AH: Australia Without Menzies

This is a timeline I thought up based on two ideas: what if the Japanese had invaded, and what if the Liberal Party, by its many names, had come to an end? Any feedback would be welcome; I know some of the details, particularly the invasion, are a tad implausible, but the death of Australian liberalism is an intriguing scenario. Footnotes are all at the bottom.


For Want Of A Ming


1939:
-The Prime Minister, Joseph Lyons, of the UAP-ACP coalition, suffers a heart attack. Although his heart stops for almost a minute, he is soon revived and returns to duty. (1)
-War breaks out in Europe. Lyons declares ‘since Britain is at war, Australia is also at war’. He offers the formation of a National Government to Curtin, but Curtin is forced to decline after a Labor revolt at the prospect of supporting a ‘rat’ as Prime Minister, as Lyons had defected from the ALP 8 years earlier. (2)

1940:
-An election is held. Solid, dependable Lyons is seen as increasingly doddery compared to Labor leader John Curtin, but Curtin suffers under accusations of pacifism and lack of support for the troops. As a result, Lyons is re-elected, but with a much reduced majority. (3)
-Tensions break out in Coalition ranks over what they perceive to be mishandling over the war. These are further exacerbated by the lack of purpose and drive in the UAP ranks; intended to be a populist caretaker government and created out of a fusion between conservatives and dissident Laborites, the party has no clear ideology and thus cannot form clear policy. Lyons, as a former Labor minister, is at the heart of these tensions, with the conservative faction lead by Robert Menzies bringing increasing pressure upon him to resign.

1941:
-Lyons flies to London, where he meets Churchill and is forced to agree to higher troop commitments, in order to assuage the Anglophile Menzies and because of his natural lack of political skulduggery. He spends nearly seven months in Britain (4), during which time tensions between Menzies and Billy Hughes, the wizened political master who leads the UAP’s former Labor faction come to a head. Lyons, exhausted by the constraints of wartime leadership, is unable to constrain these factions, which eventually lead to open disputes in Parliament.
-On December 7, 1941, Japan declares war, and begins advancing towards Singapore. The UAP is split between those who wish to call upon Britain to evacuate the base and those who wish to reinforce it. As a result, no clear policy decision is made.

1942:
-On February 15th, Singapore surrenders. Australia is now a nation under siege. Lyons wishes to return Australian troops from the Middle East to defend Australia, but his earlier concessions to Churchill (caused by party strife) means that he can only return one division.
-On February 19th, Darwin is attacked by Japanese fighters, which cause much damage. Hundreds die. (5)
-The Japanese forces invade New Guinea. With the entire Australian forces off in the Middle East due to Lyons’ compromises, Rabaul quickly falls, and Japanese forces begin a rapid advance down the Kokoda Track.
-Hughes, attacking Lyons’ leadership, launches a leadership challenge. He is defeated, but the existence of the challenge marks an immediate battle for supremacy between Menzies and Hughes, both of whom see themselves as the next Prime Minister. (6)
-Lyons, now coming under attack from all sides, introduces conscription to fight off the Japanese attack to the north. However, without trained military aid, the Australian conscripts cannot hold off the Japanese for long.
-General Douglas Macarthur arrives in Australia to help fight off the Japanese. However, barely disguised hostility towards him from the Hughes faction of the UAP (7) hinders his job, and the feuding between Menzies and Hughes makes the introduction of any policy difficult. As a result, very little can be done to stop the Japanese advance.
-The Kokoda Track Campaign turns into a disaster for Australian forces; untrained, unequipped, and with conflicting orders as parliamentary forces shift, the conscripts are massacred.
-In September, the Japanese forces take Port Moresby. Bombing raids become a regular event in Darwin, and invasion fears become paramount. Australian forces in the Middle East are withdrawn to Australia. (8)
-Lyons, while taking a tour of solidarity in Darwin, is killed in an air raid. Immediate political warfare breaks out between Hughes and Menzies over the leadership, while Acting Prime Minister Arthur Fadden is widely seen as ineffectual. In a party ballot, Menzies wins narrowly over Hughes. As a result, Hughes splits his faction from the UAP and forms the Australia Party (9), and immediately calls a vote of no confidence. Curtin comes to power, with the support of Hughes.
-The Japanese conquer Fiji, New Caledonia and the New Hebrides, effectively isolating Australia. American aid can no longer reach Australia.
-Over a dispute over the extent of conscription (10), Hughes brings down the Curtin government. He agrees to support a coalition government, but on the condition that Menzies resigns. Arthur Fadden, the Country Party leader, becomes Prime Minister (11).
-The new UAP government is just as unstable as the old, with the added disadvantage that Fadden can secure support from neither the UAP nor the Australia Party.
-Darwin, which has been under near-continuous bombardment from Japanese forces since the fall of Port Moresby, is invaded by Japanese forces on Christmas Day. (12)

