Tony Abbott, Leader of the Opposition. Credit: Tony Abbott

*By Alex Schlotzer:

I have chosen until now to publish my final commentary on “The By-election Double Header” so as to see how much rubbish could be written and talked about by Australia’s official political commentariat.

Although it’s to be expected since they have to pontificate on something (anything) from the results of the by-elections in Higgins and Bradfield at the weekend, without fail, Australia’s mainstream media have come up with some terrible commentary. Admittedly I was way off in Higgins with the Liberals comfortably holding the seat after an early tense half hour as non-Liberal booth results were being returned.

Unfortunately for the Greens they were unable to pick off the Liberals and the commentary to date would suggest the Greens failed and Abbott’s leadership is secure after being apparently tested in the “By-election Double Header”. These kinds of wild assertions make mainstream media commentators look absurd and out of touch with the reality of politics.

So then what can be said about the results? There are a few things that can be stated, and even they can be vigorously debated.

Firstly, the by-elections were about whether Liberal Party voters would vote for the Liberals after such a public and brutal leadership change. It didn’t matter who was leader since the Mad Monk only ascended to leader early last week. And the results showed that Liberal Party voters still vote for the Liberals.

Secondly, it demonstrated that Labor voters in Higgins prefer to vote for micro parties and even the DLP when there is no Labor candidate. This though could be construed as a very simplistic view of the results and I would stand happily corrected. Indeed such a view ignores the kind of campaign the Greens ran.

The Greens attempted to frame the Higgins by-election on climate change. The issue didn’t stick with voters but this in of itself shouldn’t be seen as an indication that climate change isn’t an issue for other electorates. It could also be said, as others have already said, that it confirms the myth of the ‘doctors’ wives’ bloc of Liberal Party voters.  The results however did show a slight increase in the primary vote for the Greens above the general election, after all other factors are considered.

Thirdly, the by-elections were not about climate change.  No matter how many inches of blog and print space or air waves on TV/radio is devoted to this notion, it simply doesn’t make it so.  Given the demographics of the area, there is no real indication to suggest that climate change was even an issue or, more importantly, a vote changing issue.  If the assumptions were true about climate change being the key election issue, then the by-elections illustrated that climate change isn’t an election issue.

However, there is something to be said about ensuring that the campaign is more rounded.  Had the Greens pointed to the instability of the Liberal Party, and their lack of judgement, would this have had more of an impact? Can there be an argument for the campaigns to have talked more about jobs, interest rates and the economy through the prism of climate change? Therefore including climate change without necessarily it being the sole focus.

Yet, as I contend, the elections were never about climate change in the first place.  The by-elections were simply about whether Liberal Party voters would vote Liberal even after such a disgraceful, public and brutal factional war. Now come the real fun and games of the next general federal elections; sometime in 2010.

*Originally published as BeDH: A Final Commentary here.