The postmortems have begun after the Liberal Party in Australia suffered an election wipeout at the weekend.
Peter Dutton’s party, as part of its coalition with National, has often held power. Now, the Liberals have been laid waste across the major cities, in their worst result since 1946.
As recently as February, the coalition was leading in opinion polls. Now, they will likely have to settle on about 39 seats to Labor’s about 87, once counting in marginal electorates is finalised. The Greens are predicted to win one seat, and the independents and minor parties about 23.
Some are rushing to blame the ‘‘Trump effect’’, so central to the recent Canadian election. There is something to that. The Liberals flirted with Trump-like remarks and associations.
They then backed away from stronger links, but the connections had been made - accentuated by Peter Dutton’s combative nature and his ‘‘gaffes’’ across his many years in Parliament.
At one point, Mr Dutton said he would appoint Northern Territory Liberal senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who had said her party would ‘‘make Australia great again’’, to a ministry of government efficiency. There were plenty of echoes of United States President Donald Trump’s policies.
Mr Dutton was also forced to quickly backflip on a policy banning public servants from working from home.
The increasingly desperate Liberals were without coherent and consistent policies in what has been described as the worst campaign in modern Australian political history.
After Prime Minister Anthony Albanese won the last election, the Liberals undertook some soul-searching. They had lost their educated liberals in inner-city Sydney and Melbourne to the climate-concerned independent ‘‘teals’’. The Liberals, it seemed, recognised the need to fulfil their traditional broad-church role.
Instead, Mr Dutton became their leader. Instead, the right of the party pulled towards climate-change denial and to the right on indigenous matters.
After being crushed, the Liberals urgently need not only a new, unifying leader but also a clear sense of where they stand.
In potentially troubled economic times, voters saw stability in Mr Albanese and Labor. Mr Albanese - in a way that suited his personality and style - emphasised his steady hand.
Although he is considered too cautious by Labor’s left, he appealed to both the broad centre and younger generations in the cities.
That middle road is encouraged by the Australian compulsory preferential voting system. While the radicals might win a measure of first preference votes, they are likely to slide down on second preferences.
Mr Albanese also benefited from timing. While cost-of-living pressures were a primary concern, he could point to easing inflation and sing of falling interest rates. The timing was just right, and he offered a stable future in a volatile world.
The curse of Covid incumbency has also passed.
The combined votes for the biggest parties, Labor and the Liberals, remained largely unchanged. It was just that the Liberal vote collapsed.
The ‘‘crossbenches’’ in the Australian system, the independents and minor parties, are substantial. Mr Albanese will not need allies to govern as had been expected and as the polls had predicted. However, the independents could become more important as Labor, inevitably, loses support in its second term.
New Zealand’s political parties would have watched with interest. MMP gives voice to constituencies to the left and right, leaving Labour and National to scrap in between.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon will see vindication in his concentration on the economy and his moderation on climate, Māori and cultural issues. Labour could be heartened to see Labor win, while knowing its policies and positions will need to be clear and consistent for next year’s election.
Both will have to be sure of where they stand.