1943:
-The Fadden government falls in Parliament over its handling of the crisis. The Governor-General Alexander Hore-Ruthven, seeing that no group can command the support of Parliament, orders the creation of a national coalition government with him at its head, and the temporary dissolution of the office of Prime Minister. He takes on sweeping powers to resolve the crisis.
-Japanese troops advance throughout the Northern Territory, and begin bombing raids using the captured Darwin airport. In one particularly devastating raid, a hole is smashed in the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Australian forces try to retake Darwin, but are forced back by overwhelming firepower.
-Japanese troops begin landing on the eastern coast, between Cairns and Townsville. They quickly advance towards Brisbane. (14)
-Hore-Ruthven invokes the Brisbane Line, and orders a general retreat to a thin strip of land between Brisbane and Melbourne. The rest of Australia is given up for lost. Furious, Western Australia announces its unilateral secession, and blows up the railway line to the east, as much to stop the Australians as to stop the Japanese. (15)
-American troops land on Fiji and New Caledonia, which have been exhausted of their occupying forces by the attack on Australia, and prepare to relieve Australia.
-Battle of Brisbane. The Japanese forces launch an intensive amphibious, air and land assault on Brisbane, killing thousands. The Australian forces retreat slowly, but in the end are forced to evacuate the city. Brisbane falls to the Japanese forces.
-The Japanese forces move along the Great Pacific Highway, steadily advancing on Sydney.
-Hore-Ruthven declares a complete state of national emergency, and conscripts everyone who can serve to the defence of Sydney.
-Canberra is bombed by the advancing Japanese. Although Parliament House is well-defended and managed to escape with only a few glancing blows, Yarralumla is not. Hore-Ruthven is killed in the assault, leaving the country with no effective leadership and no time to appoint a new Governor-General.
-Thomas Blamey, commander of Australian troops, launches a coup, to secure Canberra and provide leadership during the time of crisis. (16) The leaders of the four main parties bitterly oppose this, and Australian troops battle in Canberra. Eventually, Blamey is arrested. In the aftermath, Curtin becomes Prime Minister of a national unity government. (17)
-Battle of Sydney. Japanese troops take Newcastle, and advance down the coast, under fire all the way. Eventually, they reach the northern suburbs, and are stopped for days at the Hornsby Line by the desperate defenders. The Line lasts long enough for troops from Melbourne to arrive to defend Sydney. Finally, the Hornsby Line breaks, and the Japanese troops advance to the south, with the defenders destroying infrastructure as they go. Japanese troops are stopped for days in Lindfield, where the bulk of the fighting takes place, and where most of the suburbs are reduced to ruins. American forces arrive in Sydney during the siege of Lindfield en masse from their bases in Fiji and New Caledonia. They do not arrive in time to save the Lindfield line, however, and the Japanese troops come within sight of Sydney Harbour. The American troops, massing on the southern side of the harbour, destroy the Sydney Harbour Bridge to stop the Japanese advance. The American forces then launch an amphibious assault, across the harbour, and manage to drive the Japanese forces back.
-The exhausted Japanese army is forced into a full retreat, once its logistics are halted by an American blockade. At Port Macquarie, the exhausted, starving Japanese forces are surrounded by American and Australian forces, and forced into surrender.
-Darwin is still under Japanese control, and a long campaign begins to take it back.
-Western Australia, now that the crisis is over, rejoins Australia rather sheepishly, under the petition of its beloved native son John Curtin. (18)
-Elections are held. The result is a complete landslide for Curtin. More specifically, the fractious and disunited United Australia Party is completely wiped out, being reduced to a rump of 5 seats, including Menzies. The Australia Party is also wiped out, with Billy Hughes losing his seat for the first time in 42 years. The Labor Party gains a commanding mandate of 59 seats due to Curtin’s personal popularity, with the 10 seat Country Party becoming the main opposition.
-In the aftermath of the election, Menzies begins a campaign for a ‘Liberal Democratic Party’, to revive the forces of liberal-conservatism. Unfortunately, the United Australia Party has become so diminished that no one listens.

1944:
-Darwin is retaken in January, with the final Japanese forces retreating from Australian soil. The rest of the war passes much as in OTL. (19)
-Arthur Fadden, leader of the Country Party and of the conservative forces in general, begins a campaign to expand into urban seats, which following the demise of the United Australia Party have become the sole providence of Labor. His message of ‘populist agrarian socialism’ is somewhat similar to Labor’s version of democratic socialism.
-Australia begins the process of rebuilding. Tens of thousands, from Darwin to Sydney, have died in the Japanese assault, and millions of pounds of land have been razed to the ground, by both sides. In order to come up with the necessary funds, Curtin begins a program of centralisation, taking away many of the states’ functions in order to fund massive state infrastructure programs, such as bridge-building. His proposals pass in a referendum, more due to Curtin’s popularity than by the merit of the proposals themselves. (20)
-The UAP, deserted by its followers and by big business, dissolves after a battle for the leadership. Menzies forms a Liberal Democratic Party built largely around himself, but gains little support amongst the populace.
-A massive program of state socialism begins, in order to rebuild Australia. The Sydney Harbour Bridge is rebuilt as the Hore-RuthvenBridge, in honour of the deceased Governor-General. In a controversial measure, the banks are nationalised, in order to provide sufficient funds. In the absence of an effective conservative opposition, however, the measure is passed. (21)

1945:
-John Curtin dies of a heart attack. Widespread national mourning follows. After a brief caretaker administration by Frank Forde, Ben Chifley becomes Prime Minister.
-Japan surrenders after the first atomic bombs are dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

1946:
-An election year in Australia. Responding to the unpopularity of the bank reforms, the Country Party gain 10 seats, to a total of 20. The most notable event, however, is the defeat of the former UAP members, even Menzies, who loses his seat to a Country Party candidate. Menzies, the last inheritor of the Deakinite Liberal tradition, locks the door of the UAP caucus room for the last time. (22)

