Four-fifths of the weekend byelections were OK, or at least explainable, for the Liberals. The WA Liberals were vindicated in not wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on byelections that comfortably returned Labor candidates in Perth and Fremantle. Despite some early talk that Rebekha Sharkie was “in trouble” in Mayo, they had long ago resigned themselves to defeat in that seat — although they may reflect on the wisdom of running a climate denialist blow-in from Victoria at the next election. And while they failed in Braddon, both Labor and the Liberals went backwards there — not a bad result given the difficulty of governments winning byelections — although Eric Abetz acting as independent Craig Garland’s personal PR officer didn’t help.
But all of that was obliterated by a shocker of a result in Longman, a seat that really should have been winnable given Labor only fluked it in 2016 off the back of One Nation and Katter Party preferences. This time, One Nation were preferencing the LNP. Instead, the LNP vote fell into the twenties, while Labor lifted into the forties. Despite Malcolm Turnbull’s effort to declare “nothing to see here” yesterday — you can always tell how bad an election result is by the time it takes Turnbull to appear afterward — it’s a nightmare result.
There’s a lot of talk about how Turnbull is unpopular in Queensland. But how about the LNP that went from landslide to losers at a state level in just three years against an insipid state Labor outfit, and which sent an LNP politician from central casting, Trevor Ruthenberg, into electoral battle waving a military medal that a simple Google search showed he wasn’t entitled to? The LNP also thought preferencing One Nation over Labor was a smart idea, a move that has never paid off for the major conservative party at any point. The result: the LNP lost the byelection and lost whatever moral standing they might have ever had. You don’t pander to racists without getting dirty — and it’s the sort of dirt that takes a long time to wash off.
Ruthenberg won’t be around in Longman next time, but the LNP, with its major flaws, will still be there. And Turnbull badly needs an effective LNP to defend a slew of seats on narrow margins that run from the north down to the border. On Saturday’s performance, the LNP will kill the government by 9pm on election night.
The Liberals are making much of the resources and spending commitments Labor threw at both Longman and Braddon. But those aren’t incidentals that won’t be repeated at the general election; they’re exactly the reason why the results should be deeply worrying. Labor’s ground game is strong, enthusiastic and well-organised. It will be the same at the next election. Bill Shorten enjoys campaigning, and he’ll be better at the next election than in the last. And Labor has tens of billions in revenue to deploy strategically and tactically that the government doesn’t have.
A line that’s been run by pundits in recent months is that the government will be happy to trail Labor 48-52 because they can overhaul that sort of margin in an election campaign. Based on the weekend and on the 2016 election, if Turnbull goes into an election against Shorten trailing by four, Shorten will out-campaign him and increase Labor’s lead, not lose it.
And all the government really has to counterattack with is personal attacks on Shorten, with constant claims he’s a liar. One Nation went the personal route too, with parliamentary pensioner Mark Latham prank-calling Longman voters on Hanson’s behalf to attack Shorten. But however unpopular with voters Shorten might be, however much his opponents might claim he lies, it doesn’t seem to stop Labor winning — a point seemingly lost on The Australian and Sky News, which harp endlessly on Turnbull’s preferred Prime Minister standing.
The removal of the toxic Barnaby Joyce from the government, Tony Abbott’s growing irrelevance, some stumbles by Shorten and a period devoid of major mishaps has got the Liberals back in the game in the polls. The spotlight was off Turnbull and on Shorten. But it was the latter who ended up grinning in the spotlight on Saturday night. Now it’s back on Turnbull, and he doesn’t look too flash.
It’s going to sink in with the MSM at some point, I know it will. That the great unwashed are willing to vote for the ALP team even if they find Shorten less entertaining. So you can drop the preferred PM stuff because I reckon people if given the choice would prefer my Kelpie to Turnbull….and Tom would do a much better job!
Thank You Rabid Hamster, the Preferred PM poll is bullshit, we only get to vote for our local member.
The only poll that matters is the Two Party Preferred vote.
And yes I’d rather vote for your Kelpie than Turnbull.
