Federal election 2016: PM needs to play to centre-right strengths

The reaction to the election result has been surprising, sparking an inexplicable burst of introspection and despair about the political process. This has been predicated on a presumption the result was a surprise. But it was not unexpected.

Newspoll (and other published opinion polls) had long had both major parties on primary votes not normally sufficient to win an election. The two-party preferred counts had them neck and neck.

Most pundits predicted a narrow Coalition victory because it had a large buffer of seats, the issues suited it and Malcolm Turnbull’s confidence seemingly betrayed good internal polling. As it transpires, most of the predictions were more or less right — with the Coalition likely to be returned with just a seat or two to spare, rather than a handful.

Yet there has been a sense of crisis and looming defeat — partly triggered by the tightness of the count — but fuelled by Turnbull on election night. He compounded the damage by holing up at home.

The Prime Minister should have fronted his election night gathering before 10pm, told the nation it would not get a result that night and that he expected to be returned. Instead, he placed himself under siege and allowed Bill Shorten to frame the result.

First impressions matter and Turnbull’s majority government now will be seen as a reprieve from the gallows. More realistic messaging in the final days and on election night could have created a sense that any win was a triumph for the Coalition given where it had been a year ago.

Turnbull has made mistakes, including missing his chance for a double dissolution earlier in the year and mangling the tax reform debate. Yet he survives and has a chance to consolidate.

For the Prime Minister there is a silver lining — a paradoxical one — that because the margin is so thin, the Senate so ugly, voters so sick of turmoil and politics so febrile, there is no hunger to replace him.

Turnbull is in the unusual position of having both his supporters and his enemies urging him to buckle down.

Those who have faith want him to embrace a fresh start; those who bemoan his leadership figure he made his own bed and therefore should lie in it.

This is an opportunity, daunting though it may be, to reset his leadership. Despite inherent difficulties, it can be done.

Unlike his political career to this point, suddenly the burden of heightened expectations is gone. Whatever he achieves from now will enhance his standing.

No political leader makes a successful long-term contribution without being hardened in the kiln of political disappointment. After losing the leadership in opposition (when I was his chief of staff) this is Turnbull’s second test.

The critical question is whether he learns enough from it. Ominously, his campaigning faults were all too obvious but he obstinately refused to change.

No one needed hindsight to see the weaknesses of the campaign — they were evident before and during the eight-week marathon and were commented upon in this column and elsewhere. Yet the Prime Minister stuck firm.

In this and other respects it has been increasingly apparent that the Turnbull regime is repeating some of the very same errors for which it was hypercritical of Tony Abbott: sticking rigidly to a course, relying on a small and ideologically homogenous circle of advice and speaking to the nation primarily through what it perceives to be friendly media.

The Turnbull camp seems no more accessible, pluralistic or open to engagement than the Abbott camp that preceded it. And whereas Abbott went too far shunning the ABC, the Turnbull media strategy seems built on a preference for the ABC and Fairfax Media newspapers — although there have been some exceptions, such as the wise rapprochement with Alan Jones on 2GB.

All national leaders need to speak to the ABC because of its vast national reach and influence on the political/media class. However, any right-of-centre politician duped into thinking of it as an ally is mistaken.

Likewise, any politician who thinks they can ignore commercial radio, tabloid newspapers or commercial television is kidding themselves. These media channels offer politicians not only audience access but also feedback from mainstream voices that help inform opinions and frame arguments.

Turnbull’s media was remarkably limited during the campaign. By making his spread of radio, television and newspaper interviews so sparse he surrendered countless opportunities to make his case.

He left his message largely in the hands of journalists who, naturally enough, cut and snip press conferences to suit their own news agendas.

As this column has lamented for months, Turnbull and the Coalition more broadly have avoided the negative messages that were always their most prospective. It might not flatter the Coalition but their best asset was always the risk of a return to Labor.

“Turnbull can talk all he likes about innovation and economic agility (it does no harm apart from surrendering opportunities to speak about something else),” was one such observation in April, “but what will win him votes is ensuring he is seen as stronger than Labor on borders, national security and protecting households from higher electricity prices.”

The campaign matters no longer but it is important to consider why Turnbull resisted this territory because it will shape his future. If Turnbull avoided these obvious strengths because he is uncomfortable on that turf or doesn’t believe in those policies, the Liberals and their leader are headed for turmoil.

As expected, the problem for the Coalition at the ballot box was not a resurgent Left but a fractured Right. Turnbull can succeed only if he embraces centre-right strengths, sues for peace with his conservative flank and governs without keeping one eye on the opinion polls, Twitter or The Drum. Turnbull’s acolytes pay too much attention to criticism from the green-left fringe; their commentary of choice comes from Fairfax and they read the Guardian Australia and Crikey. This betrays a worrying left-of-centre leaning and it means they can be diverted by wildly inaccurate analysis.

“Trouble is Turnbull did everything he could during his prime ministership to avoid poking the conservative wing in the eye,” Katharine Murphy wrote in the Guardian this week. “There were concessions on the marriage equality plebiscite, on safe schools, on climate policy — big concessions, not glancing references.”

Most conservatives wouldn’t read this and those who do would laugh. Turnbull has made no concessions on these issues; he has merely stuck with sensible policy.

But the fear is that Turnbull’s circle will believe some of this. Denying Australians a gay marriage plebiscite, foisting Safe Schools on their kids or abandoning pragmatic climate policies would only alienate the mainstream.

Turnbull at least has been given a clear prime ministerial purpose by economic events and Labor’s campaign concessions on budget savings that it previously had rejected.

The Prime Minister needs to leave all that is well enough alone, and seize the moment to concentrate on budget repair.