(1): In OTL, Lyons died and Menzies became Prime Minister, after a brief caretaker government under Earle Page. This is the POD.
(2): The ALP doesn’t like rats. When you consider that they wouldn’t even form a government with Robert Menzies, imagine how they must feel about Lyons!
(3): In OTL, Menzies was forced into minority, which eventually gave Labor power. Lyons was a far more charismatic figure than Menzies (at least in his first term), and thus would probably be able to get the UAP over the line.
(4): This is not meant as an insult to Lyons; he was a genuinely nice and charismatic man, but his lack of skills as a politician and, shall we say, ‘moderate’ intelligence have been well documented. However, it must be noted that Menzies fared little better in his meetings with Churchill. The elderly and embattled Lyons meeting the Bulldog…he could never have done any better.
(5): In OTL, Darwin was already undefended and unequipped, so this is just the same.
(6): This is a recurring feature of Billy Hughes’ personality; even though he was a fascinating man who achieved some great things, his actions in 1929, 1939 and 1943 in OTL showed that he could never quite grasp the notion that he would never be Prime Minister again. Even though he was, in 1942, an 80 year old man, that doesn’t seem to have stopped him in our timeline either.
(7): Hughes feuded bitterly with Woodrow Wilson at Versailles, and the notion of an American arriving in town to take over the shots would have riled him most fiercely. Besides, opposition to Macarthur would have made a good battleground with Menzies.
(8): The difference in this timeline is that forces were withdrawn far later, because of Lyons’ early concessions to Churchill to avoid a factional brawl. This may make all the difference.
(9): Hughes actually did form an Australia Party when he split off from the Nationalists 13 years before; it would make sense to recycle an old name.
(10): Hughes split his party over supporting conscription, whilst Curtin was sent to jail for opposing it. Oh, to be a fly on the wall in THAT meeting…
(11): As he did in OTL. I think that in TTL, as in OTL, it’s not so much a matter that he’s the best candidate so much that every other candidate has a faction crying for their hide.
(12): It’s a logical progression; seeing as Australia couldn’t hold New Guinea due to Australian forces being in the Middle East, so fall the PacificIslands, and so falls Darwin. And at the worst possible time, of course.
(13): Controversial, maybe, but possible. The Prime Minister isn’t actually mentioned in the constitution. If no party can garner sufficient support to govern on its own, then a coalition government is the only possibility. The Governor-General, as 1975 showed us, has sweeping powers to appoint and dismiss ministers; he could, potentially, do this. Of course, in any other circumstance this would be unheard of, but after all, there are Japanese troops in Darwin. Essentially, Hore-Ruthven would act as the American President does.
(14): Well, most Australian troops would have been engaged in attacking Darwin. Also, there have been heavy losses due to the extensive bombing by the Japanese, and most of all it’s very hard to defend a coastline like the Queensland coast.
(15): There was a lot of secessionist sentiment around in Western Australia at the time, and the Brisbane Line would have been viewed as the ultimate betrayal. Once you blow up the railway line and barricade the main roads, it’s extraordinarily difficult to conquer WA by land, and the Japanese resources are too stretched to launch an amphibious invasion.
(16): This may sound far-fetched, but remember, Hore-Ruthven was the only one leading the country. With Japanese troops in Tamworth and a bickering four-party parliament, Blamey could have thought that a military dictatorship would be the only way to save Sydney. Of course, many of his troops would not have thought the same.
(17): Well, he’s the only one all the parties can respect. And with Australia in such dire straits, party politics takes a back seat.
(18): Also, the fact that Western Australia is now vulnerable to the Japanese forces and important strategically is an important factor, but they like to think of it as out of love for Curtin.
(19): That is to say, even though the Americans didn’t have Australia as a base, the Japanese forces were so exhausted that any effect is negligible.
(20): In OTL, the referendum failed, but then again, in OTL we didn’t have a massive Japanese invasion.
(21): Without a Liberal Party to spearhead resistance and considering Curtin’s popularity, I don’t see any way this could have been opposed.
(22): In Australia, there has always been a united Liberal Party since 1909, with only the occasional name-change. With the fall of the UAP, that tradition ends.
 
wouldnt the UK have to send forces to Australia, I mean its 1943, the Suez canal should be secured, maybe they'd postpone Med operations or something to help their ally and Dominion out
 
What I'd like to know is how Curtin is kept from forming an ALP government, when in the post-Singapore defeat the UAP/Coalition government is in so much turmoil. If so, then it'll fall in a manner akin to the OTL & the ALP take government.


Other than that, as you've mentioned yourself BlackMage, the Japanese invasion of Australia is implausible under the circumstances. A couple of things must take place first:

1) The Japanese win, not necessarily in PNG (although this is obvious), but they must win the Battle of the Coral Sea more or less destroying the USN Pacific fleet in the process.

2) The Japanese army must drastically improve their logistical operations otherwise they'll pretty much starve themselves to death in PNG before landing one soldier on Australian soil.

3) The Japanese can't spread out their forces taking places like Fiji or New Caledonia. They must concentrate their forces for the Australian invasion (their operations in The Solomons are a different story).

4) What's left of the USN pretty well remains glued to the USA west coast (or operate in the Atlantic) allowing the Japanese free reign of the Pacific.
 
DMA said:
What I'd like to know is how Curtin is kept from forming an ALP government, when in the post-Singapore defeat the UAP/Coalition government is in so much turmoil. If so, then it'll fall in a manner akin to the OTL & the ALP take government.

Because they don't have to rely on independent support, like the OTL UAP did, thanks to Lyons' popularity.


Other than that, as you've mentioned yourself BlackMage, the Japanese invasion of Australia is implausible under the circumstances. A couple of things must take place first:

1) The Japanese win, not necessarily in PNG (although this is obvious), but they must win the Battle of the Coral Sea more or less destroying the USN Pacific fleet in the process.

