Australia Without The Australian Labor Party

The title of this is probably a bit misleading as I didn't mean no ALP at all but instead one that is never powerful enough to get into government.

What if this occured. I am thinking here of Canada which (the 'complicating' factor of Quebec aside) is a primarlily 3-party affair; the main party, the centrist Liberals, the 2nd party the right-wing Conservatives and the 3rd party, New Democrats. The first 2 are powerful enough to form government (at Federal level), whereas the last is a powerful third party.

What is the possibility of something similar having developed in Australia in the late 19th and early 20th century? In this ATL I'm thinking that nowadays the party would form something like this: Social Democrats (Labor Left and the Greens OTL), the Liberals (Labor Right and small 'l' liberals OTL) and the Conservatives (Liberal Right OTL). The ATL Liberals would be the natural party of govt and the Conservatives ATL would be the natural opposition. The Social Democrats would a very powerful 3rd party.

What is the POD that would allow such a ATL to occur. I think that it would be quite plausible especially as nowadays the difference between Labor Right and small 'l' liberals is virtually non-existent.

I think a POD in the 1890's or very early 1900's is necesary. Perhaps more successful strikes in the 1890's which lead the unions never to feel the need to produce a party exclusive to themselves is likely.

Also any POD would require the Deakinite Protectionists not to feel so threatened by the Left, so that they choose to go into alliance with moderate social demorats (Labor Right) rather than with the Free Trade Party.
 
Hmm. The natural state for Australia, given their voting system in the Lower House (i.e. instant run-off) is for only two parties to exist—even more so than the usual first-past-the-post pressure to only have two parties. (The Coalition gets around this by not contesting each other's seats: interestingly this was considered in Canada between the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative Party pre-merger.)

Anyway, to have a lasting third party structure there either needs to be a widespread and fairly durable base—in Canada this is the NDP, with labour, urban, and farmer votes in various regions being reliable enough to keep them around; in the UK this is the Liberal Democrats with a somewhat different coalition—or to own a region totally—the BQ, and 50+ seats in Quebec; a more successful federal SNP in Scotland.


I don't know enough about early Australian politics to offer a POD but Canada's NDP coalition (farmers, labour cities, urban centres; the first two in contest against the Conservatives, the latter against the Liberals) is probably a decent guide to the ATL small left-wing party you're looking for.


What if this occured. I am thinking here of Canada which (the 'complicating' factor of Quebec aside) is a primarlily 3-party affair; the main party, the centrist Liberals, the 2nd party the right-wing Conservatives and the 3rd party, New Democrats. The first 2 are powerful enough to form government (at Federal level), whereas the last is a powerful third party.

Well… it's more along the lines that both the Conservatives and the New Democrats have an ideology[1] and the Liberals mix and match depending on which way the wind is blowing—since 1967, anyway. (Federal, of course, provincial parties vary.)

Not centrist or moderate, just a kind of balancing act that used to be propped up by Quebec and Ontario (which is why they could keep winning power) and is now propped up mostly by Ontario.


[1] To be fair the Conservatives have gradually changed their ideology from Radical Toryism (roughly speaking "wet" for our British friends) to a more American neoliberal/neoconservative strain ("dry").
 
I have a feeling that mtg999 will know more about this than me, but I seem to remember that at various (or one specific) times New Zealand was approached about joining with Australia when the Commonwealth was organized. If NZ does somehow join, could it vote in a quasi-regionalist party similar to the SNP or the Bloc Quebecois? This could give you the third party you're looking for.
 
There was something in What If? (or at least, an Oz book of that name), with the POD of no payment of members of Parliament.

See, that means that MPs have to be independently wealthy, so you can't get umbrella-makers like Billy Hughes elected...

I think it's an interesting question, and one that can be done. In the 1890s in NSW, Labor had almost no party discipline; elected candidates voted with Protectionists or Free Traders as they so wished. (That's how Joseph Cook went from being in Labor to being a Liberal PM.) If there's no move to impose caucus solidarity, Labor could become less a party than a social movement; you'd have 'workers' candidates' who align themselves with either party, rather than being homogenous enough to form a government in their own right.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the Protectionists and Free Traders won't dwindle away once the tariff question is decided. What they really need is for Alfred Deakin, a charismatic, ideological figure, to stay in the scene for longer; one of the reasons the Liberals were formed was because he was so obviously on the decline, and with him much of the Protectionists' purpose. So perhaps a stray electron knocks some of his genes into shape in utero, or something like that, and he stays a commanding figure well into his 60s.

