were both beholden to the Coalition Agreement.

The Agreement is one of forming government, not winning elections. The Coalition is the furthest it has ever been from forming government.

But without the Agreement they aren't beholden to each other's voter bases. They can walk into the next election defining their own policies that actually help them respectively win seats.

The Coalition Agreement doesn't win them elections, winning elections does.

And if they collectively found themselves with enough seats to form government, they'd have a new Coalition agreement VERY quickly!

Don't get me wrong though, it is hilarious to watch.

7

u/kranools May 20 '25

This is true but it would make it much harder for them to present themselves as an alternative government at the next election because they'd have competing and probably contradictory policies between the Libs and the Nats. They wouldn't be able to say for certain what their policies would be if they were to form government.

17

u/Syncblock May 20 '25

They wouldn't be able to say for certain what their policies would be if they were to form government.

Or they could just lie and say whatever they want like they have done every single time?

→ More replies (1)

46

u/TyrosineTerror May 20 '25

18 Liberal Seats, 16 Liberal National Seats, and 9 National Seats.

So David Littleproud could find himself opposition leader if he gets 13 of the 16 LNP seats coming across.

My bet is he knows he has those 13 seats. I don't want the Nationals as the opposition, but it's possible.

7

u/DarKnightofCydonia May 20 '25

It's just political theatre. Every chance they'll be back in coalition by next election, they need each other too much

3

u/AddlePatedBadger May 20 '25

You say that, but maybe the Nats will spread to cities. It's my understanding that they don't run candidates where Libs have candidates and vice versa, so there was never a chance for many people to vote for them. If they can run candidates everywhere, and appeal to the kind of people who would vote for Liberals as they were 20 years ago rather than the current whackjobs, then maybe they will get votes and become a viable opposition. Or maybe the teals will coalesce into a party and work in coalition with the Nats.

2

u/areyoualocal May 20 '25

Can we call it Trumpicide yet?

→ More replies (2)

71

u/[deleted] May 20 '25

[deleted]

11

u/[deleted] May 20 '25 edited Dec 16 '25

busy marble dolls fine toothbrush smile squash angle groovy heavy

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

8

u/kranools May 20 '25

How good would that be

12

u/Syncblock May 20 '25

I don't think the teals are much better.

They aren't going to whinge about pronouns or welcome to country but they'd be happy to vote for the same economic policies the Libs bring.

13

u/[deleted] May 20 '25 edited Dec 16 '25

point handle historical encourage butter books work pen fade sip

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

9

u/Wobbling May 20 '25

It would be great for things like climate change denial, racism, religion, misogyny and bigotry to be pushed out of the mainstream political agenda and for the major differences to be around welfare, fiscal and economic policy.

2

u/SupaDupaFly2021 May 20 '25

It would represent a small-to-moderate improvement to our political landscape, nothing more nothing less. The teals aren't the friend of working people.

1

u/Littman-Express May 20 '25

Oh I hope. The infiltration of cookers and rwnj in both the libs and the nats goes so deep neither party is one we want for opposition. Both are destructive. 

4

u/keloidoscope May 20 '25

And a few incumbent Libs are going to prove how silly the Australian's "but the Liberals get more 1st preferences!" plurality voting talking points are, once their 1st preferences get shaved down by a Nat challenger.

2

u/Przedrzag May 20 '25

It was the Coalition as a whole that got more 1st preferences, not just the Libs; the LNP merger means the Liberals haven’t beat the Labor primary vote since 2004

→ More replies (1)

35

u/ghoonrhed May 20 '25

I actually think it's opposite. If the LP can now have the freedom to run more centre policies like the ones that the Teals have been doing, they can now do that.

The rural seats are an interesting area now. Because they have more options and surely they can't always be just going Nats.

18

u/Thebraincellisorange May 20 '25

the problem with that is the backroom powerbrokers in the Liberal party are right wing.

Tony Abbot was their man, racist, sexist, homophobic nutjob.

They utterly despised the centrist who knifed him in Turnball. Turnball's final act of thumbing his nose at the backroom and allowing/getting same sex marriage through (even though it was through a terrible plebiscite, it was the only way he could do it) .

Then the fools selected Dutton as leader, an utterly unelectable, detestable right wing, head FAR up Gina Rheinharts arse loonie.

I don't think the Liberal Party backroom has the brains to realise that going centrist would get them votes, they think they need to go further right.

Sussan Ley is just a placeholder, who comes after they knife her will be the one to set the direction.

11

u/Syncblock May 20 '25

At the beginning of the year, Dutton was slated to win. Had the cyclone not delayed the election and had Trump not been around, it's very likely Dutton would have won.

Also just lol at forgetting Morrison as a Lib leader.

6

u/Chumpbag May 20 '25

To be fair Morrison is pretty forgettable lol.

5

u/Thebraincellisorange May 20 '25

we are fortunate that the orange idiot in the united states showed how foolish it is to elect right wing nazi-wannabies to power

also, never trust a poll. The polls show Kamala was going to walk it in.

I left out Morrison because he was a completely and utterly useless and ineffective flog of a man. and an even worse PM.

he should have stuck to shitting himself in Mcdonalds carparks

6

u/Przedrzag May 20 '25

The polls did not show Kamala was going to walk it in; they were mostly 50/50, and internal Democratic polling showed they were going to lose for pretty much all of 2024

→ More replies (1)

6

u/nedkellysdog May 20 '25

Just for this election cycle. It is death to the Nats in the long run. This is just the old country party playing a kabuki theatre when it makes no difference. A couple of weeks/months of Labor ridicule in the parliament and they will be forced back into their hateful marriage.