Well, Australia has been severely compromised as a base thanks to the early loss of PNG. With a Japanese base at Port Moresby thanks to their overland invasion, they can not only launch further attacks on Australian bases in Northern Australia, thus damaging US fleet facilities there, but they have a good logistics port at which to build up their fleet.

2) The Japanese army must drastically improve their logistical operations otherwise they'll pretty much starve themselves to death in PNG before landing one soldier on Australian soil.

Yes, that is a problem, and one that I must find a solution too. So far, all I've got is that the Japanese troops manage to advance much faster in TTL than in OTL, because the Australian resistance is so haphazard thanks to the political warfare going on. It's still a hole, admittedly, but once they reach Port Moresby they've got a base for resupply. They just have to reach there before their supplies run out, which should be easier in TTL.

3) The Japanese can't spread out their forces taking places like Fiji or New Caledonia. They must concentrate their forces for the Australian invasion (their operations in The Solomons are a different story).

Good point. I'm considering removing that from the timeline, although having bases at Fiji and New Caledonia would help isolate Australia from the USN, which is critical to the invasion lasting as long as it did (which, even so, is pretty much just a single advance down the Australian coast; in OTL, even if they did take Sydney, they are still overextended, and that's what gets them in the end)

4) What's left of the USN pretty well remains glued to the USA west coast (or operate in the Atlantic) allowing the Japanese free reign of the Pacific.

Ah. My final Achilles heel. In trying to get a Japanese invasion ahead (because as far as I can see, the only way Australian liberalism will die down is if they are seen directly responsible for an invasion; we're very committed to our liberals), I've tried to sideline the USN. Which is indeed a problem, and probably the one which sinks my timeline. I've been considering that without their bases in the Pacific at large thanks to the isolation of Australia and the Japanese domination of Oceania, the Japanese will score a larger victory at Midway and thus force a further retreat. But I'm struggling to work that in.

Thanks for your comments.
 
BlackMage said:
Because they don't have to rely on independent support, like the OTL UAP did, thanks to Lyons' popularity.


Nevertheless the ALP will have the largest block in the Parliament. By constitutional convention (albeit unwritten), the ALP should be asked to form a government even if a minority one.

And Curtin was far from pacifist as he clearly demonstrated as PM.


BlackMage said:
Well, Australia has been severely compromised as a base thanks to the early loss of PNG. With a Japanese base at Port Moresby thanks to their overland invasion, they can not only launch further attacks on Australian bases in Northern Australia, thus damaging US fleet facilities there, but they have a good logistics port at which to build up their fleet.


I don't understand the "early loss" of PNG part. It could have been lost in early 1942. More importantly, if the USN Pacific fleet is still very active, & the Coral Sea is still in Allied hands, the Japanese are completely vunerable on their flank. Thus any move against Australia can be attacked via the Pacific ensuring great damage to the Japanese.

Now the Japanese Navy had the strategic thinking personnel who could understand such problems. Likewise their logistics were good. The Japanese army, on the other hand, were hopeless in such matters. Still, the army is going to require the Japanese navy's co-operation in any invasion of Australia. So be rest assured, whilst Yamamato is still around, there will have to be a Battle of the Coral Sea even if for different reasons from the OTL. And the USN Pacific Fleet will have to be destroyed otherwise the invasion of Australia won't be on as far as the Japanese navy is concerned.



BlackMage said:
Yes, that is a problem, and one that I must find a solution too. So far, all I've got is that the Japanese troops manage to advance much faster in TTL than in OTL, because the Australian resistance is so haphazard thanks to the political warfare going on. It's still a hole, admittedly, but once they reach Port Moresby they've got a base for resupply. They just have to reach there before their supplies run out, which should be easier in TTL.


Well the Japanese army must drastically improve their logistics prior to the PNG campaign, otherwise they won't win it. It'll be a repeat of the OTL, especially when 7th AUS DIV arrives. A no Japanese win in PNG means no invasion of Australia.


BlackMage said:
Good point. I'm considering removing that from the timeline, although having bases at Fiji and New Caledonia would help isolate Australia from the USN, which is critical to the invasion lasting as long as it did (which, even so, is pretty much just a single advance down the Australian coast; in OTL, even if they did take Sydney, they are still overextended, and that's what gets them in the end)


Such intense isolation isn't necessary as, whatever the Japanese do, Australia can still be supplied via NZ & through the Indian Ocean. Taking the Solomons is more than enough to keep the USN preoccupied & also gives the Japanese a secure flank against any USN intervention.

But all this is a mute point if the USN is heavily defeated in the Coral Sea. That's why Japanese victory in such a battle is paramount for any Japanese invasion of Australia. Furthermore, spreading the army out over a such an enormous region creates, not just a logistical nightmare (which will only further the troubles which the Japanese already had logistics wise), but there'll be fewer Japanese troops available for that which really counts - the invasion of Australia.



BlackMage said:
Ah. My final Achilles heel. In trying to get a Japanese invasion ahead (because as far as I can see, the only way Australian liberalism will die down is if they are seen directly responsible for an invasion; we're very committed to our liberals), I've tried to sideline the USN. Which is indeed a problem, and probably the one which sinks my timeline. I've been considering that without their bases in the Pacific at large thanks to the isolation of Australia and the Japanese domination of Oceania, the Japanese will score a larger victory at Midway and thus force a further retreat. But I'm struggling to work that in.


