Former Liberal National Party (LNP) life member Clive Palmer has reformed the United Australia Party (UAP) and has now been joined by two other LNP defectors, Alex Douglas and Carl Judge. Palmer's talk of running as a third option creates a possibility of reinvigorating Australian politics, but it's one that is likely to fail.

The bulk of the UAP's votes will inevitably come from the Coalition. There is also a chance of the UAP gaining some of what would otherwise be an increased informal vote, as it presents another option to disillusioned voters. Some voters, however, are likely to shift back to vote for Labor as a result of Palmer's move giving credibility to the claim that politics is being run by vested interests.

The UAP's policies

Palmer is doing little to distance his policies from those of the Coalition, admitting on Lateline that his policies were essentially Liberal policies, with five key differences. But even those differences are likely to appeal to Liberal/National voters.

First, he would ban lobbyists from the UAP. This is a harmless ideal, with the message that Palmer would be a purer alternative to the present options.

Second, Palmer would abolish the carbon tax retrospectively, an approach the Coalition is unlikely to take. Palmer's aim is to take the votes of people who see the abolition of the carbon tax as the single most important issue in this election – something which the Coalition has consistently attacked by repeating Gillard's pre-election statement that it would not be introduced.

Third is refugee policy. Palmer stated that his party would allow asylum seekers to fly to Melbourne rather than face the expense of naval interception of boats. Nuances of refugee policy aside, the fact that Palmer is targeting the cost of refugee policy is also likely to influence Coalition voters who believe in small government and a budget surplus.

The fourth difference is that resources should be exported at a higher value to generate more wealth for Australia. This and the fifth difference, that wealth be directed back to the regions where it was generated, are both likely to influence those who are working in mining and other resource industries and oppose the Minerals Resource Rent Tax – again, Liberal/National voters.

The UAP's carbon tax, resources and regions policies are all essentially Coalition policies, taken one step further. It creates a greater differentiation between Labor and the UAP than there is between Labor and the Coalition by targeting the Liberal priority of tax minimisation and the National's regional focus. Manager of Government Business Anthony Albanese has said that Palmer is targeting a 'niche market' of former Coalition voters. This is not an attempt to take votes from each side of politics; it is an attempt to take votes of those who oppose Labor policies and therefore would otherwise vote for the Coalition.

Someone else

The second group Palmer will be targeting are informal voters from the last election. There was a strong informal swing in 2010, up from 3.95% in 2007 to 5.55%, higher than the peak under the Howard government, at 5.18% in 2004.

Both figures can be traced to leadership. In 2004, Mark Latham proved too vitriolic and Howard won a majority in both houses. In 2010, both Gillard and Abbott were unpopular, and have maintained low approval ratings in the three years since. Gillard lost credibility as a result of the carbon tax while Abbott is seen as too repetitive and lacking substance.

This all suggests that Australians are further disillusioned than in 2010 and do not wish to vote for either of the major parties. The Greens and independents will not benefit from this disillusion because of their part in the minority Gillard government. As a result, the informal vote is likely to increase.

This is Palmer's opportunity. He does not belong to one of the four main parties and nor is he independent. Voters are looking for someone else, and Palmer is declaring that he might be that someone. The UAP is looking for protest votes, either from people who would have voted informally, or are otherwise questioning whether they want an Abbott government.

The Coalition's response to Palmer has been arrogant. Abbott has said, 'if you're serious about changing the Prime Minister, well there's one candidate.' Similarly, Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop said that 'if you want to get rid of the government…then you have to vote for the Coalition.' Both statements reinforce the view that the Coalition sees itself as the government-in-waiting and have potential to alienate potential swinging voters. Such arrogance in response to Palmer's plans may well drive those votes to the UAP.

The Queensland factor

Something about the UAP is inherently Queensland: a right-wing LNP splinter party that could win a handful of seats. Fellow Queenslander and former National Bob Katter, Member for Kennedy, has grown his own brand to lead Katter's Australian Party, which now holds three seats in the Queensland Parliament.

Similarly, in the 1990s, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party won 11 seats with almost a quarter of the Queensland vote in the 1998 state election. Hanson's failed second attempt through Pauline's United Australia Party might represent somewhat of an omen for Palmer's vision of the UAP.

Both Katter and Hanson had been in parliament as independents before building the profile to run a party. Palmer already has that profile as a result of his mining wealth. The obvious difference between him and other defectors is that he is able to use this wealth to significantly contribute to a federal campaign.

The major parties have endorsed Palmer's right to run, but see him having little prospect of success. The Australian Democrats are currently campaigningthat 'balance does not belong on the extremes of politics', suggesting that we do not want the Greens, Katter's Australian Party, the United Australian Party or the Liberal Party to control the Senate. The Courier Mail has alluded to Palmer's role in 'Queensland politics going nuts'. The unified response from the other parties is that the UAP is just another crazy Clive Palmer idea, much like Titanic II.

Vested interest

Palmer said that the influence of lobbyists on the major parties was one of the reasons that he quit the Liberal National Party, and has suggested that if he is elected then lobbyists will cease to play this role. But Palmer has been long pre-empted in arguing that politics is dominated by money.

Last year, Wayne Swan targeted Palmer, along with fellow mining billionaires Andrew Forrest and Gina Rinehart, as key figures representing vested interestsin Australian politics. This followed the campaign against the mining tax under Rudd, and many dismissed it as an attempt to spark class warfare, a debate that is continuingas the election approaches.

Not long after Swan's article on vested interests, Rinehart sought a spot on the Fairfax Ltd board, a move not for money, but for influence. Palmer's decision to run for Parliament may been seen the same way, especially in light of his mining interests and opposition to Labor policies, especially the MRRT.

Equally damaging to Palmer is the contrast to his own policies against lobbyists. As one of the richest people in Australia with strong business interests, Palmer very comfortably fits the description of someone who would employ lobbyists. Perhaps he sees a certain purity in not going down the lobbyist path and running for Parliament instead. On the other hand, it might be seen as cutting out the middleman and becoming a lobbyist in Parliament itself. In either situation, Palmer is someone using substantial wealth to run a federal campaign, fitting the vested interest narrative.

Another indicator that Palmer is a spoiler for the Liberals and not Labor is that he is running for the seat of Fairfax, currently held by Liberal MP Alexander Somlyay. Last year, Palmer announced that he would be running for Liberal preselection for Treasurer Wayne Swan's seat of Lilley, calling the 2013 election 'Swan's Song'. By focusing on a relatively safe Coalition seat, Palmer is taking the heat off of Labor and allowing Swan to contribute more to the national campaign than would have been possible if fighting Palmer for his own seat.

The small target spoiler

Palmer's campaigning so far has aimed to create a small target with a big brand – he has identified his policies as those of the Coalition with only five changes, while invoking grand rhetoric to suggest that his is the party of the people. He has invoked the spirit of ANZAC as neither Liberal or Labor, but united; told us that 'what this nation needs is ideas'; and promised to restore government to the electorate. The timing also points to small target politics, with Kevin Rudd noting that the launch of the UAP only five months before an election gives little time for scrutiny and labelling it a 'last-minute stunt'.

Whatever comes of the UAP after September 14, it appears to be no more than a Coalition spoiler. The fact that another splinter party is challenging the LNP in Queensland presents a good reason to take a look at why it is alienating prominent members such as Palmer and Katter. Despite presenting itself as a viable third option, the UAP is likely to simply pick up a portion of the Opposition's anti-Gillard vote, and runs the risk of turning some traditional voters back to Labor as they see Swan's 'vested interests' hypothesis play out.