Party discontent simmers over Abbott's populism

ON Thursday evening Victorian Liberal MP Tony Smith hosted a function to celebrate 10 years in parliament. The guest speaker was former treasurer Peter Costello, for whom Smith worked as a press secretary before becoming an MP.

Costello's speech had a theme calling on Liberals to be bold and not succumb to populism at the expense of "ideological ballast", as one attendee put it.

The chatter on the night was that, without naming him, Costello was directing his remarks at Tony Abbott's failures to stand on principle in areas such as industrial relations, the superannuation backflip and dumping. While most of the attendees were local Liberal Party branch members, senior Liberals were there too.

Whether Costello's intention was to fire a few barbs in Abbott's direction is less relevant than the assumption that this was what he was doing. It speaks to internal ructions within the opposition that have intensified in recent weeks.

No one should underestimate the significance of the discontent popping up across the parliamentary party. It suggests a team frustrated with a leader who is bypassing the partyroom and not consulting colleagues as he once did.

The feeling is Abbott and his office -- in particular his chief of staff Peta Credlin -- are daring anyone to speak up against the positions he is taking. They are banking on orchestrated unity preventing open dissent: fear that if he became prime minister Abbott would pay back outspoken MPs; discipline maintained by those who want to share in the spoils of victory.

Quelling dissenting voices may work politically, so weak is the government. But it ties Abbott's authority to his polling dominance, which is a false construction of power. As we saw with Kevin Rudd, when his numbers in the opinion polls fell away, so did his authority, ultimately costing him the prime ministership.

An exception to Abbott's cutting off of dissenting voices is the inclusion in the tent of Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce. He and Abbott are close, too close for many Liberals, who feel the Queenslander pulls Abbott further away from the policy principles he should be embracing. Abbott privately has justified the relationship to colleagues by saying it is good politics to keep Joyce and the Nationals close, with the intention of pushing back on policy once in government.

However, if Abbott does become PM he will be burdened by the framework he has set up for himself; promises made to his Coalition partner, the magic pudding that is the opposition's emerging alternative economic vision. A mess made in opposition contributed to Rudd's difficulties once in power.

Abbott is not at risk of a leadership challenge. But if he doesn't remind himself why he won the leadership in the first place -- because Malcolm Turnbull was not listening to his caucus, so the caucus went looking for someone who would -- and return to a consultative style, leaks will become a common occurrence. And so will discontent, if not open hostility.

Last weekend's article in The Weekend Australian Magazine profiling Credlin served to remind some Liberals of their concerns that Abbott is narrowing whom he seeks soundings from, guided by tactical, not strategic, considerations. Tactically, Credlin is a strong performer. She has a good sense of how to control the news of the day, similar to Rudd's strength during his prime ministership.

Credlin's weakness is policy, however, in particular the role of sound policy for long-term strategic advantage.

Abbott must supplement Credlin's (and Joyce's) strengths with others who are more focused on good policy development. The arrival of Arthur Sinodinos in the Senate is an opportunity for such a shift within the inner circle. As John Howard's long-time chief of staff, Sinodinos was a master at matching politics with policy, and he could do the same for Abbott. His inclusion would overcome the narrow tactical approach employed at present without lurching too far towards policy purity.

Since Credlin talked Abbott into voting against Peter Reith for the party presidency, even though Abbott had encouraged Reith to run in the first place, the senior ranks of the party have been split. It was seen by many as an unforgivable act of treachery by Abbott. The more profound effect of Reith's defeat is the concentration of power within the leader's office that followed it.

Rather than a strong party president urging the parliamentary leader to develop policy to suit the values of the party organisation, Alan Stockdale is a weak and compliant servant to the leader, all the more so since Abbott's vote saved Stockdale.

Rather than a federal director of the party who can objectively present the research to the leader's office and use it to challenge their strategy (or lack thereof), the Liberals are saddled with Brian Loughnane, who is married to Credlin. This has the added complication of limiting the avenues through which MPs can express concerns. When the partyroom is also being bypassed, that closes the door on debate before decisions are made.

Tuesday's Newspoll was hardly a ringing endorsement for the government and the Coalition remains in a very strong position. But it delivered improved two-party and primary votes for Labor and Abbott's personal numbers hit a new low. The government used to be deeply unpopular, even hated. Now it is just unpopular. That may seem like a minor shift, but it has the potential, in time, to increase scrutiny of the opposition. A hated government can't win re-election, an unpopular one can. Paul Keating showed this in 1993, when he unpicked John Hewson's Fightback package.

Abbott was Hewson's press secretary and well remembers how hard it was to sell Fightback. Because of that, Abbott is overcompensating as leader by developing little by way of policy and choosing populism at every turn.

Peter van Onselen is a Winthrop professor at the University of Western Australia.