To use a footy analogy, I’d rather a champion team with a thought out game plan to win the premiership and an average captain, than a very average team whose only game plan is to try and kick the next goal with a pretty flash captain whose only thought is the Brownlow.
Or a team with a captain who is on an entirely different field to his teammates, or worse a team with a captain who is under orders from the water boy.
Using another footy analogy for those who think that Shorten has been lucky; the harder I work, the luckier I get.
Put me down as a vote for Tom the Kelpie as well!
Kelpies are very intelligent…so I’m sure he’d do a better job than the incumbent PM!!
Ditto. Yes RabidHamster, the preferred PM is the least indicative piece of polling crapulosity.
How can we forget that Howard was far less popular than Keating, going into the 1996 election……& Abbott was far less popular than Rudd going into the 2013 election.
PPM was some rubbish stat invented by News Corpse to help produce Clickbait headlines (in the days before the internet was big….oddly enough).
Yes, unlike Turnbull, your dog is not as likely to piss on himself.
Not emphasized enough that Turnbull spent quite a bit of time in Longman, and smugly conveyed that his Mr popularity rating would carry the day – this result is so much about his (many) personal failings, not least of which is an over inflated ego.
Not many leaders, like Shorten, can claim in their resume survival of a Royal commission specifically designed to destroy him. Probably explains his more tempered approach these day, but whatever, its working!
Turnbull does have an ego the size of Jupiter coupled with zero understanding of smart tactics or strategies, attributes he has exhibited all his public life. Who knows what goes on in his head but the outcomes would make any reasonable person start to question their belief in their own infalibility.
“I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on changing the climate of enrichment for business over employees as I am.”
Good point about the potential of an effective Labor campaign in the general election. I’m sure we all remember how awful a campaign the Libs put up under Turnbull in 2016. Why would it be any better next year?
Another question is whether there are voters out there that have been hanging on to the idea that Turnbull would actually be the PM the country hoped for when he took the leadership. It’s probably safe to say only the most optimistic now see Turnbull as anything more than someone who sold his soul for the big chair.
Never anything positive to say, just blame Shorten/Labor for everything. While possibly not the worst PM ever, Turnbull must go down in history as the most disappointing ever. Just doesn’t have the ticker to actually lead.
Yes BGas, Turnbull constantly blames Shorten, even on the Friday before the vote when a woman at Bribie challenged him about the cut to Penalty Rates Turnbull falsely blamed Shorten. Turnbull is totally unfit for the job, and like you I had high hopes he would be a great PM. Sadly we were disappointed. No spine, no policies, no principles. Except a tax cut for big banks and corporations who avoid taxes anyway.
And Turnbull hides his wealth offshore to avoid taxes. Vote the mongrels out.
Yes, and wasn’t it sweet to see him on the television preaching to us that we must all pay our taxes because the ATO were nearly 9billion dollars shortchanged.
And another question for me is that arising from the NBN and Turnbull’s role in what is widely seen as a failure.
I live within sight of the PH flagpole but am not yet connected though I now have a connection date. But I do not know a single person who expresses enthusiasm for the presence of the NBN or their connection experience. Most commentators point to Turnbull as the person responsible for an outdated system widely seen as an expensive failure. People in rural electorates might have hoped for better connection and services by the end of the second decade of the 21st century.
Another question is whether there are voters out there that have been hanging on to the idea that Turnbull would actually be the PM the country hoped for when he took the leadership. It’s probably safe to say only the most optimistic now see Turnbull as anything more than someone who sold his soul for the big chair.
Never anything positive to say, just blame Shorten/Labor for everything. While possibly not the worst PM ever, Turnbull must go down in history as the most disappointing ever. Just doesn’t have the ticker to actually lead.
Is there an echo in here?
It’s got nothing to do with ticker. It doesn’t matter who leads. The Coalition is run by IPA ideology which represents powerful backers with deep pockets. It has just been revealed that the IPA got 4.5 million from Gina, only because of an unrelated court case. What other donations they get we don’t know, but you can guess. So “the leader” can only “lead” by making captain’s calls and we know how well that worked.
“…the PM the country hoped for when he took the leadership.” He didn’t take it, he bought it for 2 mil didn’t he?
Cash money.