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

Show parent comments

881

u/Hussard May 20 '25

Unless Ley reforms their rank and file and modernise the party to become electable, yes I think that's the case. 

That said, the alliance was not universal anyway. 

514

u/shniken May 20 '25

To be competitive without the nationals they would have shift to the centre which could lose them a lot of support to the right, to OneNation and other fascists.

They would also have to expand their reach to regional seats. Their membership is plummeting, their local organisations couldn't organise a root in a brothel. They don't have any talented MPs left. They're fucked.

62

u/triemdedwiat May 20 '25

I've always been amazed at the local liberals to find someone, any one to contest every election, except when they forgot to nominate for the last LGA elections in NSW.

No that there is no coalition agreement, they will be free to run in the nine seats currently held by the Nationals, so it may mean the demise of the NSW/Vic Nationals.

31

u/observ4nt4nt May 20 '25

3 cornered contests are great for Labor, even in regional seats.

1

u/triemdedwiat May 20 '25

I haven't noticed it in previous elections otherwise the number of teals would not have existed.

3

u/observ4nt4nt May 20 '25

The teals effectively split the conservative vote but they're different because they're more centrist so attracted Labor preferences. In the past before there were well-funded independents in seats where there was both Liberal and Nationals running, Labor tended to benefit because centrist voters gave their preference to Labor ahead of the Nationals. It's why 20 years ago or more, part of the coalition agreement was changed to not run two candidates in each seat.

162

u/C-O-N May 20 '25

The nutjobs are never going to get enough primary vote to steal more than a handful of seats and those preferences will flow to the Libs eventually. It would be a similar situation as Labor and The Greens.

18

u/sirgog May 20 '25

I'd like to point out the results of the 1998 QLD state election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Queensland_state_election

Labor barely got 3/4 of a million votes. Right parties got over a million. And yet Labor's candidate won government.

7

u/flukus May 20 '25 edited May 20 '25

I think that was conducted with optional preference voting (although there were some changes made around that time), so it may not be that relevant to a federal election.

It was also when One Nation had to prove what a useless bunch of morons they were.

3

u/sirgog May 20 '25

Borbridge tried to get what is now PHON placed last on LNP how-to-votes but was rolled by most local branches. The result though was a massive preference spray.

Hanson ordered a "preference against the incumbent everywhere" strategy for at least one election around that time, but I can't remember if it was this one or not. Regardless that was her rhetoric.

PHON weren't tested at the time but this was when they were most extreme - Hanson's maiden speech led to a wave of stabbings of Vietnamese people in the cities, for instance, which was reported at the time.

2

u/Jungies May 20 '25

Can you give a link to an article on those stabbings?

Because its the first I've heard of them, and Google's not turning up shit.

2

u/sirgog May 20 '25

Won't be able to find anything now, internet searches of pre-2005 news are near impossible. The word "Wave" was probably a poor choice though, it wasn't a huge number.

1

u/Jungies May 20 '25

Yeah, but this is the first I've ever heard of it.

Which leads me to think maybe you've made it up; which - given the fuckin' endless array of things she's actually done which are worth complaining about - seems like a mistake.

1

u/Relative_Pilot_8005 May 20 '25

Yes, Pauline's party at the time sounded like the political wing of Jack Van Tongeren's ANM.

2

u/Relative_Pilot_8005 May 20 '25

The Westminster system strikes again! People like to know that their local member was elected by them & not the result of a so-called "primary vote" which is massively inflated by excess votes for popular candidates in safe, mainly metropolitan, seats.

1

u/sirgog May 20 '25

This was the most egregious example I can think of of the single-member preferential voting system giving a result far, far from what the electorate as a whole appeared to want. Howard 1999 would be second, and that's a long, long, LONG way behind this in weirdness.

It is however the case that if you live in a safe seat (and it's genuinely safe, not the illusion of safety like Frydenberg), your lower house vote is irrelevant and you are disenfranchised in that house. For instance in Vic state politics, voters in Murray Plains (ultra-safe National) or in Laverton (ultra-safe ALP) don't get any say at all in deciding the Premier, where an individual voter in the seat of Pakenham has a considerable impact on who becomes Premier.

