Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - AU
The Guardian - AU
National
Katharine Murphy

Same-sex marriage: Coalition party room sticks with the status quo – politics live

silhouette against a rainbow flag
The issue of a free vote on same-sex marriage has been a complicated issue for both the major parties. Photograph: David Poller/ZUMA Press/Corbis

Good night, and good luck

Well folks what fine company you have been on an epic day in the live blogue caper. I have to go and lie down now for a brief while before I get up again and face tomorrow in national affairs in pithy ten minute increments.

Huge thanks to Mike Bowers for his magnificence throughout the day, afternoon, evening – which extended to supplying a fortifying cheese dinner for the bureau. Don’t ask. We won’t tell.

Today, Tuesday:

  • The Abbott government produced new post 2020 emissions reduction targets which would see Australia cut carbon pollution by between 26 and 28% on 2005 levels by 2030.
  • Given the targets were underwhelming, the reaction was much as you’d expect.
  • The prime minister rolled out of his underwhelming emissions reductions targets to a character-forming five hour special party room debate on same sex marriage.
  • Abbott then rolled into the Blue Room to announce the government would defend heterosexual marriage in this parliament but possibly not in the next parliament when same sex marriage would be resolved either by a) A conscience vote, b) A plebiscite, or c) a constitutional referendum – despite the lack of requirement for a constitutional referendum.
  • Because.
  • Because .. never let monumental incoherence tomorrow stop you from shooting for that “victory” today.

We have tomorrow though lovelies, and I’ll be seeing you all then.

Garbled political fudging in five points: a late night listicle

The Prime Minister Tony Abbott at a press conference after a 6 hour marathon party room meeting in Parliament House in Canberra this evening, Tuesday 11th 2015
The Prime Minister Tony Abbott at a press conference after a 6 hour marathon party room meeting in Parliament House in Canberra this evening, Tuesday 11th 2015 Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Ok, it’s late, and I’ve entered my sixteenth hour. Bear with me.

  1. The Coalition’s position is now vote for us and we’ll defend heterosexual marriage until we won’t, which is after the next federal election.
  2. The Coalition will absolutely defend heterosexual marriage by denying a conscience vote in this parliament.
  3. But possibly we’ll grant a free vote to our MPs in the next parliament because the next parliament will be different for reasons that are hard to currently articulate.
  4. Or possibly we’ll have a plebiscite.
  5. Or possibly a constitutional referendum, even though we don’t actually require one of those to change the Marriage Act.

That’s it, I think.

Did I miss anything?

Abbott has wrapped the press conference. Give me a minute and I’ll decode all that.

Cheeky, that Mikearoo.

Abbott is asked whether he understands the anger of colleagues given he chose to put same sex marriage to the joint party room, not the Liberal party room.

The prime minister:

There’s no easy answer here. It doesn’t matter what we did today, some people would have been disappointed.

Tony Abbott:

I’m not saying the Coalition’s position is set in stone for all time.

He repeats his earlier mantra.

The issue can be put to the people.

Not now. But for the next term.

Abbott says he doesn’t want to send a message that there can never be change.

The prime minister says the Coalition took a position to the last election, and the last thing you should do is dud the people who voted for you.

But he acknowledges same sex marriage is very deeply personal.

Abbott says this is the end of the road in this respect.

This is the last term in which the Coalition party room can be bound, although we will definitely maintain this position for the life of this term. Our position going into the next election that this is a matter that should rightly be put to the Australian people.

The prime minister says the government has not finalised a post-election position.

I suppose we could have a plebiscite or a constitutional referendum.

We want to look at the ramifications of each option.

Tony Abbott addresses reporters

The prime minister has arrived in the Blue Room to reflect on the day’s events. He’s running through a tick tock of the day thus far.

Tony Abbott:

It was a six hour party room meeting. I have to say I was proud of my colleagues. All of them.

Colleagues, he said, spoke with decency and compassion. The prime minister said 60 backbenchers and 30 frontbenchers spoke.

I have to say there was strong support for the existing position, that marriage is between a man and a woman.

There was no vote in the party room tonight, just by the by. Not sure where the various number counts are coming from when there’s no vote. Presumably from the whips count of contributions over the course of the debate – or back of the envelope counts by non-whip interested parties.

The prime minister will address reporters in about five minutes.

Abbott’s sister, Christine Forster is on the ABC’s Lateline program expressing her profound disappointment about tonight’s outcome.

Backbencher Andrew Laming has been stopped by reporters on the way out of the parliament. He’s asked whether or not the prime minister’s decision to include the National party in tonight’s deliberations made a material difference to the outcome.

Laming:

It would have been slightly different but the end result would have been the same.

He means the numbers just weren’t there to shift the current position.

Resolving to stick with the status quo is an emphatic statement to the conservative base, but it’s also an emphatic statement to the voters at large: if you care about marriage equality, vote Labor or vote Green.

Sir Humphrey Appleby might call that brave.

What was I saying before about pathetic attempt at fudges?

A number of breaking reports suggest there will be no free vote – the word out of the party room is the numbers are two to one against.

Once there’s confirmation I’ll advise.

Win or loss. Unless of course there’s a pathetic attempt at fudge.

Meanwhile, hang in there blogans, bloganistas.

A couple of my press gallery colleagues, Phil Coorey from The Australian Financial Review and Michelle Grattan from The Conversation are comparing tonight to the Coalition’s carbon pricing debate in 2009.

It’s a useful comparison. Both fights split the party right down the middle – exposing competing liberal instincts, conservative instincts. You can’t patch over those differences. There will be a win and a loss.

Two insights into a contribution from frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull in tonight’s debate.

We’ve just hit four-and-a-half hours for this special party room meeting.

No wonder Tony Abbott said at budget time that the Coalition couldn’t manage the economic statement and a debate about same sex marriage at the same time. We were wrong to scoff.

Good moods and good cheer all round.

Meanwhile, down in the corridor.

If you are just tuning in ..

In the event you’ve just got home, downed a glass of something, have your Lean Cuisine twirling cheerily in the microwave, logged on to the Guardian Australia and wondered, what on earth is going on in that mad house in Canberra, a quick recap:

  1. Coalition MPs have been locked in a debate for the last three or four hours about whether to allow a conscience vote on marriage equality (or some other means of resolving this issue).
  2. The special party room meeting was triggered by a move this morning in the Liberal party room to prompt decisive consideration of the issue – a move which resulted in the prime minister declaring the matter would go to the full Coalition party room for resolution, not just the Liberal party room (where there are more yes votes).
  3. The prime ministerial pre-emption prompted the manager of government business Christopher Pyne to observe Abbott was acting a little teensy bit like a branch stacker in pushing resolution to a forum where the numbers were beneficial to his (no) case.
  4. The selection committee has tonight resolved that the cross party marriage equality bill will come before the parliament next week regardless of whether or not the government can extract itself from its current tangle.