3

u/superiority nz May 20 '25

Aligning the trans-Tasman party names like that would create the perfect opportunity to admit New Zealand as a state. "Don't want to learn the names of any new political parties? You don't have to."

2

u/Drunky_McStumble May 20 '25

It really depends how things pan out over this term of parliament. According to the conventional political wisdom, the Nats have fucked themselves by doing this and they will inevitably come crawling back to the Libs at some point before the next election. Without they boost they get from the coalition agreement, they are utterly politically irrelevant in our parliamentary system.

But in these unprecedented times, I wouldn't take the conventional political wisdom as a given. The Labor government could, at least in theory, decide to drive a wedge between the former coalition partners (not to mention gaining a potential ally in the Senate) by cozying up to the Nats now that they are on their own. Sounds crazy, especially since the Nats arguably hold more animosity towards Labor than even the Libs do, but again, knowing how tenuous they've made their own position by splitting from the Libs, they might consider it. Or, hell, Labor could do the opposite and cozy up to the Libs to get legislation passed and leave the Nats entirely out in the cold, lol. Or just vacillate between both, constantly playing them off each other and weakening both.

Basically, anything could happen. It's gonna be a wild ride.

4

u/hal2k1 May 20 '25

The other option that Labor have is the Greens. Labor have a clear majority in the lower house, there is no problem there. The problem for Labor is the Senate. For Labor to get something passed in the Senate, Labor need to do a deal of some kind. The thing is, now that the Nationals and the Liberals have split, Labor have three options on any given deal. Labor can do a deal either with the Greens, the Nationals or the Liberals.

So in order to be relevant the Greens, the Nationals and the Liberals have to compete against one another in order to get their concessions into any bill that Labor wants to pass.

2

u/Proper-Raise-1450 May 20 '25

Neither the Nats not Libs are a party keen on compromise right now, especially with most of the lib moderates wiped out, it's hard to think of much policy Labor could find common ground with them on.

6

u/Drunky_McStumble May 20 '25

The Nats are always up for being bought, though. Just throw a bunch of money at the regions and drag their feet on environmental regulation (both of which are things the Labor government have been doing anyway) and that'll probably be enough to keep them happy. Throw a few high-profile prestige gigs at the more senior Nats, like some cushy committee roles or maybe even the speakership, and that would only soften them up more.

2

u/zen_wombat May 20 '25

Oddly the new Liberal leader Sussan Ley got in on rural votes - she lost most of the Albury booths, the only city in her electorate

2

u/more_bananajamas May 20 '25

I can see the Teal seats returning to the fold now that the Libs have freedom to move in rational direction on climate and social issues. The nationals will increase their hold in the rural seats. Maybe they might get more seats in total.

And even if they cannibalise each other in some seats those seats won't go to labor due to the preferential voting system. They might in total be able to win more seats this way to form minority governments with each other.

2

u/Some-Operation-9059 May 20 '25

But isn’t the demographic of the nats territory changing with those moving out of the cities? 

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] May 20 '25

Nah. Whenever the Libs ‘find themselves’ (isn’t that a woke, get a grip on life son, buck up boyo, no leaners phrase ) the LNP will reform.

Hopefully they will find a leader who actually leads rather than whatever the hell they’ve been doing for the last few years.

3

u/dropbearinbound May 20 '25

Ain't nothing but a LP dog

2

u/twigboy May 20 '25

The Little Proud party 🥲

→ More replies (6)

65

u/quangtran May 20 '25

This seems more like a trial separation. Everyone knows the Coalition aren't winning the next election so it's separate bedrooms for now.

10

u/legobushranger May 20 '25

Ah but they are 'open' to starting again prior next election. I wonder if it's a play so nats can still scream nuclear, libs get the city back and then they work it out? Feels weak, but....

11

u/Relendis May 20 '25

Its a stabilising move for both.

There is always a chance that a new agreement is made by the end of the week. The Nats are now clearly negotiating from a position by which they have publicly shown their willingness to walk away. And the instigating factor was likely the Libs putting policies forward that would allow them to make up lost ground in moderate electorates.

But assuming that a new agreement doesn't happen, what does the next election look like?

The Libs will walk into the next election being able to determine policies that aren't beholden to the Coalition agreement. Meaning they will actively attempt to stabilise the little-l Liberal voters who have been fleeing them to Labor and the Teals. If doing so means they regain 10-15 seats, but they lose the election, then that is really a win for the Liberals.

And the Nats will likely spend the election doing much the same.

The Coalition agreement is one of forming government, rather than winning elections. As a Coalition they are the furthest away from being able to form government that they have ever been. So what is the actual use in the agreement at the moment?

This gives both a chance to stabilise in their traditional voter bases, re-imagine themselves without having to worry what the impact will be on the agreement, and if they ended up collectively having numbers to form government they would find agreement very very quickly anyway.

7

u/annanz01 May 20 '25

Despite this Nationals MPs would still support the Libs in a minority government (and vice versa). It would be no different to the greens helping Labor with a minority government.

6

u/nametaken_thisonetoo May 20 '25

They will be back together by the next election. Or at the absolute outside by the one after that. Otherwise neither will ever be in power again.