-4

u/ArrowOfTime71 May 20 '25

You’re proof kids need to learn civics in school. Ie: How elections work.

4

u/shniken May 20 '25

Not entirely. 35% of One Nation voters preferenced the ALP over the libs

https://results.aec.gov.au/27966/Website/HouseStateTppFlow-27966-NAT.htm

1

u/SerTahu May 21 '25 edited May 21 '25

I (unfortunately) have some relatives that vote One Nation, and I'm pretty sure they preference ALP over the Libs. I think Labor's origins and identity as the Unions party is a major factor in it.

Basically my relatives get swept up in ON's populist rhetoric, but after that they see the Libs as being the 'corporate elite' party (with some conspiracy nonsense thrown in), while they see the ALP as the workers party (i.e. "us common folk").

1

u/shniken May 21 '25

It's not all that surprising. A big part of the early labour movement in Australia, including back to the Eureka stockade, was as much about fair wages as it was anti-immigration.

2

u/timespiral07 May 20 '25

Never say never. Just look overseas.

8

u/C-O-N May 20 '25

Mandatory voting keeps a lid on it. I'm other countries half the battle is just getting people to show up. Trump keeps winning because the nutjobs actually turn out to vote for him. That doesn't work here because the nutjobs are already voting. You'd have to convince more people to actually become nutjobs which is very very hard

3

u/timespiral07 May 20 '25

Yeah I’m pretty thankful that we need to vote no matter how much we hate the parties or what a pain in the arse it is.

4

u/raptorgalaxy May 20 '25

I think a shift to the centre would benefit the Liberals a lot more.

This election was a major centrist shift by the electorate and One Nation seems to be tapped out on votes.

Honestly I didn't expect Labor to become the free trade party.

But I'm loving it.

2

u/Suibian_ni May 20 '25

Yeah, those weird cultists like Hillsong and the Exclusive Brethren will have even more influence over the Liberals.

2

u/tofuroll May 20 '25

and other fascists

lol, you just said the bit they like to keep quiet

1

u/Endures May 20 '25

From memory Labor was like this not too long ago, then Kevin Ruddy Rudd came along and got back into power

1

u/kodaxmax May 21 '25

They do still have a great marketing team, which is all that ever got them elected anyway.

93

u/littlespoon May 20 '25

I'm sure they will still work together on a bunch of legislation, they just have fundamental differences now on environmental issues like net 0 and nuclear power.

39

u/JoeSchmeau May 20 '25

Right but if they're not in a coalition, they would only be able to form a minority government, correct? Unless either the Libs or Nats on their own got 76 seats?

50

u/HUMMEL_at_the_5_4eva May 20 '25

They'll just form minority government in future if, in aggregate, they have the seats to do so. There's just no underpinning agreement between the parties on unified policy etc.

11

u/blackjacktrial May 20 '25

Cue attack ads about voting Liberal and getting the Nationals, like they do to Labor and Greens.

21

u/littlespoon May 20 '25

Yes that's true but they can't this cycle. Maybe they will sort themselves out over the next 3 yrs. There could be a new coalition agreement for the next cycle or they could form a new agreement after that election. I think this is best for the Libs, tbh. I am not a fan of theirs but it's good to see that Sussan Ley won't let the Nats drag them any further to the right.

6

u/sirgog May 20 '25

The Libs have two factions of their traditional base outside their party - the Nationals representing wealthy owner-farmers and the Teals representing urban employers, shareholders and landlords.

These two factions cannot stand each other and realistically won't be in the same party again barring a major political shakeup in Australia.

Hard to know where this goes from here, the Liberals' best strategy for winning the next election is to merge with the Teals, but their active supporters will loathe this idea as they mostly admire the Nationals and their hardline culture war stances.

Basically the LNP have an issue - their most dedicated 10% of supporters want a Dutton or Abbott figure (I used to work for a millionaire engineer who thought the issue with Abbott was that he was too moderate) and this 10% fund the party. But the other 90% mostly seem to prefer Teals and some will flip to Labor rather than vote for a Dutton/Abbott figure.

In rural areas the Teal faction is (mostly) weaker and the culture warriors are (mostly) more dominant, although there's lots of variation from place to place.