That’s all you need for now. I’ll post a full summary of the day when we wrap later on.

So many things are hard to say, let’s face it.

Still on 7.30, Hunt is chipping away.

Host Leigh Sales asks the environment minister whether the prime minister is taking a branch stacking approach to the settlement of same sex marriage. (Manager of government business Christopher Pyne said the prime minister was approaching his task like a branch stacker in the first party room meeting of today. He meant the prime minister’s decision to put the issue to a joint party room meeting, where there would be more National party ‘no’ votes, rather than putting it to the Liberal party room meeting.)

Greg Hunt:

No.

Another minister has to see a man about a dog.

On the ABC’s 7.30 program, the environment minister Greg Hunt is telling viewers the post 2020 emissions targets are just tip top.

Hitherto, the treasurer, freshly escaped from the party room debate to stand in for the prime minister at a South Australian showcase on this evening in parliament house.

Let that be the only apology of the night. Hopefully this function is proudly goats cheese free – if not, questions will be asked.

Furthermore from the corridors.

Furthermore, from the corridors. The selection committee has done what we expected the selection committee to do with the cross party marriage equality bill.

BIO.

Bring it on.

I also have a chance to let you know what I think of the government’s post 2020 emissions reduction targets. Basically, I don’t think very much of the government’s emissions reduction targets.

I’m not quite as fired up as my esteemed colleague from The Australian Financial Review, Laura Tingle, who says this evening:

As the Abbott government seemingly unravels before our eyes, the prime minister has released a climate policy which must be the dodgiest bit of public policy in recent years, possibly since the Coalition’s now infamous $11bn hole in its 2010 election policy costings.

Not quite that bad.

But bad, certainly. It’s clearly a low ball target, and it’s not clear how we will meet it under current policy settings, which effectively transfer the costs of future emissions reductions from polluters to the taxpayer through incentive schemes (as the environment minister Greg Hunt fondly calls his direct action policy.)

The longer stint does allow me to get to things that got lost in the wash of a busy day. Parliament’s joint committee on human rights tabled its 25th report earlier on today.

The committee had quite a crack at the Abbott government’s citizenship revocation proposal, which I covered briefly on Politics Live yesterday afternoon. A bunch of legal experts believe the bill as it currently stands is unconstitutional. The human rights committee is suggesting it might also breach Australia’s international obligations.

A small sample of the criticism.

  • The committee’s assessment of the automatic cessation of citizenship powers against article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (right to freedom of movement) raises questions as to whether restricting the freedom of movement of a person deprived of citizenship is justifiable.
  • As set out above, the automatic cessation of citizenship engages and limits the right to freedom of movement.
  • The statement of compatibility does not sufficiently justify that limitation for the purposes of international human rights law.
  • The committee’s assessment of the automatic cessation of citizenship powers against articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT) (obligations of non-refoulement) raises questions as to whether depriving a person of citizenship, and therefore potentially exposing them to deportation, is compatible with Australia’s non-refoulement obligations, given the lack of statutory protection and lack of “independent, effective and impartial” review of decisions to remove a person.
  • The committee therefore seeks the advice of the minister for immigration and border protection as to whether the cessation of citizenship provisions and decisions to remove an ex-citizen will be subject to sufficiently “independent, effective and impartial” review so as to comply with Australia’s non-refoulement obligations under the ICCPR and the CAT.

Updated

Deliberations downstairs are continuing. It’s enough to drive a live blogger to goat’s cheese. But rest assured I am at my post and don’t intend to depart for creature comforts, like Love it or List it Vancouver, and a bowl of pasta on the couch.

I’m here for the duration.

Updated

Speaking of jokes, another Liberal on the yes side of the marriage equality debate: the party’s pollster, Mark Textor.

Please pray ...

The Australian Christian Lobby. Firmly against rainbows.

Speaking of praying. The Liberal senator Arthur Sinodinos cracked a little joke in the chamber before.

Sinodinos is on the yes side of the marriage debate.

Updated

Essential is giving us a static picture on the two-party preferred measure and on the approval ratings for the two leaders. Labor is comfortably in front on the TPP, and voters don’t much care for Tony Abbott or Bill Shorten.

A couple of interesting questions this week.

Bronwyn Bishop:

  • Survey respondents want to see the back of Bronwyn Bishop: 66% think the former Speaker should resign from parliament and 18% think she should remain in parliament.
  • A slight majority of Liberal/National voters think she should resign from parliament.

Adam Goodes:

  • On racism and Adam Goodes: 29% think the people who booed Goodes were being racist and 45% think they were not being racist.
  • A majority (59%) of Liberal/National voters thought they were not being racist while most (53%) Greens voters though they were being racist. Those most likely to think they were being racist were aged 18-34 (37%) and those with a university degree (37%).

Updated

Government whip Nola Marino has told colleagues the Federation Chamber won’t sit this evening given the government is ... well ... caught up with other matters.

It could be a long night.

There’s a new Essential poll out. Let me chase that up and I’ll come back to you with particulars shortly.

Updated

A bunch of lower house MPs were in the red room for the Lindgren speech, including the prime minister, Tony Abbott.

Jo Lindgren
Queensland Liberal Senator Jo Lindgren gives her first speech in the Senate. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian
Jo Lindgren is congratulated by Tony Abbott
Queensland Liberal Senator Jo Lindgren is congratulated by Tony Abbott after giving her first speech in the Senate on Tuesday. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian
Jo Lindgren
Jo Lindgren is congratulated after giving her first speech in the Senate. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Updated

More from the Senate. While the Coalition was debating same-sex marriage, the Senate was debating the end of marriages. More specifically, it passed a disallowance motion to end the price hike on court services, dubbed by the opposition as “the divorce tax”. Labor, the Greens and independent senator Glenn Lazarus joined forces to disallow the regulation - the second time in less than two months that the upper house has overturned the hike.

