I am, and have been, against a conservative party merger since I understood that we lived in a democracy.

The Nationals and and Liberal Party of Australia, are similar but different, the analogy of Australia and NZ can be used…we know our similarities and we know our differences…and don’t ever get us mixed up…though you will be forgiven.

To merge the two is just like merging the two nations…it makes sense on paper, however there is a lot more at play…A coalition agreement works, just like our close economic ties with NZ and our many shared agreements and agencies.

However, the differences are great.

As I agree with even closer economic ties with NZ (namely a single Australasian currency…shared with many of our island neighbours), I do agree with closer campaigning and dialogue with the two political parties.

However, the Liberal Party IS and has been in decline since 1996. In Queensland their predicament is a clear indication of that.

It has been a long held belief that it is the Nationals that are in decline…Well, while it is true we are not major players in Government in any part of Australia (except the situation in South Australia), we are holding our own, and WE CAN rebuild the voters’ faith in us on OUR OWN.

The Liberal Party needs to find leaders of its own that will lead to strength and unity. The Nationals, being a minor party, survive well with a plethora of strong show-ers, and now in Queensland with the re-election of Lawrence Springborg, we too have a strong unity leader.

He is, and has continually been, hampered by the Liberals’ self interests and interparty wrangling. That is but a minor reason for continuing our independence.

The main reasons to me…

The Nationals have a strong brand, which can be revamped, but is very clear…Families, Rural Advancement, Standing up for the Electorate, Steadfast Allegiance to the Constitution, Defence of Traditions, Values and our Symbols. (Just like NZ abroad has very clear band images of being clean, very green, very pure, very isolated and very beautiful.)

The Liberals’ brand is mixed and survives most clearly only on economic management. (Like Australia internationally has a very, very mixed brand…but the one clarity being it’s a great place to live.)

Why dilute a strong brand when in fact we can strengthen it???? I’d prefer to build on, rather than subtract from…

Many Liberals have shown that they are opposed to the main features associated with our brand…Isn’t it crazy to do away with what makes us identifiable???

I say strengthen the brand more, appeal more to the electorate by throwing off any negative connotations… don’t dilute it with a party that does not have clear appeal.

Here are a few points to give a little credence to my comments from crickey.com.au…

The motives behind the proposed merger of the Liberal and National parties may be many, but one of the questions that needs to be answered is who is saving whom from what here? If we look at the period back to 1996 and tally up the total number of seats held by the parties in all six States and the Federal lower houses, a few surprising things emerge.

Firstly, the general context; this is how the total number of seats held by Labor and the Coalition has changed over the last 12 years.

The conservative side of organised politics has changed from holding 329 seats at the end of 1996 (a 58.1% share of total seats) to a relatively paltry 202 today (a 36.8% share of all seats). Labor on the other hand has increased its total seat holdings from 225 (a 39.8% share of total seats) up to 324 (a 57.2% share of all seats) over the period.

Interestingly, the total number of lower house seats in these Parliaments has reduced from 566 in 1996 down to 549 today. Not only are the conservative sides battling Labor and losing, but they’ve been taking the brunt of seat losses associated with the move towards smaller Parliaments.

If we focus just on the Nationals and the Liberals, and look at how both their total respective seat numbers and associated seat share have changed over the period, we’ll need a couple of spiffy charts.

The Liberal Party, a party that likes to see itself as the true party of the Right and the natural competition to Labor (if only those pesky cow pokes would get with the program), aren’t in a particularly glorious position – holding only 26% of the total seats in the six State and Federal lower houses, down from 44.2% in 1996. Compared to the current Labor share of 57%, the Libs might want to have a quiet word with Graeme Samuel since there doesn’t appear to be a whole lot of competition going on here.

The Nats on the other hand have seen their total seat share fall from 14% in 1996 (79 seats) down to 9.7% (55 seats) today. This brings us on to the most important part of who is saving whom with any merger.

If we look at the seats held by the Nats and the Libs respectively as a percentage of total Coalition held seats, something interesting pops up:

The nadir of the Nats occurred in 2001, where they held only 22.4% of all Coalition seats. But over the intervening years, the Nats’ share of Coalition-held seats has jumped up to 27.2%, their highest share of Coalition seats over the period measured. So while the conservative side of politics has been in general decline since 1996, the Liberal Party is the Party that is bleeding the most. It is they, rather than the Nats which are the primary cause of the great conservative reprimanding the electorate has been dishing out.

The Liberal Party are responsible for losing 81.1% of all Coalition seats lost since 1996; a loss which far outweighs the Liberal party share of Coalition seats, especially when the Liberal Party is the only party in the Coalition that can win metropolitan divisions.

Quite frankly, the Liberal Party aren’t pulling their weight in the Coalition – why would a merger change that?