A prime example of this second point is the concept of a “brand” - the “Liberal Party” brand has a value in the political marketplace that would be hotly contested were that organisation to collapse. It would be particularly contested by those who aren’t particularly liberal. The concept of marketplace branding was dimly understood and practically unknown in the 1940s.

I think that political parties are broadly reflective of the scleorosis in the economy in general.

A less sclerotic economy does not lead to a markedly different party membership profile. The peak membership of Australian political parties was 1975-76: hardly a period of economic dynamism.

Generous state funding ensures that political parties cannot die, even after there has been significant political realignment in the electorate at large.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation did not exist before the advent of public funding, and despite little change in this area it is almost defunct. A party that no-one wants to join, or stay in once its internal workings are displayed publicly, is done for - regardless of artifical life-support mechanisms. The DLP is further proof against this, and in about 18 months the Australian Democrats may provide still more.

… the current political environment. The 1999 referendum showed the inner city Sydney seats now have more in common with north shore Liberal seats than they do with their country National/Liberal constituency.

One highly unusual - indeed, unique - vote almost eight years ago, which featured no preferences and none of the countervailing issues present in general elections. It reflected political patterns unseen the state election earlier that year, not repeated in any of the four state and federal elections since, and which will not be apparent in either the state or federal election due this year. The Liberal Party had members working on both sides of that issue, despite its membership being broadly in favour of the outcome that prevailed.

Try applying this “Hands Across The Harbour” analysis to any of the issues that affect citizens/voters/taxpayers in their everyday lives: education, health, taxation, any issue of state other than its ceremonial head: can’t be done. That may explain why …

there is no party that represents these three groups in one entity.

This leaves us with:

It is not possible for this realignment to occur because of the funding available to both current political parties and sitting members.

Sitting members do not have the iron grip that incumbents in the US Congress have on their seats, and even they - as seen last November - aren’t impregnable. The resources available to incumbent MPs in Australia makes dislodging them difficult, but (as stated above) by no means impossible.

Further proof of this is that a party in opposition may promise to review public funding and MPs’ perks, but no party that wins government ever sets out to wreck the mechanisms that kept their opponents in.

I suspect what will happen is that quite a few will retire. some immediately and some will take time to realise they have no fire in the belly.
They will go through 3 or 4 Opposition leaders but will win after some time.
Costello will attempt to be leader but will have no fire and no energy.
Malcolm looks the one with both.

I remember my politics tutor saying in March 1993, after the GST election, that ‘Basically, the Liberal Party is stuffed’. Three years later they won government federally, and almost eleven years after that they are still there.

Another thing, apart from Hotelling competition, that (I suspect) will likely keep them together is party subsidisation from government coffers. If party members know that a split might mean any new parties could fall below the x% (?) threshold required to gain substantial funding, they are likely to stay unified.

I wonder if any of the meme-repeaters will subject their theories to the ultimate test, and bet some money on their predictions coming true?

At the same time, we’ve heard all that ‘the Libs are finished’ stuff before (in the 1980s and 90s) and it’s bollocks. Hotelling competition virtually ensures them a place at the table. And that fact is enough to keep the party together. The the Libs/NP to fall apart there would need to be rival right leaning parties to take over. Hard to see that happening. Ditto the ALP amongst the left leaning.