The idea of a Shorten victory and a Turnbull defeat may turn out to be a mirage. If that is the case, Malcolm Turnbull will win comfortably on July 2 and then Bill Shorten will probably be consigned to the dustbin and replaced as Labor leader as nearly everyone has expected will happen for a long time. Service will soon be returned to normal, as the television stations say, after an unexplained interruption.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
However, some thoughtful commentators are thinking the unthinkable. That is, prodded by the polls, they have come to believe that Labor has a winning chance. Not so long ago, that really was unthinkable. It is easy to forget this fact during an uninspiring election campaign.
If a Turnbull defeat is a mirage then the next five weeks will see a downturn in Labor's fortunes. Or perhaps the campaign will flat line and a 50:50 result will return the government with a seriously reduced majority.
Shorten may even survive such a result and be given another chance by the party, as commentators like ANU's Frank Bongiorno are suggesting.
At the same time, other commentators, such as ANU's Norman Abjorensen, have explored what that would mean for Turnbull. He would have won but been denied the strong mandate necessary to remake the Abbott government in his own image. It would remain, as Tony Abbott keeps insisting, an Abbott-Turnbull government. Abbott himself, and maybe even Eric Abetz, may return to the ministry as a gesture of unity and recognition of the reality that this is a conservative-liberal government, not the other way around.
But what if Shorten wins? For commentators it would mean throwing a lot of conventional wisdom about the impossible task of first-term Opposition leaders out the window. It would also mean a much quicker return to government than most Labor MPs, after being tossed out of office in September 2013, ever thought would happen. Until recently they didn't really think they had a chance to win. Some of the senior members of the shadow ministry probably thought it was unlikely they would ever become ministers again. Their careers in government were probably over. Labor was looking to the next generation.
For the Liberals, it goes without saying that a Turnbull defeat would be an absolute disaster for the party. That is always the case when a first-term government loses as happened with the Coalition state governments in Victoria (2014) and Queensland (2015). Particularly in Queensland, the state of bewilderment was overwhelming.
But the clear ideological divisions among the federal Liberals, associated with the replacement of Abbott by Turnbull last September, will make the fall-out this time so much greater. The battle between liberals and conservatives would be fierce. While Shorten might just survive a narrow defeat, Turnbull almost certainly would not.
Abbott, Abetz, Andrews and other conservatives would still be seething. Turnbull would be in their sights. Conservatives in the party branches would be calling for blood. Those MPs who voted for Turnbull only because he was a more likely winner would be open to a new leader. Just who that might be is unclear. Julie Bishop may be an acceptable compromise, despite being tarred by conservatives for her role in Abbott's removal. Other possibilities like Scott Morrison would also take blame as Treasurer for the election defeat.
But all of this speculation takes us back into the realms of the unthinkable given Shorten's trajectory since becoming Opposition Leader. Let's not forget how quickly his fortunes have turned. In the space of less than nine months he has gone from forgettable to unelectable to a possible future prime minister. There have been three Bill Shortens in that time.
The first Shorten is the man described by David Marr in his Quarterly Essay "Faction Man". It was launched just as Turnbull replaced Abbott. So it was in a sense overtaken by events. Nevertheless, while emphasising some positives, it captured Shorten's limitations as a creature of the unappetising machinations of the Victorian trade union and Labor Party world. Marr concluded that at best he might make a passable Victorian premier but not a prime minister.
This was the Shorten who was never given credit for how well Labor was going in the polls against Abbott. Rather it was seen as all Abbott's doing. Shorten was seen to be the beneficiary of a government that stumbled badly, particularly in the 2014 Budget. Even many Labor voters wanted more vision.
Then Turnbull arrived to the relief of many Australians on all sides of politics. Shorten was blown out of the water by his enormous initial popularity. But it was more than just the polls. In many people's eyes the contest had suddenly become a one-sided battle between a heavyweight and a lightweight. Surely Shorten could never win.
That euphoria, with only conservatives dissenting, lasted less than six months. Progressives were hopeful and willing to give Turnbull a chance, perhaps even a second term if he needed to move slowly. Surely the real Malcolm would take the reins before too long.
To his enormous credit, Shorten recovered from the initial Turnbull onslaught. His task was made easier by the internal Coalition politics and Turnbull's inaction, but Shorten also made his own luck. He kept taking policy initiatives and started to look better and better on the hustings. He made himself look electable by force of effort and perseverance.
The worst thing that can happen to Shorten, barring a catastrophe over the next five weeks, is an honourable defeat. He has got people thinking the once unthinkable. He might even win.
John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University.
