Christopher Pyne, saviour of the party.

Christopher Pyne spent last night speaking to Gerard Henderson, a few members of the Mosman branch of the Liberal party, a bus load of confused pensioners and a plate of stale biscuits at the conservative ‘think tank’ The Sydney Institute.

pyne.jpg

I was, for a change, quite interested in what he had to say.

The core of his address was reprinted in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning and deals with increasing membership and participation in the Liberal Party.

The essence of Christopher Pyne’s speech was that the Liberal Party should look at moving to a system where the membership has a say in the election of the parliamentary leadership of the party. He points to the Conservative Party in Britain as an example of how he believes it should be done, with parliamentarians calling for spills and selecting two candidates for the membership to select from. Pyne believes that this would lead to an influx of members desperate to have a say in how the party is led, thereby increasing the party’s manpower and ability to fund raise.

The problem, as I see it, is that this doesn’t really give people who aren’t already committed to the party a reason to join. The members are still presented with a choice between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum, who have been selected by the parliamentary party which is still subject to branch stacks and back room deals long in place. Additionally, this could lead to a situation where leadership contenders are forced to court the party members and denigrate their opponents instead of focussing of the business of winning elections. This would no doubt lead to the type of internal disruption that the US Republican Party undergoes whenever its competing constituencies bang heads during House, Senate and Presidential Primaries.

On the up side, Brendan Nelson would never have been elevated under a system like this. However, I believe that rather than improving the breadth of rank and file members, this type of change would only further embed the factionalism and the culture of branch stacking. What this all comes back to is that the conservative side of politics in Australia does not have a natural constituency capable of delivering it election wins. What we see instead is the uneasy marriage of rednecks, some small l liberals, people who hate unions, farmers who demand protection from free trade and a big smattering of the socially conservative religious right. John Howard’s biggest skill was keeping these competing interests at bay and focussed on the ALP, but in a system like Pyne is proposing, leadership aspirants would need to highlight the groups’ differences as they tried to gain the lion’s share of support. The power brokers in the NSW Liberal Party have already shown that they would rather be powerful in opposition rather than be marginalised in government, Pyne’s suggestion does nothing to overcome this problem.

Another weakness in the system is Pyne’s suggestion that only parliamentarians can call spills. While this overcomes the problems that the Australian Democrats faced during their leadership turmoil earlier this decade, it also removes the incentive for people to join up. If you implemented Pyne’s suggestion today, members would still not be able to rid the party of Nelson as leader, why then would you bother to sign on?

Reforming a political party is a difficult thing, Simon Crean achieved an enormous amount internally to improve the ALP but used up almost all of his political capital to do so. The one advantage that Crean did have was that labour and progressives usually have similar goals, something I have pointed out that the factions of the Liberal Party do not. The first hurdle that the Liberal Party has to overcome is deciding what it actually stands for, Christopher Pyne’s suggestion does nothing to address that fundemental issue.

Update: The Editor at Grod’s Corp has a much more positive take on the proposal.

7 thoughts on “Christopher Pyne, saviour of the party.

  1. Pyne has as much awareness of the U.S political system as his former boss. He obviously hasn’t seen Obama and Hillary attack each other to the point that there is no way they can run against the GOP as a joint ticket. Clever boy that Christopher. That said, Pyne and Abbott going at it in a televised debate would ensure another term for Labor, so maybe that’s the silver lining to Pyne opening his mouth in public.

  2. Pyne opening his mouth in public is always gold for the ALP. I have no doubt that if it were up to the government, Chris would be opposition leader by now. What is it about South Australian Liberals and bufoonery?

  3. It’s scary to think that Mr ‘blow-up-the-pokies” is going to have the swing vote in the senate. If he takes a conservative tack, then you may find that the coalition throws up a few sacrificial lambs to cross the floor because Mr 7% will not want to face a double disillusion. Tell you what, though, it would be a great opportunity to have a double dissolution election and a referendum on key issues such as whether South Australia’s representation should be reduced by at least one seat in the lower house.

  4. a double disolution would kill the Libs right now, absolutely kill them, they would go the way of the democrats nothing surer.
    I’d hardly consider Christopher Pyne a “saviour”, he might be waxing lyrically about handing the reigns over to the rank and file but the Liberal party is so synonomous with branch stacking that a member recruitment drive will end up being just another way to do just that.
    His huflepuff about moving away from their “hard right” policies is just a phurphy too I think, Pyne himself is one of the most arch conservative members of that caucus, it’s window dressing is all. A light coat of greenwash time and hang a few pine scented airfresheners on some of their more pungent policies.
    They can see the axe coming so they have realised they have to keep their red-neck ways under wraps for a while. It’s a lie-low not a reform.

  5. Jesus, putting a bunch of old people anywhere near Gerard Hernderson would surely suck what life they left right out of their frail bodies. Dr Philip Nitschkie couldn’t do better.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s