You can always try a POD where the Japanese don't attack the Americans. Instead they limit their operations against the British, French & Dutch. Otherwise, another POD could see the Americans lose more at Pearl - in other words their aircraft carriers as well as their BBs. On a similar note, the Japanese dramatically win in the Coral Sea where again the USN loses 3 or 4 carriers. Outcomes such as these will ensure Japanese naval supremacy in the Pacific until say 1943 & allow the Japanese to have a free hand in the Pacific for 2 years. That should be enough time for a decent Japanese invasion of Australia to be conducted.

As for the death of Australian liberalism - that's a hard thing to do considering the very ethos of Australia. You really need to go way back to the beginning (1788), in many respects, where Britain constantly maintains a very strong military control of the country, whilst political freedom is all but restricted. Similarly political ideas, thoughts, philosphies, etc, are kept out of Australia somehow. Good luck pulling that off considering, from the beginning, Australia has been a hotbed of radical political thoughts accumulating with Federation ;)


BlackMage said:
Thanks for your comments.


No worries :)
 
The militia beat the japanese on the Kokada trail. The regular army back from the Middle east reinforced them when they were exhausted.

Liberalism as far as Menzies and the Liberal Party is concerned is a misnomer and always has been. They are Conservatives and only adopted the name Liberal Party at the insistence of Menzies who said that the Australian people would not vote for a party that called itself conservative.

Liberalism has always been a bone of contention in Australian political philisophical thought and will continue to be. Do not confuse Australian liberal thought with the American political definition of liberal.
 
MarkA said:
Liberalism as far as Menzies and the Liberal Party is concerned is a misnomer and always has been. They are Conservatives and only adopted the name Liberal Party at the insistence of Menzies who said that the Australian people would not vote for a party that called itself conservative.

Liberalism has always been a bone of contention in Australian political philisophical thought and will continue to be. Do not confuse Australian liberal thought with the American political definition of liberal.


Actually the political philosphy of Liberalism was pretty much the foundation of Australia, thanks to Australia (or more the point the colony of NSW) being established at around the same time when Liberal political thought was all the rage back in Britain.

Then, & importantly for Australia as against the American development of Liberalism, we also got a very healthy dose of Utilitarianism from the likes of Betham & J.S. Mill, which the Americans missed out on, yet it was all the vouge in Britain & above all Australia in the early to late 1800s. In fact South Australia was established with the political philosophy of Utilitarianism in mind.

For the purposes of this thread, however, Liberal-Utilitarianism, because these two related political philosophies basically gave birth to Australia, means to say that ridding Australia of Liberalism is more or less impossible come whatever happens in the 1940s, as Liberal-Democratic-Utilitarianism (Democratic as in Liberal-Democracy) is the very essence of Australia by Federation.

In fact Liberal-Democratic-Utilitarianism is pretty well practiced in general every day things by most Australians for more than the last century, even if they've been completely ignorant of it: whilst its influence upon our political structures, our political practices, & especially most of our political parties, has been & is still constant.

In this respect, the Liberal Party, even though conservative in nature, is nevertheless greatly influenced by Liberal-Democratic-Utilitarianism. The Country Party is the same, as is the ALP even if many claim they are social democrats & not liberal democrats. Most members of the ALP are, though , Liberal-Democratic-Utilitarianists & not socialist democrats in the ture sense of the term. Again the Democrats are in the Liberal-Democratic-Utilitarianism mold. Only parties like the Greens, Socialists, Communists, & the New Guard (from the 1930s) are outside of the Liberal-Democratic-Utilitarianism Australian tradition.

Now it is true that the ALP under Chiefly tried to go the socialist way. But his efforts were at odds with what Australians accepted. And it's this situation, what Australians will accept, that's important here. And that has to do with Australia's ethos, which has developed over times due to the influences of the past. So, as I posted previously, you've got to drastically change the Liberal & Utilitarian influences from shaping the Australian cultural, traditional, & political landscape, whilst permitting some other political philosphies to take root instead, in order to ensure that Liberalism, in whatever form it takes (ie UAP, Country Party, the right wing of the ALP), can be easily defeated as per the AH scenario offered here.
 
Last edited:
DMA said:
Actually the political philosphy of Liberalism was pretty much the foundation of Australia, thanks to Australia (or more the point the colony of NSW) being established at around the same time when Liberal political thought was all the rage back in Britain.

Then, & importantly for Australia as against the American development of Liberalism, we also got a very healthy dose of Utilitarianism from the likes of Betham & J.S. Mill, which the Americans missed out on, yet it was all the vouge in Britain & above all Australia in the early to late 1800s. In fact South Australia was established with the political philosophy of Utilitarianism in mind.

For the purposes of this thread, however, Liberal-Utilitarianism, because these two related political philosophies basically gave birth to Australia, means to say that ridding Australia of Liberalism is more or less impossible come whatever happens in the 1940s, as Liberal-Democratic-Utilitarianism (Democratic as in Liberal-Democracy) is the very essence of Australia by Federation.

In fact Liberal-Democratic-Utilitarianism is pretty well practiced in general every day things by most Australians for more than the last century, even if they've been completely ignorant of it: whilst its influence upon our political structures, our political practices, & especially most of our political parties, has been & is still constant.

In this respect, the Liberal Party, even though conservative in nature, is nevertheless greatly influenced by Liberal-Democratic-Utilitarianism. The Country Party is the same, as is the ALP even if many claim they are social democrats & not liberal democrats. Most members of the ALP are, though , Liberal-Democratic-Utilitarianists & not socialist democrats in the ture sense of the term. Again the Democrats are in the Liberal-Democratic-Utilitarianism mold. Only parties like the Greens, Socialists, Communists, & the New Guard (from the 1930s) are outside of the Liberal-Democratic-Utilitarianism Australian tradition.

