If you can't beat them, join them. That, stripped of all the usual teal sanctimony about community, integrity and doing politics differently, is what sits behind the suddenly live conversation about whether the so-called community independents should form a party.

It is a delicious moment. The teals arrived in Canberra promising to disrupt the old order, refusing to submit to factional bosses or parrot talking points. They were above the dreary machinery of the major parties. Now, they appear to have discovered what the rest of us already knew: parties exist for a reason.

Parties aggregate power, impose discipline and allocate scarce resources. They provide structure where otherwise there is just a collection of ambitious individuals convinced their own moral insight should prevail. That, in essence, is the teal problem: they want the leverage of a party while retaining the halo of not being one.

The recent outbreak of teal self-examination has been revealing. Zali Steggall and Allegra Spender openly floated evolution, with Steggall noting that 'staying still is not how you keep winning'. The logic is obvious: the political field has shifted, and the 2022 teal model looks less potent today than it once did.

But almost immediately, the concept began to look like exactly what a teal party would inevitably become: an utter shambles.

Monique Ryan, Kate Chaney and Helen Haines quickly distanced themselves from the idea, preferring the independent lane - all before the party even exists. Its putative members can't even agree on whether it should happen.

The teals are articulate and savvy, but a teal party wouldn't be an organisation of foot soldiers. It would be a room full of people who built their political identities around not being told what to do.

Could anyone seriously imagine them agreeing on a leader, accepting shadow portfolios or submitting to even vague party discipline? The leadership contest alone, juggling Steggall's longevity, Spender's steady hand, Ryan's self-confidence and David Pocock's Senate achievements, would be worth the price of admission.

It would be less a party room than a group therapy session with standing orders.

They claim forming a party risks betraying their constituents, but if the community independent model was so sacrosanct, why are these conversations happening at all? The attempted pious retreat is only happening because their plans broke prematurely.

The teals entered parliament with a bang, picking off blue-ribbon Liberal seats and becoming the symbol of affluent metropolitan revolt. Their great hope was power through numbers in a hung parliament.

Instead, Labor's dominance has left them on the crossbench with less influence than their publicity suggests. Meanwhile, the Liberals are more concerned about One Nation on the right. The teals can issue statements and be applauded by friendly audiences, but they do not command the chamber and they are getting bored.

Meanwhile, the anti-major-party energy has taken a harder, more populist turn. One Nation's polling surge, topping 20 per cent nationally according to every pollster, means the teals are no longer the only disruptors in town. They risk becoming an affluent subplot in a volatile, increasingly populist non-Labor landscape.

Malcolm Turnbull recently noted a vacuum for an alternative centre party, suggesting the teals fill it. He is right about the vacuum, but identifying it isn't the same as filling it. A party needs more than a shared dislike of the Coalition and a talent for talking about integrity.

It needs a national strategy and candidates in seats that do not all look like Wentworth or Kooyong. It must decide whether it is economically liberal, green-left-lite or anti-populist. Meanwhile, Turnbull has already distanced himself from the spluttering push.

For years, the teals insisted they weren't a coordinated political project. But the money and messaging made that claim difficult to sustain. Climate 200's backing of candidates committed to climate, integrity (in theory) and gender equity is a platform.

The Farrer by-election, where Climate 200 backed an independent who called net zero by 2050 'untenable' just to try and block One Nation, proved the movement is elastic enough to stretch from inner-city climate politics to regional pragmatism. Fine as politics, but fatal to their mythology.

It essentially confirmed their willingness to sell out convictions in the quest for victory. Maybe they are, therefore, ready to become a major party?

Now, new electoral funding laws have sharpened the teals' dilemma. The reforms, commencing in 2027, will block millions in Climate 200 donations. No wonder the teals are looking at new structures. Having spent years presenting themselves as too virtuous for the grubby realities of party politics, they now find themselves needing to master them.

Here is their catch-22: stay independent and remain fragmented and vulnerable to funding constraints. Become a party, and confirm the central criticism made of them from the very start. The 'community independent' label was more of a marketing device than a political reality if they become just another party collective.

Worse, the very qualities that made the teals attractive - autonomy, localism and self-belief - also make them almost impossible to discipline. Imagine the first teal party room meeting drafting a unified position on gas, tax, Gaza, migration and nuclear power. It would be an absolute shmozzle.

The teals came to Canberra promising to transcend party politics, especially major-party politics. Instead, they have discovered their power without collective engagement is limited, as is their career progression.

They are all just backbenchers, and that is all they will ever be unless they form a new party or join an old one. They are not enjoying the drudgery of Canberra life during sitting weeks. Their egos want to do more than answer mundane community gripes.

I, for one, hope they do find a way to come together and form a new party. But first, let me grab my popcorn and a comfortable seat so I can properly enjoy the spectacle that follows.