What future looks like for the losers
FOR much of the past six weeks, this has felt like the Seinfeld election – a political show about nothing. Other than Scott Morrison’s super plan for first-home buyers, there has been a decided lack of big ideas. Gaffes and external events dictated days of the campaign, rather than the proactive determinations of the leaders.
Of course, the result does not mean nothing. As Paul Keating said – in a warning to voters, not an encouragement – “when the government changes, the country changes”. That will be front of mind for all voters. What do we want Australia to be, and which party is best placed to deliver that?
What we don’t think about as much is what happens to the parties and the politicians who lose – but you can be assured that has crossed their minds. So, before the bloodletting begins, it’s worth considering the potential fallout.
After nine years in power, a loss would leave the Coalition with some serious soul-searching to do in opposition. It’s difficult to see Morrison sticking around for that. In a revealing recent interview with the Saturday Courier-Mail, he spoke of the toll of the top job on his family and how he did not want to leave feeling bitter.
The question of his replacement is complicated by the close race facing Josh Frydenberg in Kooyong. If he hangs on, the Treasurer would go head-to-head with Peter Dutton.
If he loses? It’s hard to see Frydenberg walking away from his dream to be the PM, so perhaps a solution could be engineered to parachute him back into parliament. The choice of leader will be pivotal to the Liberal Party’s future identity. Dutton would be better prepared to continue Morrison’s effort to expand into traditional Labor territory in the outer suburbs. Frydenberg would be more able to defend Liberal heartland seats under siege from so-called teal independents.
The Liberal Party’s direction also depends on the state of the Coalition. For instance, it is impossible to imagine them offering a more ambitious climate change plan while Barnaby Joyce leads the Nationals. Then again, his leadership could also be under threat.
The dynamics in the Nationals party room will be different without George Christensen and Damian Drum. Michael McCormack has not ruled out challenging, while Queensland’s David Littleproud may also fancy himself to take the Nationals forward.
The consequences of defeat would be even more dire for Labor. Over the past two years some in Labor have wondered if Albanese would want to remain in charge if he lost, perhaps by arguing the pandemic prevented him having a proper crack. Bill Shorten had two terms, so it’s not impossible, but Labor would need to move on.
The leadership race looks wide open. The tougher call, however, would be the strategy required to win after four terms in opposition. Shorten had too many policies; Albanese may not have enough. And while every government has its useby date, it would be an unmitigated crisis for Labor if Morrison’s unpopularity was still not enough for them to win.
It’s not just the major parties with everything on the line. Election after election, the Greens make noises about expanding their footprint in the lower house, and they keep falling short. Leader Adam Bandt has tried something new, placing a stronger focus on Queensland rather than inner-city electorates in Melbourne and Sydney. But the rise of the teal movement is an existential threat to the Greens. No matter how many