Extract from The Guardian
After six hours of debate, Tony Abbott’s preferred position won
support, but it left the Coalition on the wrong side of public opinion
and alienated many within its ranks
Even when he wins, he also loses. Same-sex marriage would have been a difficult issue for any Coalition prime minister, but Tony Abbott played it more like a factional warrior than a leader.
After six hours of debate his preferred position won the night, but he didn’t resolve the issue, because he is on the wrong side of public opinion on this (a Crosby Textor poll showed 72% support) and, looking at global trends, the wrong side of history.
Understanding the Coalition can’t go to the next election with a policy of no change at all, he now says the “disposition” of the party is to have a referendum or plebiscite in the next term, or maybe it will allow a free vote after the election. But for now frontbenchers are bound to vote against same-sex marriage, even if they are vehemently for it, if it ever comes to a vote, which it almost certainly won’t.
This confusing outcome just shows the Coalition knows its position is untenable for more than another 12 months, but has been forced to stick with it to paper over internal divisions in the short term. Some victory.
And Abbott’s own tactics have inflamed rather than calmed the feelings in his party and made the defeat, for same-sex marriage supporters, even more bitter. He encouraged supporters of change to work up a cross-party bill, but told fellow opponents it would never come to a vote and that a plebiscite sometime in the future might be the answer to defeating the issue.
Then he sprang a debate in the joint party room, against regular Liberal party practice, without any discussion in cabinet, to ensure that the “anti” camp won, angering supporters who saw the obvious tactical trickiness (or as the leader of the government in the House of Representatives, Christopher Pyne, said, something tantamount to “branch stacking” given the Nationals predominantly anti-gay marriage stance).
On climate change targets, Abbott was persuaded by cabinet to adopt more ambitious targets than may have been his inclination, but not to do the most obvious things to reduce the cost of meeting them – such as allowing businesses to buy permits offshore, or setting out any clear or credible or affordable policy to reach them. His own polling said uncertainty stalled energy investment and ratcheted up economic costs.
Many in the government are worried about immediately relaunching the aggressive anti-carbon tax attack, given the Coalition hasn’t yet said what it would cost to meet its own goals or convinced the public that it’s serious.
And beyond the immediate crises – including the mishandled travel expenses saga – MPs fear the “void”, the absence of strategy or policy other than dealing with the immediate problems of the day and constantly repeating the phrase “jobs and growth”. They are also complaining about the centralised control from the prime minister’s office, again. Polls are, once more, headed in the wrong direction for the Coalition.
The government is veering towards chaotic process and open insurrection, with angry confusion and divisions in the cabinet and the leadership group about strategy and direction. The prime minister’s judgment and authority is, once again, under question.
After six hours of debate his preferred position won the night, but he didn’t resolve the issue, because he is on the wrong side of public opinion on this (a Crosby Textor poll showed 72% support) and, looking at global trends, the wrong side of history.
Understanding the Coalition can’t go to the next election with a policy of no change at all, he now says the “disposition” of the party is to have a referendum or plebiscite in the next term, or maybe it will allow a free vote after the election. But for now frontbenchers are bound to vote against same-sex marriage, even if they are vehemently for it, if it ever comes to a vote, which it almost certainly won’t.
This confusing outcome just shows the Coalition knows its position is untenable for more than another 12 months, but has been forced to stick with it to paper over internal divisions in the short term. Some victory.
And Abbott’s own tactics have inflamed rather than calmed the feelings in his party and made the defeat, for same-sex marriage supporters, even more bitter. He encouraged supporters of change to work up a cross-party bill, but told fellow opponents it would never come to a vote and that a plebiscite sometime in the future might be the answer to defeating the issue.
Then he sprang a debate in the joint party room, against regular Liberal party practice, without any discussion in cabinet, to ensure that the “anti” camp won, angering supporters who saw the obvious tactical trickiness (or as the leader of the government in the House of Representatives, Christopher Pyne, said, something tantamount to “branch stacking” given the Nationals predominantly anti-gay marriage stance).
On climate change targets, Abbott was persuaded by cabinet to adopt more ambitious targets than may have been his inclination, but not to do the most obvious things to reduce the cost of meeting them – such as allowing businesses to buy permits offshore, or setting out any clear or credible or affordable policy to reach them. His own polling said uncertainty stalled energy investment and ratcheted up economic costs.
Many in the government are worried about immediately relaunching the aggressive anti-carbon tax attack, given the Coalition hasn’t yet said what it would cost to meet its own goals or convinced the public that it’s serious.
And beyond the immediate crises – including the mishandled travel expenses saga – MPs fear the “void”, the absence of strategy or policy other than dealing with the immediate problems of the day and constantly repeating the phrase “jobs and growth”. They are also complaining about the centralised control from the prime minister’s office, again. Polls are, once more, headed in the wrong direction for the Coalition.
The government is veering towards chaotic process and open insurrection, with angry confusion and divisions in the cabinet and the leadership group about strategy and direction. The prime minister’s judgment and authority is, once again, under question.
No comments:
Post a Comment