Let Liberal Party members elect the Leader

Why not follow the British Conservative Party method of electing leaders, asks Ralph Buttigieg.

Lets face it the Liberal Party is completely hopeless at electing its leaders. Its ridiculous that we are in our first term of opposition but are up to leader number three. There's nothing new about this of course, how many leaders did we go through last time until John Howard was elected leader? Remember it was his second go and he only got there because he was last man standing. The State situation is no better, NSW Liberals have been playing musical chairs for 15 years.

Under the current system we are constantly subject to leadership speculation. If the polls are bad the leader has to go, if they improve they can stay. Its a complete distraction from what we should be about – attacking the Labor Party. Also the leader is supposed to have the support of the Party members, but why should they? They had no part in their election. The end result is we spend a long time in opposition until we fluke someone who is electable and hopefully that person is a John Howard not some loser.

To me the solution is obvious, for the Liberal Party of Australia to adopt a system similar to what the UK Conservative Party has ie: to let the party members not just the parliamentarians elect the leader.

If the Conservatives have a leadership vacancy the parliamentarians chose two candidates , that way whoever becomes the leader will have the general support of their colleagues. Then those two have to go and sell themselves to the ordinary mug members. After a suitable time a ballot is held and who ever wins becomes the leader. That person remains the leader until he or she resigns or there is a spill. Importantly, unlike the Australian Democrats who had a similar system, they don't allow the party members to petition a spill. A spill can only be brought on by the parliamentarians. We want more stability not less. The person being spilled against can not stand for the forthcoming ballot.

The benefits are many. A united party. A leader who has the support of the members, the end of leadership speculation and perhaps most importantly, I believe it would rejuvenate the party. The ordinary members, the poor mugs who pays their 90 bucks, would have a direct say on who they want for the next Premier or Prime Minister.

Of course there are some negatives. There would be increased administrative costs. However democracy always has a price and besides internet voting would minimize those costs. Also what will we do with Queensland's National Liberal Party? Are they Liberals or Nationals? That's something that needs to be sorted out but would be irrelevant at the State level anyway. Properly the strongest opposition will come from various politicians who hope to use the current system to further their ambition, but there are some who would like to see such a change because the idea was first brought to my attention by Christopher Pyne MP.

So how about it? Lets have some grass roots democracy!
 
Ralph Buttigieg's professional career has included a couple of decades in government and management, proprietor of a Science Fiction & Fantasy bookshop, a stint in direct marketing and now finds himself in the finance industry. He joined the Liberal Party in 2008 and considers himself one of those right  wing bogans who voted in John Howard in 1996.

Comments

[ST]

1.

Perhaps the party could improve the pre-selection process first. The NSW election result will depend largely on the quality of candidates pre-selected for marginal seats, particularly where the ALP members have a strong personal vote. Unfortunately, as it appears at the moment, the factional lords seem to be more intent on installing their allies and proteges into these seats rather than promoting effective candidates with experience beyond the political world.

[Donald (SA)]

2.

"It is a complete distraction from what we should be about - attacking the Labor Party."

I was struck by this piece, Ralph, for that was the very problem we had with Malcolm Turnbull as leader. On that most important piece of policy, the ETS, Malcolm was in bed with Labor (and still is) and there was very little attacking going on! The Party was paralysed by Malcolm.

It was only as a result of the leadership 'distraction' and subsequent change that any attack could begin. And not a moment too soon.

Whether the wider Party would have selected Tony Abbott first time up after 2007 is very doubtful. Yet, after subjecting two leaders to the test and finding them wanting, it now seems a very sensible and promising choice has been made. Brendan or Malcolm were never going to win 2010, and Australia would now be facing a disastrous ETS.

Perhaps the wider Party would have chosen Tony in November, but what mechanism would have brought on the spill? Certainly, it seems most members wanted no more of Turnbull. The rapid dumping of Turnbull was vital however, and I suspect could only have been done in a short time by sitting parliamentary members.

Sometimes a little testing period(s), some distraction, and some heat may be worthwhile. But not too much!

[TerjeP (say Taya)]

3.

Articles like this make it increasingly clear that Menzies House is pitching to be the Liberal Party debating society rather than much else. This article is about internal Liberal party process. It has nothing to do with liberalism (or conservatism) as a philosophy. Nothing to do with public policy. It is not even a debate about why liberals should bother with the Liberals. The editors can run any article they want but they ought to think harder about the branding of this site.

[Ralph Buttigieg]

4.

G'day Donald,

Mechanism for spill? The same one we already have. The party room can call a spill if required but the person being spilled against can not stand for the forthcoming ballot. Which would have meant Turnbull would have been out.

And yes ST lets have more democratic pre-selections. I like democracy! Personally I think we should at least consider primaries like Julian Leeser has suggested but I can see several difficulties there.

ta

Ralph

[Tim Andrews]

5.

Terje - please, submit an article to us! We can only publish what we accept!

[Stephan Knoll]

6.

Good article Ralph, I like the concept of getting grazz roots more involved. It would also force leadship candidates to provide more detail of their platform when running, much like the primary process in the US.

[Mick]

7.

Ralph, I think you miss the important difference between the Liberals and Labor--that our members of parliament are trusted to make the right decisions. This comes down to allowing members to cross the floor, not be bound by party policies etc.

The whole point about the leader of the parliamentary party is that they hold the confidence of the most important people--the MPs! Could you imagine if Turnbull got endorsed by the party membership but not by his parliamentary colleagues... or vice versa? Absolutely untenable.

