Shorten, Labor thrive with Abbott’s help

Bill Shorten’s singular achievement since becoming Opposition Leader four years and six days ago has been to keep Labor united.

Rumblings have surfaced occasionally, there has been the odd policy skirmish, but nothing life-threatening or enduring, beyond Anthony Albanese’s ambition.

In view of everything that preceded his election as leader — much of which he precipitated by first killing Kevin Rudd to install Julia Gillard, then helping to kill her and restore Rudd — that is quite a feat.

Much has been made of Shorten following Tony Abbott’s template as opposition leader. That is true and in this context just a gentle reminder it was in this column that Abbott was declared one of the best opposition leaders ever. Shorten may never match Abbott’s success but he has shown the same discipline in sticking to the message, and employed the same ruthless negativity while exploiting — and benefiting from — his opponents’ divisions.

Key to it all has been the determination of the great bulk of his caucus, and his frontbench, exhausted by six years of leadership wars, to fall into lock step behind him. A united front is as critical for Shorten as it was for Abbott in opposition. Until two West Australian backbenchers moved the spill motion against him in February 2015, Abbott had enjoyed and prospered from, like Shorten now, a remarkably harmonious partyroom since his election as leader in December 2009.

Abbott’s success in turning Gillard’s into a minority government, then securing a handsome victory in 2013, quelled all misgivings about him. Shorten survives because he stripped the Coalition of its healthy majority and has retained a solid lead in the two-party preferred vote in opinion polls.

The more astute Labor members are as sure as they can be, barring what they call the unknown unknowns of politics, that Shorten will lead them to the next election. Further, again barring the unknown unknowns, they believe he will face Malcolm Turnbull.

Naturally, they prefer to be ahead in the polls; however, as they battle to control their hubris, they know the poll lead signifies little in terms of the next election, still almost two years away. They can even laugh dismissively at Turnbull’s loss of 21 Newspolls in a row, knowing the real import of that lies in the fact Turnbull himself nominated the magic 30 as proof of failure, not that it will trigger his demise.

What they also know is that they have much to be grateful for. They are under no illusions about the difficulties that lie ahead, but one thing they freely volunteer — privately at least, because publicly of course success is due solely to the fact they are political geniuses — is that Abbott is doing a lot of their work for them.

“For us, it is a great environment,” a senior Labor figure observed before the government revealed its energy policy. “If anything good is happening for the government, we know Abbott will blow it up. It is not just that he times it to coincide with Newspoll, he does it whenever the opportunity presents itself.

“Take energy, which is a difficult issue for the left side of politics. Abbott has succeeded in making it unclear what the government’s position is. It should be a great issue for them, and he is destroying it.”

While it is standard practice for political parties to war-game their opponents, there is one scenario the Labor smarties cannot even envisage, and that is Shorten facing Abbott at the next election — despite the former prime minister’s generous offer that he is, if his colleagues so desire or insist, willing to lead them again.

According to one senior Labor source: “We cannot see the pathway back for Abbott. Kevin had a narrative, and that was to say to backbenchers: ‘I am more likely to save your seat than Gillard is.’ He was always able to give the backbench hope.

“What is Abbott’s narrative? What would he say to Craig Laundy or David Coleman? He can’t say, ‘I will save your seat.’ He could say, ‘I will give you a pure form of conservatism.’ Even that wouldn’t work because his record in government was the opposite.”

Another reason cited by senior Labor men for Shorten’s success is his understanding and management of caucus. Whatever misgivings MPs have over the direction of policies, whether relating to boatpeople, energy or national security, they suppress dissent for the greater good. In any case, the options are limited. Albanese’s popularity outside is not matched inside the parliamentary party, while other possible contenders (Tanya Plibersek, Chris Bowen, Tony Burke) are not up to it or not up for a fight.

Nobody on either side seriously expects Abbott, who loves nothing more than a fight, to hang up his boxing gloves. Labor is happy for him to keep going. And why not? The Coalition, as was shown again at Tuesday’s joint party meeting, has had a gutful of poisonous sprays from him or his allies that kill any green shoots that struggle to break through.

Abbott is at heart a decent person. Those who know and like him (or used to) wish he would wake up, leave thoughts of revenge behind because no good will come of it, and modify his behaviour. Otherwise a lonely, bitter future beckons.

Josh Frydenberg was an Abbott protege. As Environment and Energy Minister, Frydenberg has worked hard, winning over even factional brethren once personally antipathetic to him. At each point he has been undercut or undermined by Abbott or one of his few remaining acolytes. Frydenberg’s challenge, as he worked hand in glove with the Prime Minister and his office, was to devise a policy that was saleable, sensible, acceptable to his partyroom and provided points of difference with Labor.

The overwhelming consensus at Tuesday’s party meeting was that those objectives had been achieved, and what remained was for the government to get the sales job right by keeping the messages simple — not an easy task with such a complex issue.

Abbott was not alone in asking questions about the new approach, but he was Robinson Crusoe in seeming to want to prolong the uncertainty.

His request for the political discussion to continue, which would have involved suspension of the meeting until later and exposed Turnbull to even more ridicule, was howled down by his backbench colleagues. The united front in the Coalition was/is against Abbott.

If Abbott employed his cut-through talents to help rather than hurt his colleagues as he does now, all sorts of rewards could follow, beginning with the restor­ation of respect. Unlike the applause of those on the fringes, which carries a heavy cost, that would be priceless.