Labor has taken the government to the Federal Court over the second price rise, saying it is unlawful to re-introduce legislation within six months of similar regulation being disallowed. Tuesday’s disallowance motion does not impact on the court case, a decision on which is due to be handed down on Thursday morning.

Back to the senate. Senator Lindgren is speaking about pressing moral challenges. She nominates recognition of Indigenous people in the constitution as one.

It is the right thing to do.

The second challenge, she says, is the gender imbalance in politics. She wants to see equal representation in politics.

While Lindgren is addressing the chamber, frontbencher Josh Frydenberg is on radio 2UE. He’s asked to update listeners about this evening’s discussion about same sex marriage. Frydenberg declines that kind offer.

I’ll let that one go through to the keeper. I wouldn’t be helping if I was divulging on national radio the details of those discussions.

(Frydenberg is a supporter of same sex marriage.)

One of the reasons for the break in the same-sex marriage debate was so senators could attend the maiden speech of their new colleague from Queensland, Jo Lindgren.

That’s under way in the Senate now. Lindgren, the great-niece of the first Indigenous member of parliament, Neville Bonner, has replaced Brett Mason in the chamber. Just for the record, she’s no vote on same-sex marriage.

Updated

That it is.

For now I’ll push on with other matters parliamentary and we’ll resume with this in due course.

The Coalition party room is taking a 30-minute break.

Updated

Meanwhile, outside the Coalition party room.

News wire service Australian Associated Press is reporting that Liberal MP Eric Hutchinson has been appointed to the parliament’s selection committee, which determines which private member’s business is debated.

The committee will meet on Tuesday night to determine whether a bill to allow same-sex marriage should be introduced to parliament next Monday. Hutchinson – who represents the Tasmanian seat of Lyons – replaces the late West Australian MP Don Randall on the selection committee.

Updated

My colleague Shalailah Medhora is down outside the Coalition party room. She says the trade minister, Andrew Robb, has signalled to waiting reporters that there will be no final resolution on how to handle same-sex marriage today.

Updated

A quick word on Speaker Smith’s first day in the new digs. The prime minister kept calling him Madam Speaker – a habit he’ll presumably break in time.

Smith also had some difficulty distinguishing between two Labor young turks – Pat Conroy and Jim Chalmers. Chalmers, a known humanitarian, is offering some help.

My verdict on Smith will take some time to form. Initial thoughts: he’s much as I expected. A tidy sort of fellow.

Rather than speculate and foreground endlessly about the meeting downstairs, I’ll take the opportunity to catch up on a few other issues.

Some reaction to Australia’s new post-2020 emissions reduction targets.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt, Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop
Environment Minister Greg Hunt, Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop at a press conference in the blue room of Parliament House, Canberra on Tuesday morning. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

John Connor, Climate Institute

The government can’t pretend that this target would see us doing our bit in limiting warming to less than 2C. The maximum amount of pollution Australia can emit to 2050 to do its part in avoiding 2C is around eight to nine billion tonnes. The proposed target would see this limit breached in just 14 years’ time, by 2029. If other countries took the same approach as the government announced today, the world would warm by 3-4C. The government’s weak target is also bad for the economy. As many other nations continue to step up actions to limit emissions and modernise their economies through clean energy and other investments, this target implies that Australia will be the most pollution-intensive developed economy by 2030. This target also means we would still be the highest per capita polluter among developed economies in 2030.

Kate Carnell, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Targets should reflect the circumstances each country faces. Australia may have a lower headline target than some other countries, but we also have population growth that is almost four times faster than the OECD average. To preserve Australian jobs and competitiveness, Australia’s emissions reduction target should reflect a comparable level of effort to that made by other countries.

Archie Law, Action Aid

This government’s effective inaction on climate change is utterly incomprehensible. Targets as low as those announced today are an indication of how ignorant the government is to the scale of the crisis we are faced with, and the impacts that it is already having – here, and all over the world. In order to contribute fairly and effectively to mitigating climate change, we must cut back on our emissions by 50% by 2020 on 1990 levels, a figure widely accepted internationally. The targets announced this morning are mortifying. Australia is straying far behind the international community in what we are prepared to contribute, despite being one of the world’s wealthiest countries.

Helen Szoke, Oxfam Australia

With this provisional target the government has shown it is willing to accept a future of growing risks and hardship for the world‟s poorest communities. This is a major blow for our Pacific neighbours, who are already paying a serious price for the failure of Australia and other rich nations to act faster, with saltwater inundation, shifting seasons and extreme weather destroying homes and livelihoods.

Updated

Perhaps the prime minister didn’t have to check his phone in the Coalition party room meeting. In any case Forster is maintaining the aspiration.

Documented. Sorry. Not interrogated.

Never has a rainbow been so interrogated.

The prime minister’s sister, Christine Forster.

While the meeting is underway let’s try and consider what it all means. Here’s two pretty obvious thoughts.

  • The prime minister has brought forward consideration of the issue and also pushed consideration into the joint party room in order to give himself the strongest chance of emerging with the result he wants: to push same sex marriage way off into the distance.
  • But playing hardball has consequences. Abbott may well have the numbers to stop this issue proceeding to a vote, but at what cost? Today will only fuel internal rancour about the prime minister’s winner-takes-all leadership style. And while seeing off the progressivism of same sex marriage might reassure the conservative base, it does nothing to appeal to the political centre.

Rainbows are visions, but only, illusions.

Further questions have been placed on the notice paper.

Bill Shorten asks the prime minister about same-sex marriage. Will he allow a conscience vote?

Abbott makes the point that the Labor party has a somewhat tortured position on this issue, which is true. (Labor’s position is conscience vote for two terms and then a binding vote.)

Tony Abbott:

Members’ opposite consciences appear to have a use-by date on them.

With that small indulgence off his chest, then to the big issue of the afternoon.

Mr Speaker, I was clear before the election about our position on the matter of same-sex marriage. I said if it came up, if it came up in the next parliament, it would be dealt with by the Coalition party room in the usual way.

That’s what I said before the election and that is exactly what will happen.

(Some game of chicken we’ve got coming up in this joint party room.)

Updated

Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen to treasurer Joe Hockey.

Q: Why does the prime minister consider a 15% GST a very constructive idea and a very strong and constructive proposal when it would hit the average household budget by over $2,900?

Joe Hockey is talking about high company tax, global money, global retail, global global global. Not sure the GST gets a single mention.

When you get into government, you know you have to have have sensible discussions about the future of the tax system, otherwise if you don’t Australia will lose jobs, Australia will lose business opportunities and companies and individuals will move. They will move over time.

