Scott Morrison faces a herculean task over the next seven months, if indeed he gets that long before the next general election. The Prime Minister risks being mugged by the realities of a hung parliament, forcing an early election. But that seems unlikely.
The Coalition is more likely to go full term, facing voters in May, after state elections in Victoria next month and NSW in March.
In the wake of the historic (likely) defeat in the once ultra-safe Sydney seat of Wentworth to independent Kerryn Phelps, Morrison needs to find a way to hold the Liberal Party factions together, appease tensions with reactionary commentators out to damage the government and prevent panic setting in among marginal-seat colleagues in the Coalition.
The toughest task will be balancing policy divisions. As the Longman by-election illustrated, Queenslanders are concerned about a Liberal Party not holding the line on the importance of coal within our energy mix and the need to avoid a climate change agenda pushing power prices north. One Nation preferences will be important in this respect.
Throw in tensions within the LNP, and within the National Party as Barnaby Joyce circles the leadership of Michael McCormack, and all is not well within the conservative Right.
But what works in Queensland is less likely to be successful in states such as Victoria, where a brace of seats is under threat and voters tend to be more moderate.
Then we have Western Australia, appeased with a GST cash splash but raising question marks over the long-term allocation eastern states might receive. The government moved to quash such fears (raised by the Liberal NSW Treasurer, no less) by effectively issuing the states a blank cheque. Fiscal conservatives now fear the Coalition may damage its economic credibility, one of the few markers on which it still dominates the opposition.
The evidence from Newspoll suggests the Coalition may be stumbling towards an electoral catastrophe, with a catch-22 emerging when trying to arrest the decline in support.
Wentworth voters appeared unimpressed by a tough line on asylum-seekers as well as a lack of action on climate change. The results will embolden factional moderates who feel the same, but strong views persist among conservatives that any shift to appease inner-city voters will have a negative impact on the government’s vote in outer-metropolitan marginal seats, as well as regional communities dependent on jobs attached to emissions-producing industries.
We also know divisions within the parliamentary ranks mean discontent won’t stay confined to the back rooms, rather spilling into the public via endless backbench interviews on Sky News.
The first order of business for Morrison must be to prove that a hung parliament is manageable: the exact opposite of what he and others claimed when Julia Gillard won the 2010 election for Labor.
In the messy few weeks ahead of the Wentworth by-election, everyone from Morrison to former Liberal prime minister John Howard warned of the chaos and instability that would follow a defeat in the blue-ribbon electorate.
Such rhetoric was designed to return Liberal voters to the fold. That unsuccessful mission leaves behind statements from these senior Liberals backing Labor’s claim that the government must go to an early election.
Manager of opposition business Tony Burke went straight to this line of attack on Sunday on the ABC program Insiders, despite his own one-time defence of Gillard leading a minority government.
More damaging was Burke’s reference to senior government ministers over-extending and suggesting that “economic instability” was also a likely consequence of defeat in Wentworth. Burke said that on that yardstick, it was nigh impossible to justify clinging to power following Saturday’s result.
The unfortunate paradox for the Coalition is that economic data supports its claims that it is doing a reasonable job managing the budget and the national accounts in trying global conditions.
The unemployment rate has fallen to 5 per cent, the lowest it has been in years. And the budget, despite recent big spending commitments, appears to be working its way back into surplus. The Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, expected in just over a month, will shed some light on this emerging trend.
Morrison won’t go to the polls any earlier than he has to. Seven months isn’t long enough to introduce a new leader to the broader electorate anyway, and the government needs all the time it can get to distance itself from the messy removal of Malcolm Turnbull and the unpopular prospect that Peter Dutton almost became prime minister.
The public is all too aware that under Turnbull, the Coalition trailed Labor by 49 to 51 per cent on the two-party vote for four consecutive Newspolls. That margin widened the moment Turnbull was brought down.
The aggregated Newspoll results published in The Australian today point to a worsening of the Coalition’s position in all states since the change of leadership. This leaves the government fighting a political war on all fronts at the general election, raising questions as to how it will service its campaign needs: in terms of manpower, money and momentum.
It’s on this last point that the loss of Wentworth and the loss of majority government are so damaging. And with disaffection with the government sky high in blue-ribbon seats, fundraising is struggling to compete with a Labor machine backed by groups like GetUp targeting key marginal seats. The financial differential between the major parties may hurt the Liberals in close contests.
The Coalition usually won the tight contests during the Howard era. But that reliable dominance has ended.
Labor’s campaign machine is better resourced and has been seemingly more adroit at modern campaigning in recent years.
Throw in the announcements of marginal-seat MPs choosing not to contest the next election for the Liberal Party (with more to follow) and it’s hard to see how Morrison can prevent Labor pushing towards an outright majority of its own. It is on this front that Labor leader Bill Shorten needs to keep a lid on hubris.
Morrison, despite early stumbles, does show signs of personal popularity, however. At least in comparison with Shorten. Major party contests at general elections are by definition two-horse races, meaning if the Coalition can find a way to stabilise internal tensions it could throw enough shade on the prospect of a Shorten prime ministership to even up the contest.
However, history suggests unpopularity for an opposition leader is no barrier to removing a government that has shown a penchant for internal leadership instability.
Despite his own personal unpopularity, Tony Abbott heavily defeated the Rudd government in 2013 after years of instability by focusing attention on Labor’s failure to unite. Shorten has the strategic capacity to do the same, and that remains Labor’s approach.
Morrison’s marketing background means he should be adroit at navigating the daily news cycle. The week leading up to the Wentworth ballot suggested otherwise. At any rate, substance, not spin, is what disillusioned voters appear to be craving. We need to see more of Morrison the policy prime minister, if indeed there is more to see.
The challenge isn’t just whether he personally has a policy compass capable of winning over the electorate. There are also doubts as to whether the issues that unite moderates and conservatives within the Liberal Party (and indeed the Coalition) are still as significant as what divides them.
Recent debates over same-sex marriage and now religious freedom have put the focus on these schisms. Debate over religious freedom is likely to flare up against once the review by Philip Ruddock is formally released.
While reactionary commentators have firm views on this issue, it’s a classic “inside the beltway” discussion that swinging voters see as a distraction.
Elections are won from the centre, but moderates and conservatives can’t even seem to agree on where the centre actually is in Australian politics, much less what the issues are that matter to swinging voters or how to win them over.
Until the Coalition comes to grips with these challenges, it won’t even be able to mount consistent and credible arguments to re-engage with voters sick and tired of divisions.
While the focus for all government MPs will be on doing as well as possible in the election, some strategists within the broader party organisation are already planning for a potentially devastating aftermath. This includes trying to ensure that a repeat of the debilitating divisions of the 1980s and early 90s don’t follow.
On that occasion Labor governed effectively for 13 years before the conservative side of politics returned to power. Debates back then focused on policy (wets versus dries) as well as personality disputes (Howard versus Andrew Peacock) but today’s divisions and personality disputes are even deeper.
Morrison and Josh Frydenberg have been keen to point out they are part of the next generation of Liberals. However, they continue to carry the baggage of past skirmishes.
This is one more potential transaction cost of changing leaders: burning through the next generation before it is ready to lead.
Peter van Onselen is a professor at The University of Western Australia and Griffith University.
A searing indictment of FBI
Americans deserve a full accounting of the missteps of James Comey and the FBI.
Trump’s good news day
Those repeated claims of no collusion now have credence.