The politics of the (presumed) failure of the Voice referendum

I feel a little sorry for Anthony Albanese, actually.   I mean, there must have at least been a chance that the Coalition would support a Yes vote, and as such, you would expect low blowback on the PM if it failed.   

Also, it is very unlucky to have timed it accidentally with apocalyptic events in the Middle East that  really make having to vote on a matter that could end in mere symbolism (it is, after all, to set up a body that the government can ignore - or if annoyed enough, reduce to a one person office in Birdsville) look like small change that is hard to get excited about, in the scheme of things.  

And, as I have been complaining, the hyperbole about the importance of a Yes outcome has only had the opposite effect from that intended - making many more cynical of the whole exercise, especially when there has been a significant number of indigenous voices on the No side.   (Not just Mundine and Price, either.)   

So, what do I think will happen if the vote is indeed No, as seems inevitable from the polling?

I don't think Albanese will lose that much political skin over it, to be honest.   I think he might be seen as doing something he sincerely thought was the right thing to do, with the "it's our way or the highway" approach by the high profile activists such as Langton and Pearson bearing a high proportion of the blame for its failure.  

His political judgement will be questioned as it does indicate a deaf ear as to how indigenous issues play out in the mind of the wider community, which is arguably more sharply attuned than academia, the non-Murdoch media, and corporate elites, to a lot of the Emperors New Clothes aspects of the last couple of decades of indigenous advocacy .  (My posts here and here on the Dark Emu attempt to re-write history, and here, about things anthropologists used to write about, show what I mean.  Also, as a few of my recent posts have argued, the whole premise of the Yes campaign has been that "listening" hasn't been happening, which is really a nonsense shown up by reading the ABC, or doing your own Googling.)   

But even so, it's not like there is going to be any institutional attacks against him, because they all rushed to say they were completely onside!  See this amazing list of professional bodies that said "Yes" is the way forward.    

And furthermore, with a sort of delicious irony, I don't see Dutton getting any significant boost from Albanese's woes - he is just too naturally dislikeable for that, and it's also such a transparently cynical game to tell the nation they should vote No, and then blame Albanese for "dividing the nation".   It's very close to a bully's "see what you've made me do" line that never works.

But, who knows, I could be wrong. 

 I also wouldn't be surprised if he (Albanese) lets it rest a while, and then reverses and does legislate a Voice organisation without the constitutional change first.   I don't think he'll be punished for that, at least if the amount of money involved is shown to be relatively modest.   It's the same as asking a leader in an election if they will stay in the job all of the next term - everyone knows they will say "yes", and everyone knows it's the type of promise routinely broken.     

We will see...

Update:   Oh my...Lidia Thorpe is now saying that the Voice ought to be legislated even if there is a no vote.  Some strange twists in all of this...