Our Fair Country: The Commonwealth of New England
- Thread starter CosmicAsh
- Start date
- Status
Which leads me to believe that at the time of the split, i'm guessing the proper conservatives go to the nationals and you don't have the nationals being what is basically a rural party only. Libs in this tl probably have remained very much a city party. We already know here their is no coalition so with that in mind its not that hard to see.
Maybe the UAP and the Country Party just merge.The name they decide on is the National Party.
Not sure, after the breakup of the UAP they had to go somewhere. so maybe a split isn't so much on city vs country perse (as it was in original timeline) but rather conservatism vs liberalism/keynesian politics.
But then how does the Liberal party come into existence? It was the brainchild of Menzies, and if Menzies doesn't agree to the merger then the UAP doesn't.
But the party was united under Keynesianism until the 80s. Hell, even Fraser was a Keynesian. The radical conservative wing was only formed in the grassroots in the 60s, became the challengers to the post war consensus in the 70s, advocating for the Chicago School, and only gained power in the party in '85, with the election of John Howard.
Maybe Lyon’s Labour defectors never join the Nationalist (so no UAP) there’s more defectors and they start a party that eventually gets called the Liberal party (this would make the Liberal party a conservative party, but I don’t believe their ideology was ever stated and it could’ve changed over time). Then the Nationalists and Country party merge to become the National party.
A party started by Lyons? So basically the Australian Party, just founded by Lyons instead of Hughes?
How does a party of economic nationalism, vague apoliticalism, left-wing populism, and rampant racism turn into a party of economic liberalism, classical liberalism, social liberalism and multiculturalism?
And IF Lyons decided to found his own party, why the hell would he call it the Liberal party?
Um, maybe the Joh for Canberra thing somehow succeeded beyond his wildest dreams and he ends up Prime Minister?
@AustralianSwingVoter and @Danishbro
@AustralianSwingVoter and @Danishbro
It’s probably called the All For Australia. Its a small party and its ideology fluctuates after Lyons death. Later some Nationalists, dissatisfied with a perception that the Nationalists/Country merge is a move away from Liberalism, join the AfA and the party takes the name Liberal as a throwback to the Commonwealth Liberal Party (a la OTL).
How would Jon become PM if the National Party isn’t already a major national party?
Some Countries like Uganda and Kenya surprise me. I am also quite envious of this TLs Venezualea
How does Joh singlehandedly crush the power of the Liberal party?
Liberals have a major split, Joh's lot surge to eclipse them and their splitter party, before incorporating the conservative voters and winning government?
Why would the Nationalist and Country party merge, when they had only just formed a very shaky coalition, and on the state level were still in bitter competition in most states.
And IF the Nationalists and Country somehow merge, why would they move in a conservative direction, and IF they did and the liberal wing defected, why, rather than staring their own party, instead take over a minor party/cult of personality which shares none of their values?
He'd try for a dictatorship i'm sure. That would be the darkest timeline.
have you seen the nationals of our timeline, they're way more conservative than the Liberals generally. The Liberals at least have some moderates, not hard to see how to fit their electorate that may happen.
HW Bush, sadly i don't think America could do a thing really, at least not then, Britain on the other hand.......
Also I did say try, he wouldn't succeed (govenor general, courts, parliament and others), but if Qld is any indication, he'd circumvent a lot of liberties and human rights.
- Status