Abbott’s blunder

"Well, because I thought the question was about my visit to the British Conservative Party conference here and I guess it was just a very poor choice of words."

It seems that Abbott’s real reason for not travelling to Afghanistan to visit Australian combat troops was that he didn't want to arrive in a run-down state at a British Conservative Party Conference.

This is a surprising statement coming from a super-fit “iron-man”, who has so much energy and such little regard for sleep that he stayed awake for 36 hours straight in the final days of the Federal election campaign.

And, as an excuse to troops, it is highly questionable whether attending a conference for an ideologically aligned political party in a foreign nation will strike them as being more important than visiting them in a war-zone. Or that voters will be much impressed to find that, in terms of priorities, it is more important for him to stay fresh for a visit to Britain than it is to be in tip-top condition when he is on the verge of becoming the new Prime Minister of Australia.

Kirk asked Abbott why he needed to attend the conference at all:

“I think it's important that I be here at this conference because the Conservative Party has taken power in Britain at a very critical time. Obviously, they've inherited a fiscal disaster from a profligate Labour government, and the next Coalition government in Australia will inherit a fiscal disaster from a profligate Labor Government. So, I think it's important that I be here to learn the lessons of cleaning up the kind of fiscal mess which profligate Labor governments typically leave.”

This comment has not been very widely reported or its importance fully appreciated by the Australian press, or so it seems. In fact, it is a serious diplomatic blunder by Tony Abbott. It is a comment that has the power to damage Australia’s future bilateral relationship with Britain.

It can be directly compared with Prime Minister John Howard’s February 2007 comments about then Presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s plans to withdraw US Forces from Iraq. Then, Howard told the Nine Network:

"I think he's wrong. I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory.”

At that time, Howard was severely rebuked by both Republicans and Democrats for interfering in US domestic politics. In Australia, he was also condemned, but because of the understanding that, if Obama was elected and Howard was re-elected, then the relationship between Australia and its major ally could be compromised by ill-will between the two nation’s leaders. Thankfully, Howard was not re-elected.

In the UK, the Conservative minority government holds power only because of a new coalition with the Liberal Democrats, a progressive party that has historically been regarded as more natural ideological fellows of the opposing Labour Party. It was especially rash of Tony Abbott to criticise and deride the UK Labour Party, the previous government, when this Party could take power again in Britain at almost any time, depending on what happens in UK domestic politics. Irrespective of that, there will be an election in the next few years in the UK and at that election it is quite foreseeable that the Labour Party will regain power and resume governing Britain. Many in that government are likely to have been key figures in the previous Labour administration. If Abbott is then in power in Australia, the media should be asking: how closely will Abbott really be able to work with a Party that he has effectively accused of being hopelessly incompetent?

Like Howard, Abbott should be similarly placed in the dock for his statements. They were comments of unfathomable arrogance and poor judgment.