For example 10% of Australian workers pay almost half of all personal income tax. Twelve companies in Australia pay over 30% of all company tax. Sooner or later it is going to be unsustainable for the Australian economy and we are going to do the right thing on tax.

So if we pause for just a moment to decode the treasurer, his philosophical argument is clear. Companies pay too much tax. High wealth individuals pay too much tax. We need to spread the tax burden away from corporations and high wealth individuals to ordinary consumers by increasing a regressive tax. Can you reach any other conclusion from that answer? Amazing how well Hockey does Labor’s political work for them.

Updated

The treasurer has just finished an answer a long answer about the evils of Labor’s carbon tax. Labor leader Bill Shorten wants to know, given that, does the prime minister intend to increase the GST?

Tony Abbott
Prime Minister Tony Abbott during question time in the House of Representatives on Tuesday. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Tony Abbott:

The government hasn’t put this subject on the table.

I am not going to rule out a sensible discussion of a better tax system in this country. I am not going to rule out a sensible discussion of a better tax system in this country and frankly, if members opposite had a skerrick of real commitment to a better Australia, they wouldn’t rule it out either. I say to members opposite, let’s have a proper debate just for once. Let’s have a debate and not just a complaint.

(Unless you want to talk about super concessions or negative gearing, presumably. Then complaint is fine.)

Updated

Liberal MP John Alexander pulls a Matrix trick. He manages to tweet a picture of himself inside the chamber from a television outside the chamber. I wonder if there could be a new standing order attached to 94A – ejected for crawling.

The name’s Smith. Speaker Smith.

New speaker Tony Smith in the chair for his first question time in the house of representatives this afternoon, Tuesday 11th August 2015.
The new Speaker, Tony Smith, in the chair for his first question time in the house of representatives on Tuesday afternoon. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Updated

Labor’s Tim Watts attempts to ask the prime minister why he has previously described climate change as absolute crap.

Speaker Smith would like Watts to rephrase given the description is indelicate.

Watts obliges.

Q: Why has the prime minister previously described climate change as “absolutely not real”.

Tony Abbott:

Look, Mr Speaker, there was a colourful phrase that was used by me some years ago but the quotation attributed to me by the member who asked the question is not accurate.

Labor’s deputy leader, Tanya Plibersek, to Abbott.

Q: My question is to the prime minister. Is human activity the main cause of climate change?

Tony Abbott:

Climate change is important, humanity makes a very significant contribution and that’s why governments need to adopt strong and effective policies to deal with it.

Question time

There is modelling, and it will shortly be released.

This is the prime minister, Tony Abbott in response to a question from Labor calling on him to release the modelling underpinning the climate targets decision.

Abbott, continuing:

Let’s be honest and up front with the people of Australia, if there is going to be significant emissions reduction, there will be a cost. There is no entirely cost-free way of significantly reducing our emissions.

(A smarty pants would say ‘could have fooled me Tony during your ridiculous campaign against the carbon “tax” where you attempted to suggest to voters there was a magical cost-free solution to dealing with the challenges of climate change’ but I’m too busy to be a smarty pants this afternoon.)

Greens deputy leader Adam Bandt suggests this is a weak and dangerous target from a weak and dangerous government.

The prime minister begs to differ.

This is a sensible target, Abbott says.

We are not going to clobber the economy to protect the environment.

To the chamber now.

Speaker Smith is making his debut in the big chair.

Labor is attempting to road test the new Speaker’s limits.

Smith thus far is no fan of the cacophony.

The last hour and a half, main points

Question time is underway but let’s take stock quickly because that was a break-neck hour and a half.

  • The Abbott government has confirmed it will take a target to Paris which would see emissions reductions of 26 to 28% on 2005 levels post 2020.
  • The government says this commitment puts Australia in the middle of the global pack. That’s not right of course.
  • Tony Abbott says he’s happy to go to Paris if it is a leaders meeting. If its not a meeting of leaders then the foreign minister, Julie Bishop will go.
  • The government has also indicated it might reverse its longstanding opposition to using international permits down the track, if that proves necessary, to meet our international commitments.
  • There will also be a special meeting of the joint Coalition party room this afternoon to settle the issue of same sex marriage.
  • The joint meeting boosts the no vote.
  • The special party meeting of all colleagues is a clear attempt by the prime minister to avoid a vote on legalising same sex marriage, which has always been Abbott’s long term game plan.

Onwards.

Upwards.

Updated

Say cheese.

Not goats cheese.

Obviously.

In case it’s not clear, putting this issue to the joint parties increases the no vote. It means a conscience vote on same sex marriage is less likely to proceed.

I’ve been saying for some time when people tell me that legalising gay marriage is inevitable – it is inevitable when there are 76 positive votes in the House.

Not before.

Questions have moved on to the special party room now.

Abbott says same sex marriage will go to the full party room this afternoon, not just to the Liberal party room.

The prime minister says he telegraphed this before the last election.

Tony Abbott:

I reviewed my pre-election statements and what I said pre-election was that, if this matter, if this matter, same-sex marriage, were to come up in the next parliament, it will be dealt with by the Coalition party room in the usual way.

Now, given that the Coalition party room didn’t have time this morning to deal with it, given that the people who did briefly touch on this matter in the party room today were very much of the mind that it should be dealt with as swiftly as possible, I’ve decided that the Coalition party room will effectively reconvene at 3:15 this afternoon specifically to discuss this subject.

Apart from other parliamentary business, people will be able to focus entirely on the issue of same-sex marriage when the party room resumes this afternoon.

Leaving science to scientists and numbers to ... numbers people

Sorry for the bedlam – a bit unavoidable I’m afraid.

Abbott has been asked whether he will attend the Paris talks. He says he will if the meeting turns out to be a leaders meeting, at the moment he’s not sure whether or not it is a leader’s meeting.

Q: Is your government committed to keeping climate change temperature rise under the 2 degrees? So, for instance, you go to Paris, the 26 to 28% doesn’t quite make it, will you look at further reductions in order to achieve Australia’s share of that burden?

Tony Abbott:

My view is that I will leave the science to the scientists. I will leave the statistics to the statisticians.

What I will ensure is that Australia’s actions are responsible, environmentally responsible and economically responsible.

Special party room meeting to debate same sex marriage

Excuse me elbowing out Murph.