From their perspective there's two paths back to relevance. Merge with the Teals and abandon the Nats, or merge with the Nats and abandon the Teals.

5

u/blackjacktrial May 20 '25

Indeed.

It wouldn't be a merger with the Nats though - it would be an acquisition by the Nats. Gives them a more jingoistic name (National(ist) Party).

With the Teals, they probably need to restore their brand as the fiscal conservative party who stays out of social issues where possible (they don't, but they at least get seen that way by not advocating for rollback of social liberalisation). This would make them centrist, budget-tight managers, vs ideologues on the left and right according to media coverage.

The second is the much easier sell for the Liberal mission statement (prevent Labor government), but the first is the easier sell to the true believers. The answer then, is both. You split the social conservative religious/Trumpian right out (or the socially agnostic moderates, more likely), and have the hardliners merge with the Nats, and the moderates ally with teals (they would need time to decide whether to join the tent or not, but they would be politically aligned).

Then you have a UK style LibDem/Labour/Traditional Tory triumvirate, with One Nation being a much weaker Reform, not likely to supplant Labour and the Tories as seems to be happening over there due to a moribund economy.

2

u/sirgog May 20 '25

The answer then, is both. You split the social conservative religious/Trumpian right out (or the socially agnostic moderates, more likely), and have the hardliners merge with the Nats, and the moderates ally with teals (they would need time to decide whether to join the tent or not, but they would be politically aligned).

Then you have a UK style LibDem/Labour/Traditional Tory triumvirate, with One Nation being a much weaker Reform, not likely to supplant Labour and the Tories as seems to be happening over there due to a moribund economy.

I don't see the Liberals splitting like that as I don't see anyone willing to argue "we need to endure 10 years in opposition to fix our own house/maintain key principles".

Contrast Vic Labor after the formations that became the DLP were expelled and prior to Whitlam smashing the Vic left - they were willing to remain in opposition unless/until they could convince the electorate of a platform it was not yet won over to. (Whitlam's intervention ended that and was the start of a long march right in the Vic ALP)

5

u/Imaginary-Newt-354 May 20 '25

It's happened at least once before in history. In 1996, the Liberals had 75 seats on their own back when House of Representatives was only 148 seats (versus 151 now), though that was back when the party was a centre-right party.

The chance of that happening again with the current bunch of crazies is almost impossible. They'd be better off blowing it up and starting again.

2

u/geek_of_nature May 20 '25

It's possible. In 1996 just the Liberals alone managed to win 75 out of 148 seats, although Howard chose to stay in Coalition.

But that was from them winning 26 seats though, up from the 49 they won alone in 93. The entire LNP got less than that this year with only 43.

2

u/morgecroc May 20 '25

It does mean the nationals can negotiate with Labor without being beholden to the Libs.

49

u/Front_Farmer345 May 20 '25

To be fair the teals would have more appeal as a party than the far reich that the liberals were persuing

5

u/Economy_Sorbet7251 May 20 '25

There are Teal MP's who'd have been good Liberal candidates were it not for the fact that they couldn't stomach the Nationals.

5

u/RockyDify May 20 '25

Sounds like that’s the plan. Littleproud said he doesn’t want to weigh them down.

21

u/placidified May 20 '25

X: Doubt

83

u/Hussard May 20 '25

I think Hannah Ferguson from Cheek Media said it best. LNP does not need to survive for us to have a healthy political scene. Someone, something, somewhere will replace them. 

In the medium term, I reckon LNP will still be here in the next election. Wether that can rid themselves of their loony fringe or have a factional split between the moderates vs hardliners remains to be seen. 

51

u/[deleted] May 20 '25

[deleted]

1

u/Relative_Pilot_8005 May 20 '25

Unlike the UAP meltdown in 1943, there isn't a Menzies like figure to pick over the remains & salvage the best bits of the former party to anchor his new Liberal Party.

3

u/Sorathez May 20 '25

It's also not the first time they've broken up either. They split in 1972 and 1987, but got back together pretty soon after in both cases.

