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.