Here’s the breaking news on same sex marriage. The Coalition has called a special joint party room meeting for 3.15pm today to debate its position on same-sex marriage, after a fresh push from advocates for a free vote.

North Queensland-based MP Warren Entsch, who is spearheading the push, raised the issue at the regular Liberal party room meeting on Tuesday morning.

It is understood the prime minister, Tony Abbott, suggested it should be a matter for Liberal and National parliamentarians to decide together at a joint meeting of the Coalition parties.

The leader of the house, Christopher Pyne, argued the Liberal party should make its own decision on its disposition towards a free vote. The ABC reported Pyne had likened the inclusion of the Nationals as akin to “branch stacking”.

The regular joint parties meeting did not make a decision this morning but a special one has now been convened for after question time today.

Entsch said in a statement that he and Labor MP Terri Butler had now submitted the notice of intention to present a bill with the table office:

Warren Entsch:

I have also put a request to the Chief Government Whip asking for the opportunity for the Bill to be introduced in the Main Chamber, due to the significance of the legislation. It is now up to the Selection Committee to determine when the Bill is brought on and the co‐ sponsors will await this decision. The issue of a free vote was raised in the Liberal Party Room today, however it was determined that more time was needed for discussion and this has been deferred to a special Joint Party Room Meeting later today. The content of the Bill will not be discussed until it is tabled in Parliament, which is the appropriate place for debate.

Government leaves open the option of using international permits

There’s some breaking news on same sex marriage but I need to power on here for now.

Abbott is asked about the costs of the government’s emissions reduction fund – a mechanism which many experts believe is an extraordinarily expensive way to produce abatement.

Abbott:

We are estimating that the ongoing costs of the Emissions Reduction Fund will be in the order of $200m a year.

The prime minister characterised that cost as manageable.

Lenore Taylor asks about international permits. Given the use of international permits would significantly reduce the economic costs of reducing emissions, why not use them?

Foreign minister Bishop says the government believes it can meet its target without resort to permits, but the government will leave the option of permits on the table in the event that projection is incorrect.

Q: If you think international permits would halve the economic cost, why not allow them?

Greg Hunt:

We have, as Julie Bishop has said, reserved that position.

We have left it on the table and this process will go forward over many years. We’re able toachieve these reductions as they stand without doing that.

We have left that as an element to be determined at a future time.

Climate change is real and important and significant.

Cost of living and the cost of electricity are real and important and significant for families.

Greg Hunt, environment minister, is taking his turn.

So there is a right way and a wrong way to address climate change. The right way is through incentives which improve our ability as a country to perform both economically and to take care of those who are most socially in need.

The wrong way is a massive electricity tax.

(Just bear in mind when you hear statements like this there are no cost free options to reduce emissions. The only question is who pays.)

Hunt is embarking on a power point presentation.

The foreign minister Julie Bishop says 26 to 28% is an ambitious target. Bishop says Australia will halve emissions per person over the next fifteen years.

That is more than any other major economy or any other comparable country.

Prime minister confirms Australia's post-2020 target – 26% cut definite, could go to 28%

The prime minister is addressing reporters in the Blue Room of parliament house about the emissions reduction targets we will take to Paris at the end of the year. Abbott says the government wants to be environmentally responsible but the environment can’t trump the economy.

Environment minister Greg Hunt, Prime minister Tony Abbott and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop at a press conference in the blue room of Parliament House, Canberra this morning, Tuesday 11th August 2015.
Environment minister Greg Hunt, Prime minister Tony Abbott and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop at a press conference in the blue room of Parliament House, Canberra this morning, Tuesday 11th August 2015. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Tony Abbott:

There is a definite commitment to 26% but we believe under the policies that we have got, with the circumstances that we think will apply, that we can go to 28%. It’s a good, solid economically responsible, environmentally responsible target.

Updated

Look, go and ask George.

Education minister Christopher Pyne in the press gallery of Parliament House, Canberra this morning, Tuesday 11th August 2015.
Education minister Christopher Pyne in the press gallery of Parliament House, Canberra this morning, Tuesday 11th August 2015. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Busy morning for Christopher Pyne.

One more from Daniel on the party room.

Across to the ABC, drilling down into the same sex marriage debate. We know the prime minister is trying to delay and obstruct consideration of same sex marriage. According to the ABC’s report, Abbott said this morning the issue needed to be considered by both party rooms – the Liberal and the National party rooms.

The ABC has been told Mr Abbott’s statement that the whole Coalition party room, not just Liberals, should decide on the issue was met with audible gasps from gay marriage supporters who felt blind-sided. It is understood Mr Pyne described this as branch-stacking and said the issue should be decided by the Liberal party room. The decision being made by the joint party room would likely make it harder for a free vote to be granted, given so few Nationals support gay marriage.

Perhaps that’s why Pyne suggested we ask Brandis how the meeting went. (Branch stacking? Ouch.)

  • Daniel Hurst tells me the official briefing indicated the prime minister had raised same sex marriage at the joint Coalition party room meeting this morning as a courtesy.
  • Abbott told the joint meeting the issue had been raised during the Liberal party meeting earlier on that morning – but the issue should be discussed on a day when there was a less crowded agenda.
  • A Coalition member who supports the status quo on marriage told the meeting it would be good to have the debate sooner rather than later.

Meanwhile, back with George.

The prime minister will address reporters at 1pm on the climate targets.

My colleague Daniel Hurst has meanwhile followed Pyne’s advice and popped down to the Coalition party room briefing with Brandis.

And the Labor MP Tim Watts is telling me Pyne has a passion for local raw milk cheeses. He’s tended this transcript as evidence.

Christopher Pyne:

It gives me great pleasure to announce today that the Australian government has lifted the ban on Roquefort cheese. We have an exhibit of the Roquefort cheese.

Pyne met a small posse of reporters outside the Sky studio. He remained refused to say whether he had supported a conscience vote in this morning’s party room discussion about same sex marriage.

Christopher Pyne:

You get to ask me the questions and I get to answer them in the way I want to answer them and my answer is for these sorts of issues you need to wait for the briefing from George Brandis.

Pyne was asked whether or not the prime minister is trying to obstruct debate.

The prime minister is making sure we have a respectful and sensible debate about all issues of interest to the Australian public including marriage equality.

Pyne has just invoked goats cheese. Labor is more interested in the goats cheese set of the voting public than the non-goats cheese set of the voting public.

I could be quite wrong, but I’d put $20 on Christopher Pyne being a secret goats cheese fan. Bit of quince paste. Some crackers. Mouth magic.

