I'm not sure if you can simplify it that much. It sounds like it's more a case of the Liberals being unwilling to cede some policy power to The Nationals despite the election results.

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Wait. Does that mean the Nats think the Coalition lost because they weren't implementing enough of their policies? That's adorable. I say let 'em keep thinking that.

[–] Ilandar@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Does that mean the Nats think the Coalition lost because they weren’t implementing enough of their policies?

No, the disagreement is over what happens next. The Liberals under Ley want to conduct a campaign review in which every aspect of the Coalition's policy platform is scrutinised, with nothing safe or off the table. The Nationals are not happy with this, because they have four key policy areas (nuclear, supermarket divestiture, regional future fund, mobile phone coverage in regional areas) that they believe should be retained for now.

It's important to remember that the Liberals and the Nationals are actually very different in terms of who they represent. After an election where the Nationals held all their seats while the Liberals got decimated, the Nationals do not believe it is fair to them or the regional communities they represent for their key policy positions to be at risk of being thrown out just because the Liberals are having an identity crisis. Essentially, the Nationals issued an ultimatum based on their increased importance to the Coalition but the Liberals called their bluff.

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago

Regardless of the merits or otherwise of their key policy areas, that seems like a pretty reasonable stance on their part. Even so, as others have said, I'm sure they'll be back together in no time if they ever want to form a government. I wonder what the voters will think next time around.

load more comments (1 replies)