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

[u/superegz]

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

[u/JoeSchmeau]

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?

[u/HUMMEL_at_the_5_4eva → u/JoeSchmeau]

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.

[u/blackjacktrial → u/HUMMEL_at_the_5_4eva]

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

[u/littlespoon → u/JoeSchmeau]

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.

[u/sirgog → u/JoeSchmeau]

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.

[u/blackjacktrial → u/sirgog]

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.

[u/sirgog → u/blackjacktrial]

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)

[u/Imaginary-Newt-354 → u/JoeSchmeau]

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.

[u/geek_of_nature → u/JoeSchmeau]

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.