Must have been lively, that party room briefing. Manager of government business Christopher Pyne is on Sky News declining to discuss this morning’s party room discussion.

My colleague Lenore Taylor has updated her climate story. She’s been chasing modelling underpinning the government’s decision on the post 2020 targets.

Consider these three points.

  1. Modelling for the government by leading economist Warwick McKibbin is understood to have found the Abbott government’s target – to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas pollution by between 26% and 28% below 2005 levels by 2030 – would reduce gross domestic product by around 0.2% or 0.3% in 2030 if the government dropped its ban on allowing businesses to buy international carbon permits.
  2. If the government sticks to the current ban on international permits the 2030 GDP cost would double – to between 0.4% and 0.6%.
  3. The analysis also modelled a more ambitious target of a 35% emission cut by 2030 and found it would increase economic costs only slightly.

Let’s decode those three points.

  • The economic costs of future emissions reductions will be twice what they would otherwise be because the Abbott government has thus far ignored the calls of business and others to allow the use of international permits.
  • And the government’s own modelling indicates Australia could go much harder than 26 to 28% reductions without significant economic costs. It could go to 35% with only a slight increase in economic cost.

(Clap along, if you feel like a room without a roof. Because I’m haaappppy.)

I’m sure the artist formerly known as Madam Speaker will be happy to provide guidance.

Former speaker Bronwyn Bishop during condolence motions for the late Don Randall in the house of representatives in parliament house. Monday 10th August 2015.
Former speaker Bronwyn Bishop during condolence motions for the late Don Randall in the house of representatives in parliament house. Monday 10th August 2015. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

The chambers are now in session. The new House of Representatives Speaker Tony Smith is in his new chair. I imagine there would have been considerable study of the standing orders in the Smith Canberra digs last night.

Question time underway at 2pm.

Politics this (almost) lunchtime

I know this is eccentric but I’m going to post our lunchtime summary early on the basis that once the party room finishes and the climate announcement thunders out my feet aren’t going to touch earth for about five hours.

So politics, this Tuesday morning:

  • The Abbott government is set to announce emissions reduction targets for the post 2020 world which would see a cuts of between 26 and 28% on 2005 levels by 2030.
  • This commitment on the face of it would put Australia’s effort below that of comparable industrialised nations – but I’m withholding judgment until the package emerges in its entirety.
  • The Liberal party room also debated same sex marriage briefly. The cross party bill to legalise gay marriage is bound for submission this afternoon and consideration next week, selection committee willing. The question is will the prime minister stay in the road or will he be moved out of the road?

More. To. Come.

Cross party same sex marriage bill bound for submission today

Back to the Labor caucus. Labor backbencher Terri Butler, who is co-sponsoring the same-sex marriage bill with Liberal MP Warren Entsch, has stood up in the Labor caucus meeting this morning saying she intends for the bill to be submitted today. It is then up to the Coalition-dominated selection committee to decide when the bill is introduced. It is possible that the bill could be presented as early as Monday, the next time that private members business can be debated.

#StopTheLeak(S)

Quite a bit of touchiness around the building today. Phil Coorey from The Australian Financial Review has filed a quick news update on the brief same sex marriage debate in the Liberal party room this morning, with a marvellous concluding paragraph.

News of the push leaked while the party room meeting was underway.

This caused angry scenes inside the party room as to who was leaking, according to further leaks.

Politics tragics who hang out on social media far more often than they should will know that Fairfax photographer Alex Ellinghausen snapped a picture at the Canberra Airport on Sunday night of the attorney-general George Brandis in a stylish looking jumper.

Unfortunately the jumper was offset by some sub-optimal footwear. Trainers and jeans should not be seen. It is a trap for 50-something men, a recurring fashion atrocity. Do a quick survey in any shopping mall in the country – you will see plenty a jean teamed with plenty a sand shoe.

Alex’s picture has become what my daughter would describe as “internet famous.” Here is a sample of the homages over the last day or so. Quite marvellous.

The Australian’s David Crowe has rejected my characterisation of The Australian’s climate targets story as an “officialish looking drop.” I referenced the story first up on Politics Live this morning.

David would prefer that I characterised the story as a report for the reasons he outlines below.

I have told David that a “drop” doesn’t in my mind automatically suggest that prime minister’s office reverses the dump truck into The Australian’s bureau. I wouldn’t actually speculate on another reporter’s sources unless that was unavoidable for some reason.

But given I like and very much respect David and his work, and certainly did not mean to imply any idleness on his part – I’m looping in Politics Live readers so you can see our conversation. Out of respect for him, I shall refer to the story henceforth as a report.

Meanwhile, on the twits.

Tony Abbott’s sister, Christine Forster, on this morning’s same sex marriage gee-up by Liberal Warren Entsch.

Meanwhile, down the front.

The Australian Youth Climate Coalition AYCC protest out the front of Parliament House, Canberra this morning, Tuesday 11th August 2015.
The Australian Youth Climate Coalition AYCC protest out the front of Parliament House, Canberra this morning, Tuesday 11th August 2015. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Back to the Coalition party room. We are chasing the extent and temper of the same sex marriage debate in the Liberal party meeting, but it looks like the substantive issue of ‘to conscience vote or not to conscience vote’ won’t be resolved this week.

Going into the morning’s discussion about climate, Western Australian backbencher Dennis Jensen is unhappy that information has been telegraphed out of cabinet before going to the party for “proper” debate. I mentioned first up this morning that some backbenchers would be spoiling for a biff on the climate targets, no matter how modest they may be.

Jensen is one government MP who disputes the climate science – at least he doesn’t buy in to the evidence that humans are contributing to the warming of the planet. He’s also niggly about the process. He’s told reporters at the doors this morning that the prime minister promised a party room debate, but this looks more like a rubber stamping episode. Bringing a pre-determined decision to the party room does not constitute a proper party room discussion.

Quick welfare update. A Senate committee looking at the impacts of welfare measures like stopping young people from accessing the dole for four weeks, will report its findings later today, ahead of the bill being debated tomorrow. The social services minister, Scott Morrison, has told Macquarie radio tis morning that the bill’s fate is still unclear.

I’m still not confident we will see this bill passed this week.