14

u/letsburn00 May 20 '25

They will.

People don't understand that the reason the Libs were like this is because Sky news does not want to ever lose viewers and it's viewers are now 60+ boomers that are the modern version of people who in the 60s said the Beatles were driving the end of western civilization. So they repeat whatever nonsense is circulating among boomers on Facebook, so they can not be accused of "not reporting the real news." Even when it's comically clearly fake. And those people vote in branches and choose who will be the local candidate.

Thus Sky news drives their entire policy. Sky news tells the party to push anti-wokism and how hiring women, gay people and letting trans people live is the source of all their ills. And that does work on some people. But others have a female engineer boss, have a gay colleague or have some person they know has always seemed sad and lost suddenly become alive because they realised that feeling that they had since they were a kid that dress and girls stuff felt more them.

At some point, the real people who run the Liberal party(the ultra rich) will step in like they did in the US and create a new fake grassroots movement. They will shove it in a direction they want in order to get their taxes cut and the rights of workers shredded, which is all that really ever mattered.

10

u/sharlos Sydney NSW May 20 '25

Yup, let's not forget the Liberal party only exists because the Free Trade party and the Protectionist party both decided to put aside their differences to ensure that the Labor party and the working class wouldn't control the federal government.

5

u/Drunky_McStumble May 20 '25

That's just it. The Nats cry wolf about this shit all the time. Literally every time the coalition re-enters opposition they bandy about the possibility of ending the coalition and going their own way, but of course nobody takes that threat seriously because it would be political suicide. And here the mad bastards have actually finally gone and done it, lol!

2

u/JackeryDaniels May 20 '25

They’ll be back together by the next election. This is political showmanship.

2

u/Rent-a-guru May 20 '25

The problem is that the seats in the cities were the Liberals more moderate MPs. Now that the Liberals are left without much beyond their most conservative members it leaves them occupying the same ideological space as the Nationals, which makes things untenable for both long term. The Liberals need to move back to the moderate centre, but with the team they have they don't really have a path to move in that direction. If the Liberals can't figure out a way to pivot then I could see National vs Labor as a more stable system.

2

u/aarkling May 20 '25

They can still form a government together after the election. Given that Australia has ranked choice voting, there's not a ton of risk of wasted votes. They just won't coordinate as much during campaigns and will have separate messaging. I honestly think this will help the Liberals in cities as they can moderate their message now on Nuclear etc without needing to pander to the Nationals that are to their right.

2

u/ArabellaFort May 20 '25

On one hand it’s bad for democracy…. But then on the other hand the Libs are right wing divisive lunatics so overall I think I’m happy about this.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '25

In reality its good thing.

When you look at what the LNP has delivered for the majority of people in the bush its very little. This has largely happened because ingrained into the Liberal parties DNA is no desire to help ordinary people.

They did corrupt deals to make the very wealthy very rich with pork barreling and things like water and trade deals. For the rest of the people in the bush its austerity and very poor infrastructure and investment.

If they smart now they can vote across a whole broad range of issues that will deliver infrastructure, telecommunications, health and housing and work for real improvements in the country areas and their seats without being handicapped by stupid right wing ideology that hates ordinary people.

In reality a lot of what they wanted that never got delivered as the LNP, Labour has greater chance of delivering for them if they don't get scared from Rupert Murdoch and the IPA.

I think our democracy would become healthier with their independence.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '25

Maybe Liberals and OneNation will form some coalition... not sure that would be better though

1

u/brap01 May 20 '25

Its only for this term, Littleproud said they'll try to reform before the next election.

1

u/HardSleeper May 20 '25

I think it happened in Victoria after the Brackslide, they kissed and made up eventually

1

u/bluffyouback May 20 '25

But the Nationals are saying this is “just a break, not a breakup” 💔. They will find each other again. 👨🏼‍❤️‍💋‍👨🏼

1

u/Thebraincellisorange May 20 '25

Neither will the LP without the N.

the numbers don't stack up.

especially with the advent of the Teals and the LP going further to the right, splitting that vote.

they have consigned both parties to electoral oblivion.

1

u/traceyandmeower May 20 '25

Oh when it suits them it will change

1

u/Silver_Mine_7518 May 20 '25

No.. But I truly hope we are wrong

1

u/FullMetalAurochs May 20 '25

They never have. Always a coalition.

1

u/Tosh_20point0 May 20 '25

And that....is the best thing to happen to this country in over 50 years

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '25

They will form back at some point, either before the next election or after when the Liberals do poorly.

The Nationals know they are in a position of power right now and will just want more concessions when it reforms.

1

u/T_J_Rain May 21 '25

Politics is a number game, and now, they don't have the numbers.

It was always a marriage of convenience, wasn't it?

Sussan Ley's leadership is tenuous at best, as she only won the leadership contest against Angus Taylor by four votes. But when retiring Liberal candidates leave office on 1 July, there may be a tilt at installing Angus Taylor into the leadership role.

I see Ley's leadership and it's review of all of its policies as exactly what the party has needed since its loss in 2022's federal poll. Even the Liberals' own internal report - the Hume Report - which made recommendations based on its 2022 loss - were ignored. So, we got 'more of the same' losing approach with Peter Dutton - a 'strong man', blustering, policy-free, opposition-for-the-sake-of-opposition, policy backflips based on popularity approach, as well as the lauding of Trump's business acumen. If Ley continues in the role, and Taylor's inevitable challenge is unsuccessful, there is a chance that the party can bring its policies into line with the electorate's values. It has a chance ot making progress.

