While the opinion polls continue to deliver bad news for the Turnbull government, it clings to the prime minister’s personal edge over Bill Shorten as proof that all is not lost.
It’s true that despite a sharp decline in his own personal approval since late 2015, the Essential Report shows that Malcolm Turnbull maintains a 39-26 lead as preferred prime minister.
The Coalition has form in snatching elections by personalising the political contest and defining Labor through their opponents: think Kim Beazley’s “lack of ticker”, Mark Latham’s “L-plates” and “Ju-liar” as textbook examples of the dark art of political character assassination.
The Coalition has been probing to define Shorten for some time.
First it was the clunky attempt to christen him “power Bill” – as the freshly minted Tony Abbott fought to keep his climate wars going from office. That attack went the way of its lead attacker.
Then there was the attempt to create “crooked Bill”, turning the taxpayer-funded guns of the Heydon royal commission onto Shorten with a terms of reference skilfully calibrated to target his time as a moderate union official.
Under evidence Shorten was forced to justify his model of centrist unionism, the right-wing lynch-mob wringing their hands about his betrayal at the same time as they were condemning the CFMEU for being too militant.
When Shorten was cleared by the commission and endorsed by former business leaders as a great example of a pragmatic union leader delivering for his members, that line of attack was also ditched.
At the start of this year, a new thrust began, call it “boot-licking Bill”, a weird twist on the politics of envy by attacking him for the powerful business contacts he had made during his union career.
Central to this attack is the contention that Shorten plays both sides of the street – that he talks about being the champion of the worker but he would rather be hobnobbing with the rich.
That this attack was led so vociferously by a multi-millionaire who had to personally fund his last election campaign to hold onto power, did tend to position the argument as “that’s not the sort of chap we want in our club”. Whatever, it seemed to fall away as soon as it had been launched.
Now the Coalition seems to have settled on the more generic “do anything Bill”, building a story that Shorten doesn’t believe in anything and will do anything and say anything to get elected (presumably unlike other politicians).
What’s clear is that notwithstanding the preferred PM numbers, the Coalition has struggled to make any individual attack stick. Despite its best efforts, the Coalition has yet to identify Bill’s achilles heel.
That’s because strong negative attacks need to be rooted in greater truths.
Each of the successful Coalition character attacks in recent times has resonated because they were based on a fundamental – rather than a confected – flaw: Beazley’s indecision, Latham’s inexperience and recklessness, Gillard’s malleability.
So does our latest Essential Report offer the Coalition any clues? On the regular leadership attribute questions we ask there is not a lot of clearly fertile ground.
On key negatives, Malcolm Turnbull is seen as more out of touch, more arrogant and more intolerant.
Yes, the PM is seen as more intelligent, and incumbency has delivered him marginally higher ratings on capability and vision, but there is no emerging character flaw here to build a movement around.
Digging further into personal qualities, with a series of alternate leader attributes we developed first for the federal election and repeat this week, we get a richer picture of how the two contenders characters are perceived.
Turnbull’s real-life appeal is transactional, a successful person who we would ask for advice, or dine or travel with – after all he knows where the good spots are.
Bill’s appeal is more relational – going for a beer, helping you if your car broke down or if you needed a spare pair of hands with the renovations. Despite the wealth disparity, he’s also more likely to lend you $100 if you need it. You’d even trust him with your pet.
Yes, it’s a little trite, but there is a deeper truth here that goes to the Coalition’s struggles to define their opponent.
Despite his sometimes awkward presentation, the opposition leader has managed to build a perception of someone who does more than just talk, someone who is prepared to pitch in and get his hands dirty when it’s needed.
Or maybe it’s just that when forced to contrast him with a prime minister who promised so much but has delivered so little, a more grounded leader doesn’t seem so bad at all.