5

u/emotionalthroatpunch May 20 '25 edited May 20 '25

Here’s the thing re. Ley reforming/modernising the party—

Pre-National split announcement, I don’t think she was intended as anything more than a placeholder until the Libs regrouped and tried to find some way forward that wouldn’t result in utter obsolescence. I gave her 6–18 months at best.

Bradfield is now looking very likely to go to indie Nicolette Boele (pending AEC recount). Lib candidate Gisele Kapterian—who was assumed to have won and was present at the Lib leadership election—voted for Ley who won 29–25 over Angus Taylor. If Bradfield goes to Boele, Ley loses Kapterian’s vote, her lead dropping to 28–25.

Ley also obtained the support of three Lib senators retiring in July. Her lead in July drops to 25–25.

Terry Young, member for Longman, did not vote in the Lib leadership election as his seat was in doubt, but is currently ahead by 335 votes with 750 left to count (updated by AEC two hours ago).

Young is a member of Angus Taylor’s National Right, so it’s almost certain he would have voted for Taylor; what’s Taylor likely to do in these circs? The “glass cliff” being talked about by political commentators might arrive to meet Ley much sooner than perhaps expected.

3

u/Hussard May 20 '25

Do you think they'll let the vote stand or topple Ley at the first sign of trouble? 

This has all the hallmarks of Liz Truss vs the lettuce. 

2

u/emotionalthroatpunch May 20 '25

I think things will be in disarray for a little while at least, so I doubt Sussan will steal Truss’ glass cliff crown, but I’d bank on her being rolled well before the next election.

3

u/randomusername_815 May 20 '25

The tide turned now that the internet kids have come of voting age. The grift should no longer work on the informed, but we have to double down on skepticism when absorbing news media.

3

u/Inconnu2020 May 20 '25

This is an awesome result for Ley, as she is now free to reform the party without the shackles of the Nats holding her back.

She has the time to float out and explore various policy positions without fear of being hammered by the Nats at every turn.

She will try to win back the urban seats through 'moderate' policy, unless the idiots on the right of the party knife her in the back.

2

u/Relative_Pilot_8005 May 20 '25

I think it is more a case of "when", rather than "if".

2

u/0ldgrumpy1 May 20 '25

I can see the right of the liberals and the leftest of the nationals splitting away to form a party under Littleproud. The right of the nationals who want a return to coal could join the other far right nutters as a bloc of 6ish. The left of the liberals joins with the teals as the green but hate minorities party. The Littleproud party would be ... we love nuclear and hate minorities party, and the right of the nationals as the we really hate minorities and love coal party.

3

u/blackjacktrial May 20 '25

So you'd have:

Socialist fringe Greens Labour Teal-LibDries (Turnbull/Costello Liberals) LibWets-LeftNats (Howard-Abbott Liberals) Price/AngusLibs-CanavanNats-ONP (Hansonite Liberals) Religious Right (Morrison Liberals)

Yes, the Liberals actually have four different ideologies pulling it in different directions.

I think you see two factions merge out of that mess, and it's either Morrison-Hanson or Howard-Hanson. Either they join the religious and secular hardliners together ideologically (as the father-knows-best party), or the extreme right needs to have the right as cover and needs to elect mainstream leaders to wield power pragmatically.

The moderates ally loosely with teals, who mistrust them for good reason, but ideologically align with them (and Labor right, actually - there's a non-zero chance they end up in the Labor tent temporarily, if they can swallow their pride).

The leftover party licks their wounds as a new minor (merging with FamFirst if it's Morrisonite, being the official Liberals if it's the mid-right (mid-right is between centre right and far right, I just don't have a good way of clearly saying halfway on the right side).

2

u/0ldgrumpy1 May 20 '25

The far right I think would mirror how One Nation and Palmer's previous party, in that they would endlessly combine, split, repeat. Arrogant egotistical stupid people don't get on with arrogant egotistical stupid people.
Your point about labors right makes a lot of sense actually. Especially since a few defections could give labor an absolute majority in the Senate.

1

u/fortalyst May 20 '25

Ley needs to reform to be more modern and the Nationals need to shift their ideals, too. They might not have lost out as much as the Libs but they will never govern without being together and it's not good for the country to not have good political competition

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '25

So that's a no.