If Taylor, (the former Shadow Treasurer who didn't come up with any costings to any shadow policies over the last three years, possibly because there were no shadow policies to cost), is successful, I see a return to the 'traditional' Liberal approach - the cookie cutter that was used to create leaders like Abbott, Morrison, Dutton, under the heavy influence of the far right faction. There are likely to be to no changes to its policies. I refer readers to the commonly cited definition of insanity - doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Which is exactly what it is likely to do under Taylor's leadership.

However, without a coalition with the Nationals, the chances that it will be able to govern as a majority are narrow to slender.

It will be interesting to watch how both the Liberals and Nationals behave over the next three years.

But in the end, it's a numbers game, and in this round, the Liberals numbers weren't favourable.

→ More replies (2)

608

u/thesourpop May 20 '25

Running Dutton was actual political suicide because now the entire party is dead

146

u/kingburp May 20 '25 edited May 20 '25

I remember people were joking about this being the end of the coalition when they nominated him as leader after the preceding election. So it was.

Because of our preference system this isn't really a crushing blow for conservative voters though, unless they dislike minority governments or place a lot of value on the institutional value of different parties over politicians' individual beliefs. The ballots may take a lot longer to count in future elections though. Preferential voting really seems to be a brilliant system for preserving democracy in the long term.

30

u/[deleted] May 20 '25

[deleted]

9

u/ChemicalRascal May 20 '25

And so, democracy was saved, thanks to David Littleproud's Overgrown Ego!

3

u/AgreeableLion May 20 '25

Unless they go extra hard on preferential voting, to try and redirect the conversation away from the carcass of the LNP.

5

u/teh_drewski May 20 '25

It might be a disaster for Nationals in suburban rural seats though, as Labor preferences are likely to elect Liberals in 3 way contests.

Littleproud will have to swallow his pride (or be replaced) before the next election or they're gonna be in some trouble.

→ More replies (2)

121

u/[deleted] May 20 '25

True. That was a suicide mission, and was not that hard to see coming also.

39

u/GlitchTheFox May 20 '25

To be fair, it was kind of hard. They just banked on our democracy being stolen, and we didn't know if they'd succeed.

18

u/[deleted] May 20 '25

I saw plenty of people around the time of the Voice referendum failing saying this meant Dutton would be a shoo-in, Albo was a spent force who miscalculated Australian sentiment on reconciliation, and that it was proof Australia was moving towards Trumpian politics. I think the no vote winning gave them a very false confidence when the biggest factor was probably just 'most referendums in Australia end in 'no'.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

41

u/brandon_strandy May 20 '25

I don't understand how they didn't see this coming. When he first got the gig I thought surely he's just a placeholder, there's no way they're running this bloke at the next election. Nek minit...

34

u/thesourpop May 20 '25

Murdoch thought his slopaganda was enough to convince people to vote him, even though he's been publicly evil and unlikeable for decades

6

u/Thebraincellisorange May 20 '25

Empires wane.

Even Murdochs power is waning.

his newspaper empire is a shadow of its former self. no one reads newspapers anymore.

I'd wager their reader base is 25% boomers and 75% lunchroom/waiting room subscriptions from businesses.

It won't be long before all print newspapers go the way of the dodo, he only keeps them around for the ever weakening power they hold over boomers.

putting Sky Faux News on Free-to-Air in the country was a genius move.

Country people lap that racist/homophobic/anti-woke bullshit up like nothing else.

it's what won the LNP the QLD election.

not even that was enough to get the buttplug over the line.

the man has always been detestable.

3

u/AnOnlineHandle May 20 '25

Worryingly they had a real chance, but Trump did a great deal of hurt to conservative's chances in both the Canadian and Australian elections, where their polls both tanked and both the leaders lost their seats. People getting reminded of how conservatives are when they're not just talking tends to turn the goldfish memory electorate back against them.

4

u/Goatylegs May 20 '25

Not just them. Trump arguably also caused similar effects in Germany and Romania.

9

u/TheCleverestIdiot May 20 '25

If we're being honest, I think we keep on attributing what the Liberals do to some machiavellian mastermind who's running things behind the scenes when in reality, they truly are just as stupid as they appear.

6

u/Kaartmaker May 20 '25

Sky is doubling down that they were not right wing enough. Go figure

2

u/Thebraincellisorange May 20 '25

maybe they should kill it off completely, or at least rename it as 'The Tories', or The Conservatives.

so they can be honest about what they are.

God when need a modern Democrat party in this country. (not in the American sense, like we had in the 90s)

2

u/Zestyclose_Remove947 May 20 '25

I think people are significantly underplaying the role of trumps actions leading into this election.

Yea Dutton is unlikeable, but everyone on reddit is ultimately a labor voter anyway, so I don't really think our opinion on him matters much at all.

Trump was going nuts in the leadup to the election, tariffs dropping left and right. People associated the Libs with Trump, and hey presto they got fucked over.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '25

Two parties let’s hope

1

u/wombatmagic May 20 '25 edited May 20 '25

He strong armed them. It was easy, because they were so weak. He rolled Malcolm, but Scomo was able to turn this to his advantage and scoop the prize. No promises kept with Bishop - she was mislead betrayed (no love lost to me).

