It would be troubling enough if Tony Abbott's shilly-shallying on electoral reform had merely killed off hopes of making overdue changes to the nation's electoral laws.

But it has shredded his credibility too. Credibility he had steadily rebuilt since admitting to routinely gilding the lily, to not always telling the ''Gospel'' truth unless he was delivering scripted comments.

The package was never going to be popular, particularly because it was headlined by a massive $20-million-a-year allocation of public funding to the major political parties via a $1 per vote formula.

The Liberal leader's failings on the collapse of this supposedly bipartisan package, are manifold.

First, his office claimed that the opposition had not seen the legislation. It also was less than upfront on the level and finality of the agreement. Abbott himself then reneged on a written agreement. And finally, if these integrity issues are not enough to raise voter doubts in someone who within months could be prime minister, he revealed himself as a shallow populist.

Since news of the ''secretly'' negotiated agreement was announced at the beginning of the week, Abbott's office has misled and obfuscated.

As the public backlash grew, and as MPs on all sides grumbled at the optics of politicians voting themselves money in the aftermath of a harsh budget, the Coalition deliberately went missing.

By Wednesday evening, with Liberal and Nationals MPs threatening open revolt, Abbott's office was already preparing to walk away despite assurances from the government that the agreement would hold.

This whole affair has shown politics at its worst.

A secret deal between sworn enemies, bound together by financial self interest, is a woeful look.

The fact that the alternative prime minister openly pretended to be uninvolved, and then simply reneged on a signed agreement, raises genuine questions of trust and reliability.

But perhaps the most troubling lesson from the whole tawdry affair, is what it says about Abbott's unpreparedness to argue for unpopular reforms, should he become prime minister.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/doubledealing-reveals-abbotts-failings-20130530-2ndhc.html#ixzz2Ul2yTkXX

I agree Praxidice.
The whole sorry tale smells of politicians from both sides agreeing to feather their own nests, and then denying it has happened.

If people think they are going to get a more 'honest' Prime Minister in the holy Abbott, then they will be sadly disappointed ...

Suseonline

When added to his utterly deplorable conduct in the One Nation affair, we have a clear indication of his moral standards. Two failed lawyers / failed priests & both are bottom-feeding grubs. is it any wonder people look at the RAbbott and Slippery Pete and claim christians are two-faced. Certain others here have asked me why I don't want to support either the ALP or the LNP, it should be perfectly obvious now.

Abbott said:

''Look there is an argument for public funding. There is an argument it would make political parties less dependent upon donations that may not always be made for entirely altruistic reasons.''

Absolutely right. However, as Larissa Waters pointed out; no attempt has been made to address corporate donations, which just makes a complete mockery of the proposed whacking great increase in public funding for political parties.

So now Abbott has admitted that the corporate donations regime is dodgy, and yet he will never move to fix it, will he.

Hey, both the ALP and LNP are rotten!

I can’t possibly vote for either. And that means not voting for anyone because, as I keep saying; the compulsory preferential voting system will STEAL my vote and make it count for a party that I wish to specifically vote against!!

Now, if Abbott or Gillard were to ‘collude’ in order to fix this despicable antidemocratic voting system, and to genuinely address corporate donations, then I might be able to gain just a tiny bit of respect for them.

"A secret deal between sworn enemies, bound together by financial self interest, is a woeful look."
The ALP and Conservative Parties, sworn enemies? I think not, sure, up front there appears to be "hostility" between the two, but that is nothing more than a manifestation of our adversarial political system. There is little in the way of any philosophical difference, more a divergence of emphases as to the best way to achieve similar outcomes.
Even my party The Greens is not that far removed from the big two, not wishing to overturn or replace what exists with another system, more or less arguing where to apply emphases to obtain a certain conclusion. The desire of those in power in Australia is to maintain the status quo, supporting and respecting the democratic process as defined by our practices and institutions.
I expect little change regardless of the outcome of the election in September.

http://australianpolitics.com/democracy-and-politics/key-terms/liberal-democracy

Ludwig - Now, if Abbott or Gillard were to ‘collude’ in order to fix this despicable antidemocratic voting system, and to genuinely address corporate donations, then I might be able to gain just a tiny bit of respect for them.

As Claude Greengrass is wont to say in Heartbeat, 'pigs might' :)

I'm hoping that the minor parties figure out a distribution of preferences that doesn't benefit either the ALP or the LNP. Obviously it will mean numbering every single box on the ballot paper, but I've always done that anyway. More importantly, will enough sheeple twig to the demonstrated abysmal lack of ethics on the part of both major parties & put in the effort to avoid giving them preferences ??