The Liberal Party’s electoral support is at rock bottom. Its members agree on at least one thing: that the situation poses an existential threat.

The broad review of the Party, being led by Senator James McGrath, is not yet completed. To be meaningful, a review of the electoral performance of the conservative side of politics has to be across the two Parties, Liberal and National. And its recommendations must comprehend the possibility of their amalgamation into a single entity.

There has probably never been a time when the benefits of an amalgamation were more obvious and more necessary. Nevertheless, no one is openly canvassing the option.

Meanwhile, Sussan Ley’s leadership is under great strain. This is despite the fact, that as a Liberal MP with a country electorate, she is uniquely placed to understand the potential benefit to the conservative side of politics of a single merged party.

With nine MPs to the Liberals’ 34 (including those of the Liberal National Party or LNP) the National Party is still very much the junior in the Coalition.

The National Party is reviewing its policy positions separately, like a standalone party. But in what is essentially a two-party system, it is impossible for single-issue parties to form government. Their role is to be a ginger group on particular issues. It is impossible for the policy proposals of the Nationals to become Coalition policy without the support of the Liberals.

The National Party is clinging to the myth that it represents the interests of rural Australia. In truth, it has been more of a farmers’ party. But it has no special assets or processes that enable it to better represent farmers or the broad interests of the people who live in country areas than the two major parties.

In any case, the well-being of people in country areas is just as bound up with the key national issues, including the cost of living, childcare, care of the elderly, education, housing and cultural norms, as it is for those who live in the cities.

The National Party is to right-wing politics what the Greens Party is to the left.

A merger is not a wild and outlandish idea. There has been weak, but patchy, support for it over many years, including from senior MPs such as Doug Anthony, Peter Nixon, Fred Chaney and Christopher (“Icanfixit”) Pyne.

The parties have already merged in Queensland and the Northern Territory. The question is on the agenda in Western Australia and was discussed recently at the National Party state conference.

It is hard to understand why separation of the two parties matters when there is such great flexibility for some when it comes to decisions on which party room to join.

Bottom of form

Where policy development is concerned, one whole level of complexity would be obviated if the two parties came together in an amalgamated conservative party. It would still be necessary for members and Senators to negotiate positions on policy, but the activity would be free of the confounding issues of party membership. The debate would be a contest of ideas untrammelled by the aspirations and reservations caused by party politics.

The current system requires compromises to be made to be reached through shadow Cabinet. The workings of the Coalition’s Cabinets illustrate one of the unnecessary structural rigidities it faces. Positions are rationed and allocated by an agreement between the two party leaders. In a situation where it may not be possible to select the best individual from the conservative side of politics for every position, the quality of the body will be suboptimal.

Now is the time for radical changes to the way the Coalition operates, not marginal tinkering. A more clearly defined and streamlined process for the development of policy positions would help. If the Liberals and Nationals remain apart, the current cumbersome process will be required for every policy issue. If it is not net zero, it will be nuclear energy, or a carbon tax, or superannuation allowances, or environmental law and business investment.

Recent increases in the electoral success of Independents show that the quality and reputation of candidates outweighs party membership when fewer than two-thirds of voters in a particular electorate are “rusted on” to the two major parties.

It is extremely unlikely that there would be any loss to the conservatives at the ballot box from having a single party. Given the choice between a new conservative entity, the ALP and the Greens/Independent, almost all of those who would otherwise have voted for the National Party would choose the new conservative entity.

The silence of the two parties on this matter suggests that, despite the situation in which they find themselves, there is timidity in relation to structural change. This does not bode well for recovery of their electoral fortunes.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.