Sussan Ley may pay the price for the implosion of the Coalition, but the blame rests squarely with Nationals leader David Littleproud. He’s the one whose leadership should be on the line.

When you stand back from it, the behaviour of the Nationals has been extraordinary and, many would argue, reprehensible.

What was the issue the Nationals chose to make their stand on? It was the provision in the government’s legislation that will enable the banning of hate-spruiking groups, notably the Islamist extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, and neo-Nazi groups.

The Nationals said this was too broad, and endangered free speech. However important the principle of free speech is, dealing with these purveyors of hate outweighs it in this instance. Also, the measure as passed is surrounded by reasonable guardrails.

The Nationals’ claims they want radical Islamists dealt with are hollow when they oppose this measure – which is also attacked, it should be noted, by some on the progressive side of politics, in the name of free speech. The antisemitism issue has produced a convergence of sections of the right and the left, aligned against the pragmatic centre.

In the run up to the Coalition crisis, a Sunday night meeting of shadow cabinet, which included Littleproud, decided to seek changes to the hate crime legislation; on Monday the opposition obtained concessions from the government.

Ley says that was the proper end of the process, clearing the way for the opposition to support the bill, and therefore the Nationals frontbench senators who voted against it had broken shadow cabinet solidarity.

Littleproud argues there should have been further processes. He claims it was “persecution” to insist on the resignation of the three frontbenchers who voted against the bill, who were following the orders of their party room.

Regardless of the argument over process, Ley ended up with no choice but to discipline the three senators. Liberals (some with reservations) who had stayed in line with the decision to vote for the bill would have been appalled if their leader had then turned a blind eye to the Nationals’ action. That is especially the case given many of the Liberals are enduring blowback on social media for their stand.

Occupying the same kennel requires give and take. Liberals point out that some of their frontbenchers would have preferred to vote for the government’s gun reform bill. But they accommodated the Nationals, and their own rural members, by opposing it. There was no quid pro quo from the Nationals.

If Littleproud had wanted, he could have found a middle course over the hate-crime legislation, potentially avoiding a crisis: he could have had the Nationals abstain on the vote. That may perhaps have allowed a skate-through for both leaders. But Litteproud and his party chose to be as provocative as possible.

The Nationals showed poor judgement in deciding to oppose the legislation. Their subsequent breaking of the Coalition is a massive blow for an already enfeebled opposition. Moreover, Littleproud’s announcement on the day of national mourning over the Bondi massacre was completely tone deaf. Sources said Ley had counseled him all media should be paused for 24 hours, advice he did not take.

The Nationals are self-indulgent. They have become more overbearing in recent times, preempting the Liberals on the Voice and insisting they agree to demands after the election. Littleproud likes to point out the Liberals can’t reach government without them (which is true).

His lack of respect for Ley goes back a long way. In Thursday’s comments, he painted Ley as the villain in the crisis and declared, “Sussan Ley has put protecting her own leadership ahead of maintaining the Coalition”. He made it all as personal as possible, and essentially told the Liberals to get a new leader. “There is no [Nationals] shadow minister that wants to be ultimately serving in Sussan Ley’s shadow ministry,” he said.

But the Nationals are not just self-indulgent – they are deeply frightened. They’re spooked by the One Nation vote surge and the defection of Barnaby Joyce. The Newspoll published at the weekend had One Nation on 22%, with the Coalition 21%.

Given Joyce couldn’t lead the Nationals again, he is trying to make One Nation the replacement for his old party in regional Australia. He responded to the Littleproud announcement by saying:

David just hasn’t thought this through. It is going to be a cartwheel cluster. […] Maybe they’re on a recruitment drive for One Nation. Of course, it’s going to help us.

The Liberals are furious with Littleproud, and scathing in their personal descriptions of him. But that doesn’t mean they will stick by their leader, reluctant as some might be to appear to reward the Nationals, whose departure has left the official opposition with just 28 in the House of Representatives and forced Ley into yet another reshuffle.

Even before this crisis it was generally accepted Ley would not survive for long. This has made the prospect of her demise as leader even more likely, although the timing is uncertain. That could be influenced by the opinion polls to come.

But where do the Liberals turn? The alternatives, Andrew Hastie and Angus Taylor (who has been overseas and missed the crisis), are both deeply flawed as potential leaders. Taylor, though a conservative and a poor performer as shadow treasurer last term, may have more appeal to moderates who fear some of Hastie’s hard right views. But Hastie could appeal to the younger Liberals, looking for generational change.

To replace Ley, the Liberals first need to agree on a contender. If both Hastie and Taylor ran, and Ley (who doesn’t lack guts) contested too, she might come through the middle. That would just prolong the agony.

While timelines are totally unclear, this week’s events will trigger numbers-counting by supporters of the aspirants.

With little fix on what will or should happen now, or when the next eruption might come, many shell-shocked Liberals are comforting themselves by unloading their feelings about Littleproud and his band of bomb throwers.