The Coalition partners need each other to regain power – but their breakup may do the Liberal party some good
It actually happened.
The Liberals and Nationals are breaking up, ending a decades-long partnership of political convenience that has been necessary for conservatives to hold power.
The Nationals leader, David Littleproud, informed the Liberal leader, Sussan Ley, mid-morning on Tuesday that the country party wouldn't sign a new coalition agreement.
The first and obvious question is why.
The simple answer is that the Liberals wouldn't accept the Nationals' demand to maintain four key policy positions: support for nuclear power, a $20bn regional future fund, breakup powers for supermarkets and minimum standards for regional mobile and internet access.
The Nationals pushed the Peter Dutton-led Liberals to adopt the policies in the previous term and were not prepared to relitigate the case with Ley now in charge.
'A reasonable request was put to a trusted partner and it was refused,' the Nationals' Senate leader, Bridget McKenzie, said at a press conference with Littleproud at Parliament House.
A senior Liberal source said the Nationals had a fifth demand that went unmentioned at the press conference: an insistence that even members of the shadow cabinet be allowed to cross the floor to vote against their own side.
That position, the source said, was 'untenable'.
The Liberals didn't refuse the Nationals' policy demands because of any particular opposition to them. These were, after all, measures Dutton took to an election just weeks ago.
Instead, Ley refused because she wasn't prepared to lock the Liberals into any positions, certainly not in a binding coalition agreement.
That was her promise to colleagues immediately after winning the Liberal leadership.
Every policy – including net zero and nuclear – was up for review. There would be no 'captain's calls', she said.
The reasons for the split tells a story about the vastly different positions the Liberals and Nationals find themselves.
The Nationals felt emboldened in the previous term after winning internal arguments on nuclear and supermarket divestiture, and front-running the no case in the voice to parliament referendum.
The party held all of their seats on 3 May, although it failed to win back the regional New South Wales seat of Calare from Nationals-turned-independent Andrew Gee.
The Nationals might be divided on some policies, such as net zero, but Littleproud's team feels certain of what and who it stands for, so much so that it is willing to blow up the Coalition and forfeit frontbench positions (and the salaries that come with them).
The Liberals, in contrast, need to figure that out.
Ley and her senior colleagues wanted to remain in a coalition.
But a split might do the Liberals some good, providing some clear air while they wrestle with not just policies, but their purpose and direction.
With no Nationals to accomodate in shadow cabinet, Ley's task of appeasing of members of her own divided party just got a little easier.
Of course, the Liberals and Nationals don't have the numbers to form government on their own.
There will need to be a reunion at some point to regain power.
How and when that happens is anyone's guess.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Karine Jean-Pierre's embarrassing rejection from daytime TV show where she hoped to be a star
Karine Jean-Pierre had aspirations of becoming a TV star when she left the White House, but her dreams were crushed when the network where she hoped to star turned her down. Her hopes of stardom were revealed by this week along with the news that she is leaving the Democrats and will publish a book titled 'Independent '.
Reuters
a day ago
- Reuters
Canadian bill seeks to deny hearings to some asylum-seekers
TORONTO, June 4 (Reuters) - A Canadian border-security bill introduced by the Liberal government earlier this week may deny some asylum-seekers a refugee hearing and make it easier for the government to revoke migrants' status. The bill comes as the government seeks to address U.S. concerns about its border security and reduce the number of migrants in the country. In addition to denying some refugee hearings and allowing the suspension, cancellation or variance of immigration documents, the bill facilitates sharing people's information and makes it easier to read people's mail, among other measures. President Donald Trump has said Canada had failed to do enough to stem the flow of illicit fentanyl into the U.S., using that as justification for some of his tariffs. This week Trump doubled the tariffs in place on steel and aluminum, prompting calls for Canada to boost retaliatory measures of its own. Late last year Canada pledged C$1.3 billion to beef up its border. As Canada reduces the number of new permanent and temporary residents, its refugee system faces a historic backlog of more than 280,000 cases. This week's bill follows through on some of those border promises as well as on suggestions from some top ministers that Canada would fast-track refusals for some refugee claims. If the bill passes, asylum-seekers who have been in Canada more than one year would not be eligible for refugee hearings. Instead, they would have access to a pre-removal risk assessment, meant to determine whether they would be in danger in their country of origin. According to data published by Canada's Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Department, 30% of pre-removal risk assessments in 2019 for people deemed ineligible for refugee hearings were approved; by contrast, according to Immigration and Refugee Board data, that year 60% of finalized refugee hearings were approved. Asylum-seekers who wait two weeks to file claims after crossing from the U.S. to avoid being turned back under a bilateral agreement would also not get hearings. The bill, which needs to go through multiple readings before the House of Commons votes on it and sends it to the Senate, would also allow the government to "cancel, suspend or vary" immigration documents if deemed in the public interest. Migrant and refugee advocates worry the changes could leave vulnerable people deported to dangerous situations in their home countries without adequate due process. A spokesperson for Canada's Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab said on Wednesday that the government recognizes the conditions in people's home countries may change, but the pre-removal risk assessment will prevent them from being returned to persecution or torture. "The asylum ineligibilities introduced yesterday seek to maintain protection for those fleeing danger while discouraging misuse that bypasses the asylum system's function – which is to protect the vulnerable," the spokesperson wrote in an email. "Canada is reneging on its basic human rights obligations to do individual arbitration," said Migrant Rights Network spokesperson Syed Hussan. "This is teeing up a deportation machine."
Rhyl Journal
a day ago
- Rhyl Journal
Parliament moves closer to setting up Iraq war-style inquiry into Gaza conflict
Parliament moved a step closer to setting up a probe after MPs agreed that the Gaza (Independent Public Inquiry) Bill should be listed for a debate later this year. The draft new law would 'require the inquiry to consider any UK military, economic or political co-operation with Israel since October 2023', the month when Hamas-led militants attacked southern Israel and killed around 1,200 people and kidnapped more than 250 others. Israel's retaliatory offensive has seen more than 54,000 people in Gaza killed, according to the territory's health ministry. 'Our future history books will report with shame those that had the opportunity to stop this carnage but failed to act to achieve it, and so we will continue our campaigns in this House and outside because we're appalled at what is happening,' the former Labour Party leader told the Commons. Mr Corbyn, the Independent MP for Islington North, had earlier said: 'In the aftermath of the Iraq war, several attempts were made to establish an inquiry surrounding the conduct of the British military operations. 'The government of the day spent many years resisting those attempts and those demands for an inquiry, however, they could not prevent the inevitable and in 2016 we had the publication of the Chilcot Inquiry, which Sir John Chilcot had undertaken over several years.' Mr Corbyn added that when he was the Labour leader, when the 12-volume report came out, he 'apologised on behalf of the Labour Party for the catastrophic decision to go to war in Iraq' and added: 'History is now repeating itself.' He warned that 'human beings have endured a level of horror and inhumanity that should haunt us all forever – entire families wiped out, limbs strewn across the street, mothers screaming for their children buried under the rubble, human beings torn to pieces, doctors performing amputations without anaesthetic, children picking grass and dirt from the ground thinking they might find something edible to eat'. Mr Corbyn alleged that the UK had a 'highly influential role in Israel's military operations', including by supplying weapons, and also said a future inquiry should seek the 'truth regarding the role of British military bases in Cyprus' and Government 'legal advice over an assessment of genocide'. He said the inquiry would uncover the 'murky history of what's gone on, the murky arms sales and the complicity in appalling acts of genocide'. Deputy Speaker Nus Ghani called 'order' when several MPs applauded, as Mr Corbyn presented his Bill. The Bill will be listed for its next debate on July 4.