Social Services minister Scott Morrison in the press gallery of Parliament House Canberra this morning, Tuesday 11th August 2015.
Social Services minister Scott Morrison in the press gallery of Parliament House Canberra this morning, Tuesday 11th August 2015. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

But the National Welfare Rights Network has written to Senate crossbenchers, urging them to vote against the bill. “We are deeply concerned about the impact that these proposals will have on young people under 25 who are trying to find their footing in today’s tight labour market,” the letter said.

Updated

Sky News political reporter David Lipson.

Sky News has a breaking news alert that Liberal MP Warren Entsch has raised same sex marriage in the Liberal party room meeting this morning. The government has to decide whether or not to allow a conscience vote. I’ll keep you posted as we learn any particulars.

Updated

Opposition leader Bill Shorten during a Labor caucus meeting in Parliament House, Canberra this morning, Tuesday 11th August 2015.
Opposition leader Bill Shorten during a Labor caucus meeting in Parliament House, Canberra this morning, Tuesday 11th August 2015. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Shorten tracks the caucus plane back to the ALP conference a few weeks back. This conversation should really come with a trigger warning for those of us who covered the three day event – particularly the final mad Sunday.

Shorten said the ALP conference allowed robust debate. There were goals: 50% renewable energy and 50% women in the parliament. Now everyone knows what Labor stands for, he contends.

A smart, modern and fair Australia.

National conference endorsed Labor’s values again of jobs, education, health and fairness and advance Australia.

(Job done? Don’t think so, Bill.)

Manager of opposition business Tony Burke during a Labor caucus meeting in Parliament House, Canberra this morning, Tuesday 11th August 2015.
Manager of opposition business Tony Burke during a Labor caucus meeting in Parliament House, Canberra this morning, Tuesday 11th August 2015. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Updated

The Labor leader Bill Shorten has invited fifty or so of his closest friends with cameras to this morning’s ALP caucus meeting.

Opposition leader bill shorten arrives for a Labor caucus meeting in Parliament House, Canberra this morning, Tuesday 11th August 2015.
Opposition leader bill shorten arrives for a Labor caucus meeting in Parliament House, Canberra this morning, Tuesday 11th August 2015. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

What have the last six months delivered us? (This would be the six months since the leadership spill in February.)

Shorten says there’s no plan for Australia to transition out of the mining boom. There’s still cuts to pensions, family payments, hospitals and schools. Unemployment is up. There’s an anti-scientific crusade against renewable energy. There’s an attack on penalty rates.

Zing-ERRRR.

If this is what good government looks like, what on earth does bad government look like?

Updated

Useful chart to visualise the putative emissions reduction target and base years via our data guru Nick Evershed and Climate Institute data.

While still in the commentary space, I’ll loop in this analysis from Peter Hartcher of the Sydney Morning Herald this morning about the climate debate in the run-up to the election.

If you want to understand the frenetic claim and counter-claim you’re going to hear on this subject, you’ll find this simple, two-point guide indispensable.

The political rubric is:

1. If the argument is decided mainly on climate or environment considerations, Labor wins.

2. If it’s decided mainly on electricity prices, the Coalition wins.

So Labor will be telling us that we have to deal with dangerous climate change; it will promote its ambition to increase Australia’s renewable energy share to 50% over the next 15 years. And the government will be telling us that it is dealing responsibly with climate change, while Labor’s plan would be a giant wrecking ball shattering the economy.

The winner is not the one who can provide the best answer. It’s the one who can set the question. If the election is a referendum on the environment, Labor wins. If it’s a referendum on electricity prices, the government wins.

I have mentioned the prime minister is looking a bit flat.

Dennis Shanahan in The Australian this morning notes “some Liberal MPs are again gossiping about Abbott’s leadership and reminding themselves that they gave their leader until about now to get things back on an even keel” – but – “there are many others fearful this time around of creating more damaging leadership destabilisation.” Shanahan’s thesis in his piece is things are challenging for Tony Abbott and the government six months on from the leadership spill in February, but it’s too late to do anything much about it given the proximity of the by-election in Canning and the election after that.

Andrew Bolt meanwhile has a list on his blog. At least I think this is a list, and a list that aspires to be helpful given it includes the bullet point – don’t panic.

My guess is that the Abbott team may have no more than a month to make changes without seeming completely desperate and just trading concessions for survival. The urgency with which it changed around the time of the February scare vanished, and must be resumed.

Get more and better advice.

What’s the story?

Jobs, jobs, jobs.

Optimism.

What happened to those new faces that were being touted?

Stop talking about raising taxes.

Fewer useless fights. More full-hearted good ones.

The moral dimension of voting Liberal, and don’t tell me it’s dividing us by race. In fact, tell us the opposite.

Position Abbott more among his kind of people in the media strategy.

Loyalty to team, not individual.

Tony Nutt’s long-mooted shift to Canberra from the NSW party is becoming a totemic issue for Abbott’s critics. Why hand them this stick?

Look happy.

Don’t panic.

Labor would be a disaster.

Don’t keep selling the Government as having axed the carbon tax and stopped the boats. That was yesterday. Voters always ask: what will you do for us tomorrow?

National security is what governments are expected to do. Yes, make the changes we need and highlight differences with Labor. But amping up the rhetoric risks looking like you’re short of other ideas, and makes you seem less reassuring than you need to be in this space.

Updated

Can’t beat snowy roos.

Speaking of Lenore Taylor, she’s filed a news lead on the climate targets, with some initial reaction.

Conservationists and climate campaigners said the pledge, to be taken to the United Nations meeting in Paris in December, would be “pathetically inadequate”.

Business groups had been pushing for a promise closer to 30% below 2005 levels and have also been pleading with the Coalition to drop its opposition to buying emissions permits offshore, which would dramatically lower the cost of meeting the promise.

Modelling for the government by leading economist professor Warwick McKibbin is understood to have found the target would shave between 0.02% and 0.04% from GDP in 2030 if international permits were allowed, but at least twice that if they were not.

(The government is opposed to the use of international permits.)

It being Tuesday, the Coalition party room and the Labor caucus will meet shortly.

The shadow environment minister Mark Butler has moved on to the Sky News studio. Butler was asked whether or not Labor will lend bipartisan support to the post 2020 target if it’s weak. Butler isn’t committing one way or another until we all see the details. Wise to wait for the details before pontificating. I’m trying to follow a similar strategy.

Speaking of details, enjoy this piece from my colleague Lenore Taylor about some of the absurdities that get uttered in the carbon debate. Scary numbers, that mean very little.

Speaking of Mr Bowers, he’s been wandering about this morning to capture the traffic through the corridor.

