Bob Katter stood up on Friday and spoke for those sidelined, excluded and marginalised from politics, the real Australians who work hard and pay their taxes, and don’t ask for more than a fair shake. The plain-spoken rough diamond … oh look, this can’t be sustained.
Last week, crazy Bob Katter brought the crazy to federal politics, launching “Katter’s Australian Party” before a backdrop featuring the outfit’s new logo in dizzying red-and-white array — modelled, it would appear, on that of a cut-price, fried chicken chain.
Katter had eschewed his trademark hat, which keeps the sun off, and his head cool, the absence of said headgear perhaps explaining why he started calm and engaging, and then went off like a bottle rocket.
“The happy days are at an end my friend,” he said smiling and laughing, and then his face hardened like Anthony Perkins hearing the shower start. “THE HAPPY DAYS ARE OVER MY FRIENDS! HAPPY DAYS! OVER!” he snarled, making everyone jump back a step or two.
The presser continued pretty much in this vein over all Bob’s favourite lines, promising a repeal of any carbon tax, attacking Anna Bligh’s privatisation plans, busting the supermarket Big Two, umm ethanol in everything, and the return of the tariff wall. It’s the usual grab-bag of policies that right-wing populist parties always rely on — a mix of right and left themes, put together without any real thought to a consistent line. In this case the ad-hoc nature of the outfit is more extreme than ever.
After all, even Pauline Hanson’s crazy outfit pitched itself towards the universal, calling itself One Nation — albeit one nation of white people. But by now the AEC must have run out of generic names, because the whole thing has to be branded “Katter’s Australian Party”, which is scarcely a pitch towards a long-term future.
La Hanson herself, no doubt busy plotting a run for a spot on the Wendouree Tidy Town Committee, has already endorsed the party, but it’s a measure of how confused politics currently is that few of Katter’s principal positions come from the culture wars that John Howard put at the centre of right-wing politics. There’s nothing on refugees, law and order, war on terror, etc, etc — and opposition to the carbon tax appears to be based on mild climate change scepticism, but not the mad “international greens conspiracy” line of the Alan Joneses and Nick Minchins.
Indeed, many of the policies are really a revival of old nationalist Labor themes: a repudiation of free trade agreements, government buying Australian at first instance, control of food supply, with a bit of noise about the “nanny” state added in.
This morning, Katter added the idea of inalienable land tenure for indigenous people, although he hasn’t made clear whether this would be a collective title — which is a leftish policy — or a series of individual titles, which would amount to a forced dissolution of collective land tenure, which is something else.
The relative absence of the whining resentment that characterised One Nation makes KAP more of a stable proposition — and suggests Katter is actively courting support from some dissident trade union groups, such as the Victorian ETU. That would not be the most impossible thing — the remnant state branches of various unions that came from the Maoist breakaways in the ’70s, and that proved to be a halfway house to an Australian nationalism.
The problems for Katter in making his party viable — and if he could it would not be a bad thing — is that none of his policies match up very well. It’s one thing to argue for the control of capital — via opposing Bligh’s privatisation sell-off — while at the same time campaigning against the nanny state restrictions on huntin’, shootin’ and fishin’ — but it’s quite another to simultaneously campaign against the squeeze on cost of living while at the same time proposing tariffs and restrictions on food imports.
Nor is there really much content to his plan to limit the market share of the supermarket big two to 22.5% of the market each. Does he propose to break them up into smaller companies by law?
If not, how will their share be limited? If it is limited, what guarantee is there that the extra demand will be filled by new suppliers, especially in sparsely populated rural areas? His proposals on his website include a Supermarket Fairness Tribunal, which can be described as nothing other than Whitlamesque. Will he go all the way back to Red Ted Theodore’s chain of state-owned butcher’s shops? (His website also includes a cartoon corner, which … well, I guess it goes with the hat.)
The second problem for the KAP is, well, its likely membership. For the repeated failure of Australian right-wing parties to either take off, or stay together, is down to the very nature of hard-right psychology and personality. Unlike Europe, where the new breed of hard-right parties are drawing on deeper and shared traditions of monocultural national identity, the Australian hard right has virtually no collective being whatsoever.
It is, by and large, a loose and floating collection of obsessive individuals, filled with obscure resentments, paranoid fantasies and individual hurts channelled into a political form. The very act of trying to work together has the same effect as the old lunatic asylum trick of making two people who think they’re Jesus Christ share a room together.
Katter, while launching the party, noted that no one had expected One Nation to gain 11 seats in the Queensland parliament, which is true enough — just as it’s true that everyone who knew about these things expected them to fall apart almost immediately, and circle the drain.
The KAP may well gain a foothold in the 2012 Queensland poll — and if they can prevent Bligh’s great privatisation push, more power to their arm. As your correspondent noted here only a few weeks ago, Labor’s pathetic love affair with the neoliberal agenda of “free” trade will inevitably and finally provoke the rise of populist movements capable of grabbing votes from it in the heartland and key marginals.
Judging by the how quickly the launch brought the krazee, I doubt that Katter’s Australian Party will be able to stay on the straight and narrow. But if he can manage it, it will be interesting times indeed.

He may be wacky and unorthodox, but he is right on Australia losing its food production and the duoply of Woolworths and Coles.
The ACCC has been weak and now the head is going, we may be some action, albeit too late. Emerson failed us in 2009 by axing grocery and fuel watch, he was rolled by Woolworths and Coles as well. What a failure he was.
The problems for Katter in making his party viable — and if he could it would not be a bad thing
Falls off chair Laughing.
Please. The man is .. as mad as a cut snake. In what sense exactly is it ‘a good thing’ if he can make a viable party?
Secondly, Didn’t we get told in class to avoid political parties named after individuals? I thought the cult of personality died with the 3rd international back in 1943. Oh hang on, 1956. Oh, sorry, I mean when we got rid of Gough. No, Hawke. No sorry, Keating. Oh god, I’ll get there in a minute..
wazzizname. the mad one. Not Downer, the OTHER mad one. No, no, not Joh, he was playing it for laughs.
Kevvie. Wassit. that one.
-G
Let’s just call his new party The Mad Hatter’s Tea Party.
“The happy days are at an end my friend,” he said smiling and laughing, and then his face hardened like Anthony Perkins hearing the shower start.”
Thanks Guy, it’s a treat to have such a good belly laugh on a Monday.
Watching Katter on ABC Breakfast this morning with La Trioli, one can only draw a couple of conclusions about his Australian Party’s policies. First, Katter is standing up for people who cannot pay their electricity bills and second, he is determined that fishermen can fish in Queensland. I was listening attentively but that pretty much sums it up.
Zut Alors, you’ve counted two things Bob Katter stands for. Two. Compared to the Opposition he’s way in front. Compared to the Government he’s not far behind. Madness doesn’t really come into it – witness One Nation. Although he’s in federal politics, if his party takes a couple of seats in a tight State election for a unicameral parliament they might just land themselves the balance of power. Now that would be smart politics.
Oh. Didn’t think of that.