Now it is true that the ALP under Chiefly tried to go the socialist way. But his efforts were at odds with what Australians accepted. And it's this situation, what Australians will accept, that's important here. And that has to do with Australia's ethos, which has developed over times due to the influences of the past. So, as I posted previously, you've got to drastically change the Liberal & Utilitarian influences from shaping the Australian cultural, traditional, & political landscape, whilst permitting some other political philosphies to take root instead, in order to ensure that Liberalism, in whatever form it takes (ie UAP, Country Party, the right wing of the ALP), can be easily defeated as per the AH scenario offered here.

Yes but no. The foundation of the ALP was social democratic not liberal. Once the liberal tradition was rejected by the conservatives in the twenties, the liberal thinkers began to flirt with Labor. They were initially replused but have gained ground steadily since.

You are correct in saying the foundation of Australian political thought was liberal, but the influence of other strands of political thought must not be regarded as absent. JD Lang, among others, influenced Australian political political thought in the early years. Socialism, too, was strong and was the dominant ethos of labour and the Labour Party.

American liberalism is very much in the tradition of British and Australian liberalism despite its lagging behind in philisophical underpinnings. They soon adopted the same bases as the rest of the world's liberal thinkers. It is the conservative view of liberalism I meant to highlight and contrast. In the present US view liberalism is morally bankrupt and dangerous while in Australia and most other democracies such a view would attract derision and sideline the group that expressed such a view. Howard would consider himself a liberal as well as a Liberal for example.
 
MarkA said:
Yes but no. The foundation of the ALP was social democratic not liberal. Once the liberal tradition was rejected by the conservatives in the twenties, the liberal thinkers began to flirt with Labor. They were initially replused but have gained ground steadily since.


Actually the ALP in Australia was founded by unionists who wanted to form a political party for representation in parliament. That's more of a liberal traint rather than a social democratic one. Furthermore, other than the true socialists amongst the early Labor Party/Union members, most of the rest where (and still are) Liberal-Democratic-Utilitarianists.

The problem is such a distinction is very Australian & Australia is probably the only such country (maybe NZ is the only other one). We are not, however, a Liberal Democratic country in either the British or American sense.

We must, however, make a definition here. Liberalism as a overall arching philosophy is different from Whiggism. Australia is a liberal country only through international arbitory labelling. As I keep saying, we're a Liberal-Democratic-Utilitarianist country. Most of our political parties reflect this albeit in their own individual ways.


MarkA said:
You are correct in saying the foundation of Australian political thought was liberal, but the influence of other strands of political thought must not be regarded as absent. JD Lang, among others, influenced Australian political political thought in the early years. Socialism, too, was strong and was the dominant ethos of labour and the Labour Party.


Yes, I accept all that, but such political influences have come too little, too late - even though I don't accept that the ALP is a true social democratic party, but a left leaning Liberal-Democratic-Utilitarianist party - you see I'm challenging the notion of the very definition of political labels in the Australian context.

In the first 100 years, the all important foundation years in any nation, Australia is completely immersed in Liberal-Utilitarian political thought & practice. Democracy came as a afterthought (& a consequence of Liberal-Utilitarianism), but far quicker than elsewhere. The fundamental aspect, of what I'm saying is, if you want to ensure that Australia takes a very different cultural & societal way, which will be reflected in what political system we follow in the 1940s, this 100 year foundation has to be drastically altered. Afterwards is too late as the Australian ethos has been well & truly established by the 1940s (if not indeed by 1901).


MarkA said:
American liberalism is very much in the tradition of British and Australian liberalism despite its lagging behind in philisophical underpinnings. They soon adopted the same bases as the rest of the world's liberal thinkers. It is the conservative view of liberalism I meant to highlight and contrast. In the present US view liberalism is morally bankrupt and dangerous while in Australia and most other democracies such a view would attract derision and sideline the group that expressed such a view. Howard would consider himself a liberal as well as a Liberal for example.


Actually American liberalism is very different from the British-Australian experience as American Liberalism was never influenced by Utilitarianism. In fact a core component of American liberalism, regardless of it being left leaning (the Democrat tradition) or from the right (Republicans), is the cult of the individual. This isn't a major part of British or above all Australian Liberalism.

Australia, however, was/is far more influenced by Utilitarianism by the very fact that, although we do have a working & middle class society, so we're not a true egalitarian society (& never have been), yet we also have no aristocracy, whilst there is fundamentally an almost uniformity of ideas, politics, community, culture, traditions, attitudes, self-awareness & above all worth (it may vary, of course, but...). There's also a sense of toleration, not to mention the very Australian ethic of having a fair go. Importantly we don't really have a cult of the individual - although this maybe an unwanted change IMHO that's forthcoming if current patterns continue - however the tall poppy syndrome will hopefully ensure that it won't become part of Australian society. In other words, Australian society is more like a community made up of individuals, rather than individuals making up a community.

Hence I keep saying Australia is a Liberal-Democratic-Utilitarianist country.
 
Last edited:
DMA,
the ALP was founded as a result of industrial defeat. The only way, once the 'liberal' state had suppressed unionism by armed force, was to win power politically. That is, to win control of the state apparatus by political rather than revolutionary means. In the same way the social democrats of Germany and France had already decided to do in their repective countries. The Paris commune was defeated and so was the 1890 strike in Australia, by armed force.
 