So basically: Labor never forms a coherent political party but rather stays as a basic social movement, helping elect candidates who align themselves with the Liberals (Protectionists) or Anti-Socialist Conservatives (Free Traders). Deakin, without having to contend with 'three elevens', stays as a dominant figure in Australia into the 1910s, implementing something like the Progressive movement in America. Perhaps the workers' movement eventually becomes folded into the Liberals, like how the unions are closely aligned with the Democrats.

Might not be a bad world to live in, actually.
 
I have a feeling that mtg999 will know more about this than me, but I seem to remember that at various (or one specific) times New Zealand was approached about joining with Australia when the Commonwealth was organized. If NZ does somehow join, could it vote in a quasi-regionalist party similar to the SNP or the Bloc Quebecois? This could give you the third party you're looking for.


Interesting point. Yes I can certainly envisage this occuring if New Zealand joined. In OTL the Australian National Party was formed in early 1900 (around 1920 as the Country Party) to represent rural areas, so I can certainly see another regionalist party coming into being if New Zealand were to join.
 
Any thoughts about this ATL?

Well, just building on what I've already written...

Personalities play a major role in shaping history, so by removing the ALP you remove all the quirks and idiosyncracies that went with Hughes, Curtin, Chifley, and Whitlam that ended up making OTL Australia. And I think that'll be particularly evident with Hughes. He used the conscription battle because he was a fervent nationalist; he wanted to increase Australia's bargaining in post-war carve-ups through a massive troop commitment, partly out of fear of Japan. Remove Hughes and the whole conscription battle (and there will be one, eventually, because we're a small country) becomes very different. Less polarised politics, more moderate trade unions, and (most importantly) no Nationalist Party, which marks a little-noted turning point from Deakinite liberalism (which was more radical than conservative) to the staid laissez faire of Bruce.

So let's say that a broad liberal consensus exists in Australia to the 1930s, both parties (Protectionists and Free Traders, or whatever they call themselves) agreeing on the basic fundamentals of the welfare state and awards system, because both parties have their own 'workers' representatives' who govern as if in coalition. Once the Great Depression hits, it may be less severe because there's a substantial safety net in place; Australia may be the laboratory for Keynesian theories, given their natural affinity with 'positive liberalism' and economic views prevailing in Australia at the time. Butterflies distort views from there on; a failed election bid sidelines Menzies, a coincidental by-election raises Don Bradman to Parliament. The Country Party may line up with the Free Traders, or then again may become a crucial part of the Protectionist coalition.

But again: it's a really amorphous POD. Things could go any way.
 
When did Labour become factionalised? Was it in the 50s, and led to the DLP split? The Labour/Liberal/Conservative breakdown you describe in the 1st post looks a bit like an evolved version of a factionalised Labour split. Would the TTL Liberal Party be as ruthless at winning elections as the OTL Liberal party was and the OTL Labour party wasn't?
 
When did Labour become factionalised? Was it in the 50s, and led to the DLP split? The Labour/Liberal/Conservative breakdown you describe in the 1st post looks a bit like an evolved version of a factionalised Labour split. Would the TTL Liberal Party be as ruthless at winning elections as the OTL Liberal party was and the OTL Labour party wasn't?

Ever since the early 1900s, actually. Every party there has ever been has been factionalised, and the Labor Party is unique only in that, even from the beginning, it's been very pronounced.

Really, the first Labor split in NSW was in 1893, just a few years after the party's creation, when many of its members split over free trade. Informal divisions along feudal factional lines have been in place since the early days of the party.
 
When did Labour become factionalised? Was it in the 50s, and led to the DLP split? The Labour/Liberal/Conservative breakdown you describe in the 1st post looks a bit like an evolved version of a factionalised Labour split. Would the TTL Liberal Party be as ruthless at winning elections as the OTL Liberal party was and the OTL Labour party wasn't?


As Blackmage said, the ALP has been pretty much factionalised from the start. This had led to primarly splits in the party, first in 1916 over the issue of conscription and then in the mid 1950's with the DLP (particularly hit bad in Victoria).

