Kenny's warning on Liberal-One Nation pact
In a scathing analysis, political commentator Mark Kenny has likened the Liberal Party's recent overtures to One Nation as an act of surrender, arguing that the mainstream conservative party is ceding ground to a fringe political force. Writing in The Canberra Times, Kenny asserts that the Liberals' strategy of accommodating Pauline Hanson's party is not a pragmatic electoral move but a dangerous concession that undermines the party's core principles.
Appeasement or strategy?
Kenny's critique centres on the Liberal Party's decision to preference One Nation ahead of other conservative candidates in key seats. He argues that this tactic, aimed at securing preferences and staving off challenges from the right, effectively legitimises One Nation's platform. 'This is not coalition-building; this is surrender,' Kenny writes. 'By treating One Nation as a legitimate partner, the Liberals are normalising extremism and abandoning their own values.'
The analysis points to recent history, noting that similar strategies have backfired in other countries. Kenny cites the example of the Australian Greens, who, he says, have been 'co-opted' by the Labor Party in a way that dilutes their message but also pulls Labor to the left. In contrast, he warns that the Liberals risk being pulled further right, into territory that alienates moderate voters.
Impact on conservative values
Kenny argues that the Liberal Party's traditional base—small-government, free-market conservatives—is being sacrificed for short-term electoral gain. 'The party that once prided itself on fiscal responsibility and individual liberty is now pandering to protectionist, anti-immigration rhetoric,' he writes. He warns that this shift could have long-term consequences, eroding the party's identity and making it indistinguishable from One Nation on key issues.
The article also notes that the Liberal Party's internal divisions are deepening. Some moderate MPs have expressed concern about the alliance, but they are being sidelined by the party's right wing. Kenny suggests that this internal strife could weaken the party's ability to govern effectively, even if it wins the next election.
Historical parallels
Drawing on international examples, Kenny compares the Liberal Party's situation to that of conservative parties in Europe, where mainstream parties have often been overtaken by far-right movements after attempting to co-opt their agendas. 'The lesson from Europe is clear: once you start down this path, it's very hard to turn back,' he writes. He points to the rise of the National Rally in France and the Alternative for Germany as cautionary tales.
Kenny also notes that One Nation's policies are often at odds with Liberal economic orthodoxy. Pauline Hanson has advocated for higher tariffs, increased government spending on certain welfare programs, and a more interventionist approach to industry policy—all positions that conflict with traditional Liberal ideology. 'By aligning with One Nation, the Liberals are not just making a tactical error; they are betraying their own philosophy,' Kenny concludes.
Electoral consequences
While the Liberal Party hopes that the deal will secure it crucial preferences, Kenny argues that the strategy could backfire. Moderate voters, repelled by the alliance, may switch to Labor or the Greens, while One Nation supporters may not automatically transfer their preferences to the Liberals. 'There is no guarantee that One Nation voters will follow their party's how-to-vote cards,' he warns. 'Many of them are voting against the mainstream, not for it.'
Kenny also raises the possibility that the deal could embolden One Nation, giving it a stronger platform from which to challenge the Liberals in future elections. 'This is not a one-off arrangement; it's a long-term threat,' he writes. 'By legitimising One Nation today, the Liberals are creating a monster that could devour them tomorrow.'