This is the important distinction between us and Labor... we are not beholden to interest groups (eg trade unions etc) but trusted to get it right.

If we don't trust our MPs to elect the best leader, what is the point of having them as MPs?

[Ralph Buttigieg]

8.

G'day,

Terjep, The Liberal Party is the nation's main centre right party so I think discussing a major structural change to it would be of interest to its general supporters not just its members, which was why I wrote the article. However there's no reason why similar procedures couldn't be implemented in the Labor Party or your LDP. I'll bet there would be lots of Labor people in NSW who would like to inject a shot of democracy in their party. What I would like to see is more democracy in all our major political parties.

Mick, the leader would always have the endorsement of the members and parliamentarians. remember:

1) The two candidates are selected by the parliamentarians themselves to insure general party room support for whoever wins.

2)The party room can still call for a spill.

3) The leader being spilled against can not stand for the forthcoming ballot.

ta

Ralph

[Neil]

9.

You can still subscribe to Pravda like the good old days

[James Darby]

10.

What you have raised are exceedingly important issues with regard to democracy at work.

A Mayor is the 'Chair' of Council. In a Republic such as The USA the President is elected by 'the people. Can you imagine the Australian Senate's Speaker being elected by the people?

When a Mayor is elected by their peers ( The other elected Councilors) the Mayor has the confidence of the majority of alderman. If the Mayor is elected by the so called 'popular' (the franchised population) vote he/she may not have the confidence of The Council Chamber that he/she is likely to Chair.

Popular Vote Mayors are a disaster in democracy. Two simultaneous polls are conducted. One for the alderman, one for the Mayor.

The crisis faced is what do with a drunken Mayor? Should the Mayor's position become untenable with a popular system the Mayor cannot readily be replaced until the next election.

As an example can you imagine John Howard declaring to the Australia people "I had no sexual relations with M.L." and then being found out? And still remain PM? No way.
President Clinton, elected by popular vote mislead and misinformed the Parliament of The USA about his relations with M.L. So how did he stay on? Only in America!
How Clinton avoided impeachment which was a dramatically long drawn out affair was outrageous particularly for Australia. He induced Republican Senators to withdraw their support for impeachment by banned Australian Lamb imports into the USA. In Australia he would have be bounced as quickly as Abbott saved us all from Turnbull.

The Liberal Party Parliamentary Leader must only be elected by the other M.P.'s Otherwise he cannot be readily replaced.

We have seen the example of Malcolm Turnbull first knocking off Peter King for a seat and then knocking off Brendon Nelson for leadership. I am not having a go at anyone who supported Turnbull for leader then. To my shame I was one of them.

Then the situation arrives when Turnbull decides to let everyone know that nothing matters except the ETS and becomes Rudd's RHM. Turnbull is as guilty as the Labor Party for the financial disaster that 'Stimulation' will prove to be. Thank goodness that Tony Abbott took his duty to heart and stepped up to the plate. Imagine if Turnbull had been chosen by the Liberal Membership at large instead of his peers. Rudd and Turnbull would have their ETS and Australia would have been doomed to poverty.

An interesting proposition at 'choose your Parliamentary Leader time' would be for a ballot to be taken by the rank and file and the results passed on to the Parliamentary Party by way of recommendation only.

[Liberal Reality Check]

11.

The Australian Democrats had a similar membership suffrage system for 30 years...

Look where it got them!

Revolving door leadership - until there was no-one left to elect...

[John Moss]

12.

Suggest you adopt a variant on the Tory scheme whereby each prospective candidate has to get their nomination seconded by at least 12.5% of the local associations across the country, with no Association allowed to second more than one candidate. Then let the MPs vote on the resulting slate.

The field will be no more than 8 strong, but every Association in the country becomes important to those wishing to stand, even the no hopers we never win!

It would also make great TV if the local associations all voted on who they seconded on the same evening!

[James Darby]

13.

Great contribution Donald.
I shall also be most interested on hearing your thoughts regarding the Liberal Party Pre-Selection Process and recommendations for encouraging worthwhile persons to enter Parliament. On Tuesday 9th Feb Warren Truss Nat. M.P. made a truly wonderful speech and carefully outlined the errors of Rudd and Turnbull's ETS.
The previous Liberal Speakers read their speeches word by word and offered no debate on the incorrectness of previous Labor speakers. My view is the current Liberal Party Selection process serves no purpose in attracting worthwhile candidates. Liberal Party paid staff must be banned from nominating for Parliamentary opportunity for five years from employment. A parliamentary staffer or Liberal HQ staffer who wants to be a Pollie devotes their time to stacking for their own entry instead of doing their joy description. Former Senator Carrick as General Secretary of the N.S.W Liberal Party stacked out preselection committees (as his main function for 20years) before taking a Senate Spot for himself. What a socialist disaster he was in Parliament with complete complicity with the Teachers Federation to alter the Education System to a Socialist View.

Scott Morrison's support for the ETS sums up my case.

[Ralph Buttigieg]

14.

G'day ,

Regarding the Australian Democrats. They had a stupid system were the members could petition for a spill. Thats what got them into trouble. I'm not advocating such a thing.

James, one of the advantages of what I'm proposing is that back stabbing leaders would be eliminated or at least greatly reduced. Had Brendan Nelson been elected leader under such a system he would not have had to try to confirm his leadership by calling for a spill. Remenber he was trying to change the parties position on the ETS at the time.

ta

Ralph