Senate independent Jacqui Lambie revealed yesterday that her 21-year-old son is addicted to the drug ice.

Tasmanian independent senator Jacqui Lambie in the press gallery of Parliament House in Canberra this morning, Tuesday 11th 2015
Tasmanian independent senator Jacqui Lambie in the press gallery of Parliament House in Canberra this morning, Tuesday 11th 2015 Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Lambie raised the case of her son in a debate about welfare changes that would remove payments for people in psychiatric institutions who have been charged with a serious offence such as rape, manslaughter or murder.

Tasmanian independent senator Jacqui Lambie in the press gallery of Parliament House in Canberra this morning, Tuesday 11th 2015
Tasmanian independent senator Jacqui Lambie in the press gallery of Parliament House in Canberra this morning, Tuesday 11th 2015 Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

It’s a gutsy thing to do, and Lambie has been in high demand to talk about an experience that, sadly, too many Australian families can relate to.

Tasmanian independent senator Jacqui Lambie in the press gallery of Parliament House in Canberra this morning, Tuesday 11th 2015
Tasmanian independent senator Jacqui Lambie in the press gallery of Parliament House in Canberra this morning, Tuesday 11th 2015 Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Lovely sequence from Mike.

Meet a couple of new bricks

Politics Live regulars could have predicted that political events yesterday would have prompted Mikearoo to update our #BrickParliament.

Be assured, Mr Bowers worked throughout the night to ensure we were ready for whatever parliamentary Tuesday intended to deliver. Drum roll please. We are delighted to introduce #SpeakerSmith, who will face his first question time later today.

New #SpeakerSmith In the Brick chamber of #BrickParliament today Tuesday 11th August 2015.
New #SpeakerSmith In the Brick chamber of #BrickParliament today Tuesday 11th August 2015. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

We are also delighted to welcome our good friends from #BrickFeed.

In honour of BuzzFeed setting up shop in the parliamentary press gallery, we note here, Mark Di Stefano, hard at work in the gallery with a couple of Guardian Australia rogues, #BrickDaniel and #BrickMurpharoo.

We are the ones not wearing a beret.

Mark Di Stefano from #BrickFeed works on 11 reasons why the election of a new speaker is more fun than a golden gay time in the #BrickChamber of #BrickParliament today Tuesday 11th August 2015.
Mark Di Stefano from #BrickFeed works on 11 reasons why the election of a new speaker is more fun than a golden gay time in the #BrickChamber of #BrickParliament today Tuesday 11th August 2015. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Welcome, new bricks.

We salute you.

Both the ABC and Sky News are now reporting the target will have a range from 26% to 28% – rather like the US construction.

Anyone would think there was a tug of war going on in the spin stakes between folks in the government who would have preferred 30% and folks inside the government who would like it if they never had to utter the words climate change.

Pure speculation on my part.

Good morning

Hello everyone and welcome to Canberra. Given how deflated the prime minister looked yesterday I hope he’s had a seaweed smoothie and a Monte Carlo biscuit in preparation for the parliamentary day ahead, which threatens to be largish. We expect the government to unveil its post 2020 emissions reductions targets for the UN-led climate talks in Paris later this year.

An officialish looking drop in The Australian this morning reports that Abbott “is set to defy US president Barack Obama and other world leaders by releasing a post-2020 target that is lower than that of most advanced economies, on the grounds that Australia must bear the burden of stronger population growth.” (Stop scratching your head, we need to move on.) “In one scenario gaining support last night, ministers considered a 26% reduction on today’s carbon emissions by 2030.”

The paper asserts a more ambitious proposal of 30% being sought by environment minister Greg Hunt and foreign minister Julie Bishop was walked back by the prime minister. (See Andrew (Bolt), I’m holding back those warmists! See!)

Moving forward.

So how does that target compare?

  • The US has said it will reduce greenhouse emissions by 26% to 28% below 2005 levels in 2025 and aim for an 80% reduction by 2050.
  • China has promised a lowering of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 60% to 65% from the 2005 level, with emissions peaking by 2030.
  • The European Union says it will reduce emissions by 40% by 2030 relative to 1990 levels.
  • Canada and New Zealand will reduce emissions by 30% on 2005 levels.

As well as being a more modest contribution than many of our trading partners, 26% is well below the Climate Change Authority’s advice that Australia adopt a 30% cut by 2025 and a 40%-60% cut by 2030.

Shadow environment minister Mark Butler has told the ABC this morning would put Australia at the back of the pack and we start from a very high polluting point. Butler says this target does not look consistent with the public policy objective to keep warming a 2 degrees.

But ahead of today’s Coalition partyroom discussion, government MPs were forecasting a lively conversation about the post-2020 targets, however comparatively modest.

Many government MPs question the science of global warming.

Let’s power on. The Politics Live comments thread is wide open and waiting for your business, and give Mikearoo and I a shout on the twits if that’s your thing: I’m @murpharoo, he’s @mpbowers

Here comes Tuesday.

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
What Happened To Kelly Osbourne? BRIT Awards Appearance Sparks Frenzy As She Slams 'Ozempic Face' Speculation
Kelly Osbourne confronts body-shaming comments following her appearance at the 2026 BRIT Awards, addressing speculation about her weight loss and health.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
SNL Was Forced To Change A Sketch At The Last Minute And Complained About It On The Air
Fear. Rage. Chaos.
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
Woman sees her favorite singer started following her on Instagram and jumps with excitement. Then she opened their account: ‘This is humiliating’
TikTok creator Paloma (@whor3chata_) is sparking a massive wave of sympathy (and second-hand embarrassment) on TikTok with her recent grwm story. The creator shared the “before and after” of being followed by one of her favorite singers on Instagram. Sadly, the “after” is humiliating.
The Mary Sue
The Mary Sue
Harry Styles, fake stage invaders and a censored Peter Mandelson joke: the biggest moments at the Brit awards
The ITV censors had their work cut out in a protest-filled, relatively edgy ceremony that hosted ultra-expressive performances from Rosalía, Wolf Alice and more
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Meet the Gen Z college students who turned Excel into a competitive esport—they’re competing in spreadsheet challenges and it’s helping them land jobs
Microsoft-backed spreadsheet competitions are turning Gen Z college students into job-market standouts.
Fortune
Fortune
As Jennifer Lopez’s Kids Turn 18, An Insider Drops Claims About Their ‘Atypical’ Childhood
The kids are alright.
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play