Of course the OTL Liberals have been basically factionalised as well, but as until the 80's the ALP was more ideological and programmatic in its platforms the factionalism tended to lead to public splits.

I would suggest that the ATL centrist Liberals would be even more ruthless in winning elections than OTL Liberals. As a centrist party without an ideology there main ideology would be 'to be in government'. I suggest that they would probably view govt by other parties as somewhat 'illegitimate' (as many OTL Liberals felt about the Whitlam Labor Govt).
 
a coincidental by-election raises Don Bradman to Parliament. The Country Party may line up with the Free Traders, or then again may become a crucial part of the Protectionist coalition.

Any particular reason for that, or just for the sake of having Bradman as a politician? :p

About the Country Party - somehow the idea of a pro-free-trade rural-interests party doesn't seem right to me.
 
Any particular reason for that, or just for the sake of having Bradman as a politician? :p

About the Country Party - somehow the idea of a pro-free-trade rural-interests party doesn't seem right to me.


Traditionally agricultural interest in Australia have been fairly pro free trade, as tariffs and other protectionist measures increased the cost of machinery etc needed to farm. Also the competitiveness of the Australian primary industries means that tariffs are not perceived to be needed in order for them to prosper.
 
About the Country Party - somehow the idea of a pro-free-trade rural-interests party doesn't seem right to me.

Just wanting to dip my toe into this ocean here, but what if the Country Party decided to broaden its base a bit? You know, from just "rural interests" to also regional interests as well (especially if NZ jumps in)? Yes, this could mean an earlier shift to the National Party, but still - I could see the Country/National Party as a cushion between the Conservatives and the Liberals. Promoting rural and regional interests, yes (that would be at the core), but more of a centre-right/liberal-conservative party, similar to Christian democratic parties in Europe, but with a bit of a free-trade and agrarianist bent.
 
Just wanting to dip my toe into this ocean here, but what if the Country Party decided to broaden its base a bit? You know, from just "rural interests" to also regional interests as well (especially if NZ jumps in)? Yes, this could mean an earlier shift to the National Party, but still - I could see the Country/National Party as a cushion between the Conservatives and the Liberals. Promoting rural and regional interests, yes (that would be at the core), but more of a centre-right/liberal-conservative party, similar to Christian democratic parties in Europe, but with a bit of a free-trade and agrarianist bent.

Well, that's the basic concept of what it's meant to be in OTL. Different Nat/Country leaders have tried to expand its base, most notoriously John McEwen and Joh Bjelke-Peterson. And, in fact, it was that for quite a long time, constantly threatening to jump ship from the Coalition if, for example, farm subsidies were threatened, or if the proposed Liberal leader was insufficiently non-metrosexual (case in point: Billy McMahon)

It never really worked out that well, though, because of the development of the Australian two-party system. Labor became more socially progressive and the Liberals more conservative, drifting closer to the Country Party and effectively squashing its ideological justification.

Any particular reason for that, or just for the sake of having Bradman as a politician? :p

About the Country Party - somehow the idea of a pro-free-trade rural-interests party doesn't seem right to me.

You say that as if the sake of having Bradman as a politician isn't reason enough in itself. :p

And as for a pro-free-trade rural-interests party: well, wasn't that what the National Party is now, functionally inseparable from the Liberals? Protectionism isn't necessarily good for rural growers; they could campaign to cut tariffs to promote trade and foreign markets. Of course, it would be free trade heavily geared towards the interests of farmers, with a sizeable safety net...
 
Traditionally agricultural interest in Australia have been fairly pro free trade, as tariffs and other protectionist measures increased the cost of machinery etc needed to farm. Also the competitiveness of the Australian primary industries means that tariffs are not perceived to be needed in order for them to prosper.
That's fair enough, then. I'll admit my understanding was rather limited (hey - I live in an inner Melbourne suburb :D).

And as for a pro-free-trade rural-interests party: well, wasn't that what the National Party is now, functionally inseparable from the Liberals?
Well, they call themselves a conservative coalition - I got the impression that the Libs & Nats bonded because the Liberals were the closest to their social policies.


So, yeah. Free Trade-and-Country coalition, then.
 
Top