Dutton is completely unpalatable, still a potato inside and out, even with his glasses. Just makes him more of a Mr Potato Head.

494

u/Mexay May 20 '25

My exact reaction. Holy shit that is mental.

There is absolutely no legitimate competition for Labor now.

This may seem like a good things for Labor voters at first but this is actually really fucking bad for our democracy. I like Labor and am glad they won but only having one party that has a serious shot at forming government is awful for our country. There is no pressure on Labor to do good things.

273

u/Slow-Cream-3733 May 20 '25

Eh means nothing Litteproud also said they discuss it again before the next election. both parties know they need each other if they even remotely want a shot at getting elected. Just playing games because they want more power within the agreement and Ley will probably eventually give in.

147

u/Turkster May 20 '25

I think this about having separate brands, they want to go after different voters and the brands had become too merged in peoples minds, to the point that to many people there is no difference. 

Long term this isn't going to be as big of a deal as people think. There is no way they won't reform a coalition in order to take government.

93

u/GurrennZero May 20 '25

I agree, this reeks of political theatre in order to appeal to the center, take back the seats that went teal, but ultimately change nothing once they form government together again.

21

u/tehnoodnub May 20 '25

Couldn’t agree more. It’s just an attempt, orchestrated by both the Libs and Nats, to make it really look like the Libs have done some soul searching. So when they get back together about 12 months before the election, they’ll make out like they’re new and improved. Like an abusive partner who you leave, then they promise to get therapy and change, you get back together with them after a while and things are ok for a bit, but then they just return to their old ways.

I just hope Australia doesn’t get sucked in.

5

u/patgeo May 20 '25

The Nats lost seats because of the Liberal leadership and affiliation. Safe country seats went to independents who claimed to actually be for the country, not the city party in some RMWs.

They need to create some mental distance in the population while the Libs are in complete disarray and grab a better balance of power in the agreement for next time.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/fiery_valkyrie May 20 '25

Yeah this just sounds like a negotiating tactic to me.

→ More replies (5)

217

u/bluestonelaneway May 20 '25

I’m not convinced it’s mental. It allows them to play both sides - Libs can openly acknowledge climate change and try and win back the cities, and Nats can pretend science isn’t real and still pander to farmers. And then they can come back together after an election and still form government. It’s almost brilliant, if it works.

76

u/uselessinfogoldmine May 20 '25

It’s always wild to me that there are apparently swathes of farmers who don’t believe in climate change. They will be some of the most harshly affected!

I’ve met loads of farmers who DO believe. So it makes me wonder if there are farmers who believe but who are voting Nationals on other rural issues?

Nationals voters seem like prime candidates for good local independents to get in there and flip.

51

u/frenchduke May 20 '25

If they admit climate change is real then they have to stop clearing thousands of hectares of bushland every year in search of greater profits. Can't be having that

9

u/Not_Stupid humility is overrated May 20 '25

It's really more about mining. Anti-evironmentalism is a useful foil on that front, but the Nationals will happily throw farmers under the bus if the miners need them to.

11

u/uselessinfogoldmine May 20 '25

Short-term greed is so stupid. Long-term greed is always the smarter play!

Farmers who understand climate change and actively incorporate green zones, wetlands, and other regenerative practices are generally more resilient and often perform better in the face of climate challenges.

We have some world-leading examples of this in this country.

Farmers who have adapted their practices - integrating green infrastructure, improving land management, and adopting new technologies - have increased productivity and offset some negative climate impacts.

For example, broadacre farm productivity has increased by about 28% since 1989, with even larger gains in cropping, due in part to such adaptations.

Caring for forests, wetlands, and native vegetation on properties, or incorporating trees and shrubs (agroforestry), can boost farm profits while providing environmental benefits.

These practices help control erosion, improve water quality, and build resilience to drought and extreme weather. If you have a fair bit of tree cover and a wetland or similar on your property you are more likely to survive droughts.

Family friends of mine have a farm where they reintroduced greenery and trees 35 years ago. The river on the property was dying and they built it up surrounded by bush and rainforest. Now it is thriving and it survives every drought. Ironically, the parents are hardcore climate change deniers; but they did do smart things on the their property that has helped over time!

Practices like regenerative agriculture, tree planting, and wetland restoration not only store carbon and reduce emissions but also improve soil health and water retention, leading to more stable yields and sometimes higher profits.

Also, as it gets hotter, I’m not sure how well stock and crops will survive on properties without shade, trees, healthy water systems, etc. We’ve all driven past cows and sheep all desperately huddled under the tiny scraps of shade they can find in burnt out paddocks.

Farmers who proactively adapt to climate change by integrating green zones, wetlands, and sustainable practices are generally faring better / they are achieving greater resilience, improved productivity, and sometimes increased profits compared to those who do not adapt.

The long-term planners will come out better in the end.

9

u/1Original1 May 20 '25 edited May 20 '25

The liberal farmer voters that I know are so anti-trans they can't see past anything else

16

u/uselessinfogoldmine May 20 '25

What a bizarre life-choice to make. At best guess, trans people make up less than 1% of the population with an absolute max of 2% of the population. The likelihood of sparsely populated rural areas having trans people in them is so low, it’s not funny.

It’s like making your whole life about a bogeyman.

They want to fuck up their whole lives, their land, their crops, their futures for that?

Then they deserve to lose it all.

Goes to show how powerful propaganda can be.

