In fact, we loathe and despise them – and we are now politically homeless.

And the “we” are real and sizeable, as last month’s NSW Upper Hunter by-election demonstrated.

Whether from the ever diminishing Right of the Liberal Party, or from its apparently equally diminishing Right of the Labor Party, “we” are now slouching towards supporting the minor Parties.

JAIL TIME

I will never forget sharing a dinner table once with two warriors of the Left, NSW politicians both, who at one point in the evening raised a glass – to the Left!

This was in the early 1990s, and involved (of course) a Liberal Party moderate still in public life, and a former Labor minister who has done jail time.

Is it any wonder that people on the traditionalist Right in both the major Parties feel both empathy with one another and enmity for their internal Party opponents?

Above all, they share a sense of deep loss and political homelessness. But there is probably much in the way of shared beliefs between the “twin rights”, as well.

What do “we” believe in, and object to?

We are over the false promises of neo-liberalism, which missed the cultural revolution and failed to stop the government’s never-ending expansion.

We value good traditions – as most traditions are; that’s why they are traditions.

We share many views about what is wrong with Australia and the world. We tend to be old school (and we know precisely what that means).

We are patriots without being showy about it. We don’t buy the climate/renewables scam. We despite utterly the COVID State and COVID theatrics.

REFUGEES

We are (mostly) highly engaged with life issues and are pro-life. We think the education system has gone to pot. We feel endlessly let down by Parties and “leaders” that either break good promises or keep bad ones, or both. Is that enough for starters?

But for the refugees from the mainstream, there is little joy to be had with the current crop of minor parties, either. They might have policies with which we agree – a great start in these times, admittedly – but we know that, whatever the short-term feel-good factor, in lower houses with either optional preferential or simply preferential voting, our votes will either be exhausted or will end up back in one of the two failed mainstream parties. What, then, is the point?

Or, in the upper houses we see trade-offs, deals and log-rolling, as the Americans call the “you-scratch-my-back-and-I’ll-scratch-yours” approach to governance.

Then there is the sheer strategic madness of creating multiple micro-parties, not to mention the independents, who might have substantial overlap of beliefs and policies and who share a contrarian instinct, but who completely bastardise one another’s electoral prospects (again, as the Upper Hunter showed).

Yes, preference sharing deals like those cooked up by the Preference Whisperer can achieve electoral outcomes on occasion, but no one could regard this as a sustainable, long-term solution for achieving better democratic representation.

And in any case, the major party cartel will always be able to keep bringing in new legislation to kill off the micros.

Following the 2019 Federal election, in which the Australian Conservatives came a cropper, there was much discussion in that Party about future directions and options for those who had either stood, or had voted, for the ACs.

SPOILS

My own advice – not to start with “What do we call the new Party?” but, rather, “Is even forming another Party the best way forward?” – was, of course, duly ignored in the rush to set up a replacement.

And Parties, even minor Parties, being what they are, are prone (like academics) to serial in-fighting over the spoils of precious little.

And so the proliferation has gone, post the ACs, for the micro-parties on the right.

Now we have the Australia One Party, the Family Party, the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers, One Nation (of course) and the Australian Federation Party. More than enough to be going on with. In fact, it is way too many, and some consolidation or, failing that, far better strategic alignment, should at least be considered and discussed by all those involved.

What about the idea of sticking with the major Parties, and improving them through better candidates, or more democratic, less factionalised pre-selections?

HOMOPHOBIA

The Nationals have tried this, and tend to end up with woke hacks, alas.

Joe de Bruyn, famous for being the butt of one of Gough Whitlam’s better jokes – one that couldn’t be told nowadays for both its racism and homophobia – has been an exemplary Australian in several fields.

He has that essential decency that is so notable now for its absence. One of his strong beliefs, born of his strong Christianity, has always been that we need good people in all the political parties, and that, therefore, we should train young people (through a classical education) for citizenship.

I have heard many other defenders of the major parties – or at least optimists about their trajectory – say similar things.

But were this strategy to work, it would, necessarily, be a long game indeed, and much patience would be required. Moreover, there is no guarantee of ultimate victory.

With both mainstream Parties – let’s forget about the Nats – now in the grip of chancers, third-raters, woke puppets, marketers and careerists, or, indeed, all of these, the chances of a recovery of morality and spine is becoming more of a forlorn hope by the day.

In the meantime, our currently appalling state of policy-making and governance will simply gather momentum as it careers down the ever-steepening slope. Or over the cliff, whichever metaphor you prefer.

What about attempting policy reform from within each of the majors?