Wow...so many responses...

Anyway, what I MEANT was the end of the Deakinite Liberal parties, which not clarifying was a mistake. Basically, since 1909 we've had a Deakinite Liberal Party which identifies itself as Liberal (even if it's not), an agrarian party with varying policies (from agrarian socialism to free trade), and a Labor Party that has always been roughly left wing. If what I just said sounds very general, it's because Australian parties aren't all that good at sticking to the script. :D Anyway, what I meant was trying to remove the Deakinite Liberal Party in its many names and incarnations from the scene, and seeing how Australian politics develop.
 
MarkA said:
DMA,
the ALP was founded as a result of industrial defeat. The only way, once the 'liberal' state had suppressed unionism by armed force, was to win power politically. That is, to win control of the state apparatus by political rather than revolutionary means. In the same way the social democrats of Germany and France had already decided to do in their repective countries. The Paris commune was defeated and so was the 1890 strike in Australia, by armed force.


You're refering to Queensland I gather. The NSW branch, founded at Unity Hall in Balmain, is a different story. What more can I say? :p :D

Importantly, though, the Labor Party, regardless of state & birth pains, was founded so that unions would have a political branch which could represent them in parliament. They realised that the confrontational approach, &/or violent revolution, was not going to work. Just as importantly the ALP soon started showing it was independent of union wonts. Billy Hughes, amongst others, is an excellent example. And there's no way you can convince me someone like Billy Hughes was a socialist radical.

Essentially, though, in the Australian context, the majority of Labor members did not want to "nationalise", "socialise" or "communise" industry. Instead they wanted better conditions & better pay, whilst business could still remain private. Many did not want a communist society, although admittedly some did. In this regards, though, the majority were not acting as socialists, in the Australian context, but as agents of market forces - which is well within the liberal economic theories of the day (& still today).

Again, as I keep saying, Australian politics, society, & so forth, should really be viewed in the Australian scheme of things. Hence I use the term to cover most of such things as Liberal-Democratic-Utilitarianism.

As such, there's nothing wrong with unions & labour leaders demanding better pay & conditions (indeed it's written more or less into our Constitition - Sect 51, para XXXV). There's nothing wrong with union representation in parliament. There's nothing wrong with conservative representation in parliament. There's nothing wrong with wanting to reduce the wealth gap. There's nothing wrong with free trade. There's nothing wrong with government being actively involved with legislation forcing private business to follow the rules. Likewise there's nothing wrong with so-called "small" pro-business government either.

All these competing forces, however, are part of such an overarching political philosophy known as Liberal-Democratic-Utilitarianism (even if only practiced in Australia), whilst the fundamentals foundations of such a country aren't really challenged. And none of the main parties, whether they be the ALP, Liberal, UAP, or Country parties have never really done this, except for the ALP under Cheifly which tried in 1948 & failed spectacularly as a result.

Which gets me back to the AH scenario. Just like how the Chiefly ALP govt failed to transform Australia into a socialist country in 1948, so too will any attempt for change in this AH scenario to change Australia into something else. You've got to go back to our foundation years & drastically alter how Australia was greatly influenced by Liberalism & Utilitarianism in our first 100 years. Otherwise we'll basically remain the way we are overall until we're either invaded by someone, very different to us, or Jesus returns in the Second Coming.
 
Last edited:
BlackMage said:
Wow...so many responses...

Anyway, what I MEANT was the end of the Deakinite Liberal parties, which not clarifying was a mistake. Basically, since 1909 we've had a Deakinite Liberal Party which identifies itself as Liberal (even if it's not), an agrarian party with varying policies (from agrarian socialism to free trade), and a Labor Party that has always been roughly left wing. If what I just said sounds very general, it's because Australian parties aren't all that good at sticking to the script. :D Anyway, what I meant was trying to remove the Deakinite Liberal Party in its many names and incarnations from the scene, and seeing how Australian politics develop.


So I gather you mean the end of the small "l" Liberals?

Well it's simple in many respects. The small "l" Liberals either set up their own small party, join the right wing of the ALP, or stay within whatever the rump UAP becomes. Maybe they join Billy Hughes' Nationals (or whatever they're called) instead of Labor.

Interestingly there's the chance of a real multi-party parliament for several years with the real chance of the polarisation of Australian parties. So we could have the emergence of a real right-wing Conservative Party, the ALP keeping to the left, the Country party doing whatever, a Rump UAP standing for little, with a dedicated Whig Party as well, not to mention whoever else is around.

If anything, though, I don't foresee Australia making any overall major political shift one way or the other. If anything, political instablity will be the watch word throughout the rest of the 1940s & 1950s. Maybe there's a bit of a consolidation of political parties in the early 1960s, only to be messed up again if & when the DLP splits from the ALP.
 
DMA said:
You're refering to Queensland I gather. The NSW branch, founded at Unity Hall in Balmain, is a different story. What more can I say? :p :D

Importantly, though, the Labor Party, regardless of state & birth pains, was founded so that unions would have a political branch which could represent them in parliament. They realised that the confrontational approach, &/or violent revolution, was not going to work. Just as importantly the ALP soon started showing it was independent of union wonts. Billy Hughes, amongst others, is an excellent example. And there's no way you can convince me someone like Billy Hughes was a socialist radical.

Essentially, though, in the Australian context, the majority of Labor members did not want to "nationalise", "socialise" or "communise" industry. Instead they wanted better conditions & better pay, whilst business could still remain private. Many did not want a communist society, although admittedly some did. In this regards, though, the majority were not acting as socialists, in the Australian context, but as agents of market forces - which is well within the liberal economic theories of the day (& still today).