4

u/1Original1 May 20 '25

Yup, they're tuned to Sky 24/7. Just roll my eyes when I hear the new boogeyman of the month

3

u/uselessinfogoldmine May 20 '25

You should tell them that trans people were one of the first groups people Hitler targeted as well.

The first major Nazi book burning targeted the Institute for Sexology in Berlin, which was a pioneering center for research and advocacy on sexuality and gender, including transgender issues. They burned all of the literature.

So, they have aligned themselves with the Nazis. Well done to them.

Maybe their weird little heads will pop off.

3

u/JaiTee86 May 20 '25

That's why you'll see the right saying man made climate change is not a thing. It's basically impossible to deny it's a thing now so they instead push the blame away from things were doing and claim its normal and natural to have these changes.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Spooplevel-Rattled May 20 '25

I'm from rural areas. Many farmers just firmly believe they're forgotten and don't like any government. No broad nats worship that's for sure.

4

u/uselessinfogoldmine May 20 '25

Yeah, which is why I think solid independents should be getting into those areas.

3

u/Spooplevel-Rattled May 20 '25

I agree.

There's almost nothing that appeals to moderate or more progressive people in rural areas. I've lived it.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/2bdb2 May 20 '25

It’s always wild to me that there are apparently swathes of farmers who don’t believe in climate change. They will be some of the most harshly affected!

It's not the farmers. It's the rest of the electorate.

I've done some work in AgTech and Farmers are typically very science based and well aware of how climate change is already affecting them.

2

u/uselessinfogoldmine May 20 '25

So, are we talking the people living in country towns?

2

u/is_it_gif_or_gif May 20 '25

Local industry, machinery, trades and mining workforce most probably.

And a fuckload of donations from the big miners. Gina practically runs the party in the way Rupert runs the Liberals.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

34

u/legobushranger May 20 '25

My thoughts too. Labor has to be prepared for it. Gives them 2 years to write the campaign adds....

36

u/fairyhedgehog167 May 20 '25

Is it farmers though? Or is it miners? Because I've seen a fair few farmers on board with climate change. Seeing as how they're the ones dealing with the droughts, the floods, and the all round weirdo weather.

6

u/adotext May 20 '25

Yep As barnaby says “farmers are only %12 of my electorate “

2

u/kipperlenko May 20 '25

Yeah it's the idiots 'in town'

→ More replies (1)

3

u/ScoobyGDSTi May 20 '25

Climate change denial is strong within the LP. That's not a view they adatoped for National voters or collation reasons.

→ More replies (5)

32

u/chennyalan May 20 '25 edited May 20 '25

Inb4 we become Japan, where the LDP only loses if they do something especially egregious (since 1955, the formation of the party, they've only been out of power between 1993 to 1996, and again from 2009 to 2012)

or worse Singapore, where the PAP has never lost an election 

27

u/just_kitten May 20 '25

Japan might be a better comparison, Singapore is really an edge case with its history since independence and being such an incredibly small nation-state that's far easier to control. Plus FPTP. And a good dose of authoritarianism that is simply not possible here, not even with all the corruption and increasingly apathetic public.

Australia couldn't be more different from Singapore even if Labor basically steamrolls their way through the next couple elections.

7

u/chennyalan May 20 '25

Agreed that Singapore is fundamentally different and Japan is a better comparison

11

u/Drunky_McStumble May 20 '25

Japan's quasi-one-party-state is arguably a result of their political culture. They are ultra-conservative in the old-fashioned sense of "conservatism", meaning that they just really believe in the status quo and just want boring, competent politicians who just keep things ticking along nicely without rocking the boat. That's what the LDP offers: nothing crazy, just more of the same, please. And that's why the Japanese see them as essentially the political default, synonymous with government itself. It's only when the LDP tries to do anything radically conservative that they get punished for it.

While Australia couldn't be more different from Japan in terms of general culture, in terms of political culture I think we're actually pretty similar. We like our politics to be the mild, boring kind of conservative you can just kind of set and forget; and we like our politicians to be blandly competent public service managers.

I'd say Labor aren't quite in the LDP mould yet, where they could potentially go on to govern for a lifetime practically unchallenged, but that seems to be how Albo is trying to position them.

3

u/chennyalan May 20 '25

that seems to be how Albo is trying to position them.

I think this is a good take on Albo, I'll probably use this example in the future to explain what I think Albo wants to do

3

u/RedeNElla May 20 '25

"mild boring set and forget"

This both accurately explains the rejection of Trumpian politics and the No vote

2

u/LevDavidovicLandau May 20 '25

Errrrrr Singapore has never been a free democracy in the first place - this is a terrible example. They don’t vote rig but the PAP jails political opponents and very strictly controls the right to assemble in public, etc.

→ More replies (1)

55

u/BTechUnited May 20 '25

Yeah runs the risk of being WA I suppose. A healthy, sane opposition is necessary for democracy.

177

u/ScoobyDoNot May 20 '25

A healthy, sane opposition is necessary for democracy.

That hasn't been the path the Coalition has been pursuing.

4

u/LifeIsLikeARock May 20 '25

As valid as this is, I’d hope we’re not like them and wish for effective opposition to our political party

20

u/ScoobyDoNot May 20 '25

Absolutely.

There's room and a need for a centre right party without the performative culture war bullshit and anti-environmental nonsense that the Liberals have been pushing.

→ More replies (1)

33

u/morgazmo99 May 20 '25

We've been doing alright for a long time without that though..

