Albo’s ‘deplorables’ moment? PM writes off millions of voters with a single ‘dangerous, divisive, dishonest’ comment – no wonder he’s polling at minus 21: PETER VAN ONSELEN
Australian columnist Peter van Onselen argues that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's dismissal of One Nation supporters risks a "basket of deplorables" moment, after fresh Newspoll figures put Pauline Hanson's party ahead of both major parties. He warns that branding One Nation voters as duped by "dangerous, divisive and dishonest" politics is likely to alienate rather than win back the millions who have shifted away from Labor and the Coalition, particularly after One Nation's by-election win in the WA seat of Secret Harbour.
The poll has One Nation on 30 per cent primary support, ahead of Labor on 29 per cent and a collapsing Coalition on just 19 per cent. On personal ratings, Hanson's net approval sits at minus one, far ahead of Albanese on minus 21 and Opposition Leader Angus Taylor on minus 17, while a three-way preferred leader contest gives Albanese 46 per cent, Hanson 31 per cent and Taylor just 23 per cent. The author says this points to a possible nationwide political realignment, to be further tested at state elections in Victoria in November and NSW next March, and warns that a fracturing conservative vote could both save Albanese's majority and cost Labor outer-suburban seats.
- One Nation now leads both major parties in Newspoll, at 30%.
- Albanese's "dangerous, divisive" jibe risks a "deplorables"-style backlash.
- Albanese's net approval is minus 21; Hanson's is minus one.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Critics of Albanese’s remarks can argue that dismissive language risks alienating voters whose support reflects real dissatisfaction with the major parties, and may deepen the sense that political leaders do not take their concerns seriously. With One Nation polling strongly, listening to those voters and addressing the issues behind their choices could be more effective than condemning the politics they support.
The case against
Defenders of Albanese can argue that a prime minister should clearly challenge political claims or tactics he considers dangerous, divisive or dishonest, rather than soften criticism for electoral advantage. Voters can distinguish criticism of a party’s politics from contempt for its supporters, and direct language may help explain the stakes to people weighing alternatives.