The article notes that Tony Abbott's problem arise from a couple of controversial decisions that do not have universal support in the Liberal caucus.
The decision on the repeal of s18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is defensible on libertarian grounds. However, there is also an argument that citizens should be protected from vilification. It is not surprising that certain minorities who have been maltreated in the past should be sensitive to being publicly abused on the basis of race or sexual preference. I am an advocate of free speech but I don't support bullying and in my view the law has a role to play in protecting the weak from the strong. I imagine there are many from both sides of politics who share this view.
The more surprising decision was the reintroduction of traditional British honours. It seems this decision was not cleared with cabinet or the caucus, and I understand there is a strong republican sentiment in the LNP (and the general population).
The problem with leadership in politics is that such leaders rule from consent rather than from strength. Stalin did not have to consult with anyone before making a decision. However, as recent history has shown, the heads of political parties can only lead where their members are willing to go.