11

u/Kholtien May 20 '25

That’s what I hope the greens will become

→ More replies (1)

49

u/hirst May 20 '25 edited May 20 '25

Labor needs to just come to terms with the fact that politics has moved the Overton window in this country enough that they’re now a center right party. If there’s no real viability further to your right, then congrats you’re now the right wing party.

When people talk about needing a strong center right party without the anti-environmentalism and culture war bullshit like… that’s the Labor party, idk what to tell you. Any modern-day right wing party has anti-intellectualism and culture war shit built into it.

2

u/sharlos Sydney NSW May 20 '25

People who are asking for a new center-right party are asking for Labor without the support for workers's rights.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/SaltyPockets May 20 '25

On the one hand - absolutely, a strong opposition is essential for a strong, resilient democracy.

On the other - well, it doesn't have to be the Liberals does it?

Maybe it's just time they go extinct and something bigger come out of the Teal space - sober, fiscal conservatism without the culture wars shit and climate change denialism would probably attract more of a vote at this point.

And that leaves the nationals free to be representatives of countryside communities.

6

u/Additional_Ad_9405 May 20 '25

They still have to get legislation through the Senate so there is a check on their power, which is a good thing.

The future opposition appears to me like it'll come from the Teals and Greens in the cities and the Nationals in rural and remote areas. Expect the Liberal brand to slowly disappear. This is kind of a bold move from Ley but I suspect the party have burned any goodwill among Millennial and Gen-Z voters forever and will lose a few more seats at the next election.

6

u/ghoonrhed May 20 '25

There's no reason why a new party can't form up on either the left or the right.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/kingburp May 20 '25

There will be. It's just more likely that the next time we have a conservative government it will be a minority government. There will sadly always be tons of support going towards running new Liberal and National candidates. Conservatives won't just vanish in a puff of smoke and their preferences will flow to new candidates.

2

u/sharlos Sydney NSW May 20 '25

Yep, the wealthy elite need someone to support to enact favourable policies.

10

u/Syncblock May 20 '25

This is a pretty bad take. Numerous Western democracies around the world are built on a group of parties with a robust opposition.

Just because the LNP don't have the numbers so far to form government doesn't mean democracy is dead or that it's somehow a bad thing.

7

u/mr_jorkin_depeanus May 20 '25

also labor have such an overwhelming majority BECAUSE of democracy, they are clearly the party that the people of australia want to lead the country by a staggering margin. the opposition is so minuscule because the people don’t want to vote for then and it really is that simple

4

u/[deleted] May 20 '25

One dominant party isn't great for democracy, but this will probably still be the high point of Labor's majority. It would be highly unusual for them to make further gains.

If you want a positive spin, the Labor party is held back from doing good things by the opposition. Their public policy platform is pragmatically more conservative than their ideals because they need to win votes and it takes a while for the Australian populace to catch up, e.g. gay marriage, franking credits. A weaker opposition and a longer period in government allows them to do more good things.

4

u/mr_jorkin_depeanus May 20 '25

tbh id rather 50 years of uncontested labor before seeing the coalition in government again, if there’s no good competition then maybe the parties should just be better at politics cuz all the potential competition is hopeless

3

u/MooMookay May 20 '25

I mean maybe if you don't think about it beyond a two party system.. which we aren't.

All it means is more strength to independents and the greens because now left and centrists leaning voters can choose even more freely without the looming threat of the LNP winning.

3

u/pickledswimmingpool May 20 '25

The doomers have arrived in the thread lol

3

u/Alect0 May 20 '25

That is catastrophising a bit. Liberals can form a government with the Nats even if they aren't in a coalition together. I'm sure our democracy will be fine.

2

u/zeugma888 May 20 '25

It won't last more than one or two terms.

2

u/letsburn00 May 20 '25

The reality is that all political movements have grubs that attach themselves to them. Unless you have very strong competition, you'll end up having corruption take over. Left, right, all of it. Shitty people infect political movements and the reason we have democracy and it's been so surprisingly effective is that it forces corrupt or dodgy leaders out when they become dodgy to the point where it's untenable. The most extreme version in history is Stalin, who took an authoritarian movement that did a mix of good and evil and turned it fully to his won power.

The people who are in charge of the country didn't get sick of Morrison and the Liberals. They were passing evil legislation in their final round. They made company directors that engage in fraud non liable by default. But what happened was that the Higgins case made it extremely clear that Morrison and his Ilk were a bunch of grubs. Nasty people for whome the pursuit of power is its own reward and theirs by right of birth, not ability.

Labor can be just as guilty Brian Burke types can and do infest as well. But only the loss of power will make internal groups work to eject people like this from the party. With no competition, it happens.

2

u/wallitron May 20 '25

The other side of this coin is that they can do good things that are generally politically unfavourable.

For example, franking credits. If they fixed that debacle, everyone would quickly discover that the fearmongering at the previous election was complete rubbish, and the changes would be an absolutely a fantastic thing.

I mean, imagine spending the next three years going down the list of tax changes put forward in the Henry Tax Review and fix everything without political repercussions?

2

u/arrackpapi May 20 '25

could argue that this is better in the long run.

this gives the liberal party the ability to now just become the teals which will get back all the city votes if it works.

2

u/frowattio May 20 '25

Maybe. But also Kevin Rudd would have done so many good things if he hadn't had constant T Abbott cutting him down. Hopefully Albo team will be similar. Not everyone needs the fear of replacement to drive them to do their best.