Again, as I keep saying, Australian politics, society, & so forth, should really be viewed in the Australian scheme of things. Hence I use the term to cover most of such things as Liberal-Democratic-Utilitarianism.

As such, there's nothing wrong with unions & labour leaders demanding better pay & conditions (indeed it's written more or less into our Constitition - Sect 51, para XXXV). There's nothing wrong with union representation in parliament. There's nothing wrong with conservative representation in parliament. There's nothing wrong with wanting to reduce the wealth gap. There's nothing wrong with free trade. There's nothing wrong with government being activity involved with legislation forcing private business to follow the rules. Likewise there's nothing wrong with so-called "small" pro-business government either.

All these competing forces, however, are part of such an overarching political philosophy known as Liberal-Democratic-Utilitarianism (even if only practiced in Australia), whilst the fundamentals foundations of such a country aren't really challenged. And none of the main parties, whether they be the ALP, Liberal, UAP, or Country parties have never really done this, except for the ALP under Cheifly which tried in 1948 & failed spectacularly as a result.

Which gets me back to the AH scenario. Just like how the Chiefly ALP govt failed to transform Australia into a socialist country in 1948, so too will any attempt for change in this AH scenario to change Australia into something else. You've got to go back to our foundation years & drastically alter how Australia was greatly influenced by Liberalism & Utilitarianism in our first 100 years. Otherwise we'll basically remain the way we are overall until we're either invaded by someone, very different to us, or Jesus returns in the Second Coming.

NSW ALP was founded as a result of the 1890's too. In NSW it was the waterfront dispute at the same time as the pastoral dispute in Qld.

Before this date in all states and in the UK, individual members of parliament were endorsed and elected on a labour platform. After this state repression by armed force the labour movement generally endorsed the tactic of parliamentarism rather than revolution. This was party as a result of the spectactular success of Labour in Qld after the 1890 strike resulted in the leaders being elected to parliament (some being endorsed while still in prison). Before this of course you are thinking of the Colonial Trades Conferences wher unionists were agitating for parliamentary representation. This is the 'liberal' tradition within labour I think you are referring to.

I know what you are saying and I agree with much of what you are saying. My divergence from what you are saying is I do not think the influence of liberalism was as dominant as you imply in the early years. Lang is the pre-eminent example so I used him. Others were at least as influential including people like Norton, Catherine Spence, WG Spence and Archibald to name a few. None of whom could qualify as liberal.

In early colonial times it is difficult to discern a coherent tradition of any political philosophy. Drawing room discussions do not mean a translation into political reality. Which early liberals endorsed universal franchise for example?
 
Hey - I just made up a new word! :cool:

Uteibercratic = Liberal-Democratic-Utilitarianism = The Australian philosophy ;)
 
MarkA said:
NSW ALP was founded as a result of the 1890's too. In NSW it was the waterfront dispute at the same time as the pastoral dispute in Qld.


Yeah I know. But what's essential in both instances, was the fact that the unions realised that they needed political representation in parliament as their confrontational approach just wasn't working. In fact, in Australia, it seldom does.


MarkA said:
Before this date in all states and in the UK, individual members of parliament were endorsed and elected on a labour platform. After this state repression by armed force the labour movement generally endorsed the tactic of parliamentarism rather than revolution. This was party as a result of the spectactular success of Labour in Qld after the 1890 strike resulted in the leaders being elected to parliament (some being endorsed while still in prison). Before this of course you are thinking of the Colonial Trades Conferences wher unionists were agitating for parliamentary representation. This is the 'liberal' tradition within labour I think you are referring to.


Not that I disagree with any of that, but we must think in the Australian context. The British labour experience, in this regards, becomes Australianised. As a result, especially at this point in time (late 1800s), we have a far more "egalitarian" attitude towards things, than is the British case, not to mention the democractic movement in Australia is also far more advanced. Again I put this down to the Liberal-Utilitarianism which had peculated its way far more deeply into Australian society than elsewhere.


MarkA said:
I know what you are saying and I agree with much of what you are saying. My divergence from what you are saying is I do not think the influence of liberalism was as dominant as you imply in the early years. Lang is the pre-eminent example so I used him. Others were at least as influential including people like Norton, Catherine Spence, WG Spence and Archibald to name a few. None of whom could qualify as liberal.


Maybe not in their own original setting, but like all ideas, theirs get all caught up in the overall scheme of things. This is why I haven't exclusively said Liberal in relation to Australia. Instead I've hyphenated it with Democratic & Utilitarianism to reflect far more accurately the Australian context in the matter. Don't forget too that Utilitarianism, unlike Liberalism, pushed for equality although not necessarily in the socialist context. Having said that, J.S. Mill did go on about the ideal society would be an equal society (or socialist).


MarkA said:
In early colonial times it is difficult to discern a coherent tradition of any political philosophy. Drawing room discussions do not mean a translation into political reality. Which early liberals endorsed universal franchise for example?


There isn't one in Australia. What's far more important, however, is the practical application of such philosophies which are fundamental in Australia's foundation. Hence the economic Liberalism, in other words the basic right to trade & money effects Australia from the beginning. Then the idea of equal worth, a fair go, equal say in things, property rights, even tabulae rasion, toleration, etc, are all in actual operation well before anyone is having drawing room conversations about John Locke, J.S. Mill, or even Karl Marx for that matter.
 
Top