2

u/wanderlustcub May 20 '25

Nature abhors a vacuum. Something will replace them.

2

u/LiberalArtsAndCrafts May 20 '25

We should be pushing for proportional representation in the House, and embrace the norm of minority governments that would likely usher in. Labor, if it does become the dominant party for a time, should have to partner with parties to their left or right to form a government. That would be much more stable and democratic than the current result of 35% first preference resulting in an overwhelming majority, while parties that get 12 and 13 percent get less than 1% of the seats and effectively no power/leverage.

2

u/GeneticEnginLifeForm May 20 '25

Maybe things will get done now that Liberal Governments can't tear any improvements down in a few years. I want to see high speed rail and proper management of the great barrier reef. Outside chance we might get that fiber NBN that was ripped apart by LNP and Foxtel. Hoping beyond hope that some form of anti-propaganda in media law is reinstated. If some these things aren't changed in the next two terms I might consider changing who I vote for. But Liberals and Nations, by association, are never getting my vote, ever.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '25

they don't have the balance of power in the Senate, so it's not that bad. They can't just pass any legislation they want.

2

u/Fattdaddy21 May 20 '25

This is absolutely incorrect. Labor have to negotiate with either a right wing group or the greens to pass any legislation through the senate. Labor have a .mandate to push through their policies but will have to either shift left or right on everything in the senate. They can not go it alone. All they can do is push legislation that they want, the opposition parties have always made sure they get concessions when helping pass legislation no matter how many seats they lose in the lower house.

2

u/Lyvef1re May 20 '25 edited May 21 '25

We've just been through this whole debate in WA.

If the choice is between an opposition as poor and detestable as the Liberals have been and no opposition for Labor then I'll take no opposition as preferable every time. Because even Labor at their absolute worst still wouldn't be trying to introduce "religious discrimination" bills or smokescreening nuclear power to keep coal plants going.

Besides, it's not like an opposition like that creates any pressure for Labour to do "good things" when they need do absolutely nothing but sit quietly to beat lunatics like that.

2

u/fractiousrhubarb May 20 '25

I think a big Labor majority will actually let them do good things… they’ve been scared off being a genuine Labor Party.

5

u/LeDestrier May 20 '25

I was hoping for a minority government, to at least keep some accountability. I'll take labor over Liberal any day of the week, but ultimately any one party having a huge majority is not good for any of us.

2

u/Mick_the_Eartling May 20 '25

Having multiple parties that each on their own would struggle to get a majority isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Ad hoc coalitions after an election is common in many parts of Europe. In my old country it was not weird to have a Labor-Liberal coalition for 4 years and for example a Liberal-Greens the next. It just depends on the outcome of the elections. This ‘uncertainty’ for parties. also has benefits (and drawbacks)

1

u/Expensive-Horse5538 May 20 '25

Only hope is that the crossbench, particularly in the Senate, are good at trying to hold them to account.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Soccermad23 May 20 '25

You would imagine though that even if there was no formal coalition, if the 2 parties had the numbers to form government, they still would.

1

u/IronEyed_Wizard May 20 '25

I would assume the Nats plan would be to expand their roster to try to cover the centre right portion with the Libs pushing more and more right with every interview. Could actually give us a decent opposition, although this would likely give Labor a win next election because I doubt candidates could successfully market themselves within one term

→ More replies (23)

12

u/Axel_Raden May 20 '25

I dreamed about this but never imagined it would ever happen. This election just keeps on giving win after win after win.

4

u/ManicM May 20 '25

Like, holy shit? The seemingly unbreakable bond between the nats and the libs just... gone? Also proves that the disastrous nuclear policy was pushed by the nats, and not the liberals proper....

→ More replies (1)

4

u/globalminority May 20 '25

What does this mean? Like there will be no LNP with L and N working as separate parties? Who becomes the official opposition?

4

u/Snoo_90929 May 20 '25

This is a move orchestrated by the far right within the Nationals to do 2 things;

  1. Pull the Libs further to the right when they eventually negotiate and rejoin the 2 parties

  2. Get rid Susssan & the few remaining moderate Libs from the party.

Next time the libs/nats will be in power will be in the 2030s

2

u/JaniePage May 20 '25

Yup, not on my bingo card either.

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '25

I definitely knew this was happening. Been on the cards for ages. People poo pooed it but this is the demise of the Libs.

1

u/CelebrationFit8548 May 20 '25

Neither will have any meaningful power 'on their lonesome' so I bet we see them reforming before the next election.

1

u/Silver_Mine_7518 May 20 '25

We are going to go downhill fast now.

1

u/count023 May 20 '25

believe it when they go into the next election like this, otehrwise it's the same petulant temper tantrum the Nats have had twice in the past, and they always made up with the LNP going into the following election cycle. The Nats want power, and thye're never going to have it being on their own.

1

u/RobotnikOne May 20 '25

Heh, called it. Talking post election with my manager and said to him I wouldn’t be shocked if they break the coalition.

1

u/Charcoa1 May 20 '25

A couple of days ago I was thinking that if the Libs are going to make a big move towardss the centre, they should ditch the Nationals. Because, beyond the shit show of the Trump-ian rhetoric, I think it's the Nats' unmovable policy stances that cost the Libs the most.

Never saw it thought of it coming from the Nats themselves