Illustration: John Shakespeare As a consequence of all this, are we observing a momentum shift in Australian politics, or simply a detour in a Labor procession to the Treasury benches? The overarching question in Labor's post-Bennelong poll analysis will be: why was the party unable to push Liberal candidate John Alexander to a closer result beyond the two candidate preferred margin of 4.86 per cent. You will have heard all sorts of excuses from Labor spokespeople for what was an indifferent performance given the resources poured into the campaign, including selection of a high-profile candidate with name recognition. Kristina Keneally may or may not have been the right candidate given her brief, ill-starred tenure as premier of New South Wales in the last days of a Labor government that had proved to be rotten to the core.

Illustration: Jim Pavlidis However, the fair judgment is that, notwithstanding tactical errors by Labor in overemphasising Malcolm Turnbull's overzealousness in his pursuit of Labor Senator Sam Dastyari's untenable dealings with a Chinese businessman, Keneally did her best. Questions that arise are: what went wrong, or what didn't go right, and what single factor beyond others may have contributed to an outcome that has proven a reality check for Labor? Opposition Leader Bill Shorten: on shakier ground post-Bennelong. Credit:Alex Ellinghausen In its Bennelong postmortems a persistent question for party strategists will be the extent to which Shorten helped or harmed the campaign. Conclusions will not be all that encouraging for the Opposition Leader, who visited the electorate on multiple occasions, including on the night of the count, thus associating himself with success or failure.

"Shorten should have stayed away," is the verdict of a Labor insider. "He's a liability on the campaign trail … We should have been able to cut the margin to 3 per cent," . Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and Labor candidate for Bennelong Kristina Keneally: a very poor result for Labor. Credit:Alex Ellinghausen The party's concerns over the Shorten factor in Bennelong have wider implications at a moment in the election cycle when the Turnbull government is showing flickering signs of getting its act together. Speaking of Shorten's dismal polling, Fairfax Ipsos pollster Jessica Elgood says that data going back to the 1990s suggests that if the alternative prime minister does not have better ratings it is difficult for him or her to make that last leap to the Lodge. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull: still ahead of Shorten on ''likeability''. Credit:Alex Ellinghausen

Elgood notes that, going into the election in 2007, Kevin Rudd led John Howard 52-39 per cent as preferred prime minister; in 2010 when Julia Gillard scraped back into office, she led Tony Abbott 56-35 per cent; in 2013 Rudd was ahead of Abbott 47-46 per cent; and in 2016 Turnbull led Shorten 49-35 per cent. "Whatever way you look at it, Shorten is a drag on the Labor ticket," Elgood says. Labor strategists will tell you that leaders' relative poll standings should not be overstated, especially when it comes to the preferred prime minister measurement. That is true – up to a point – but this metric becomes relevant when there is a significant gap between the prime minister and the alternative. In latest Ipsos polling, Turnbull leads Shorten 48-31 per cent, with 22 per cent uncommitted. This is a big margin historically. The baleful detail for Shorten is that in five polls since the 2016 election he hasn't got his preferred prime minister polling above the low to mid-30s.

Then there are the character issues: Ipsos periodically polls 11 metrics to test such issues as trustworthiness and influence by minority groups. In these categories Shorten polls badly, although there would be some consolation for him in Turnbull's regression on these sorts of issues from his highs early in his tenure. This brings us to the likeability factor. In Australian polling this quality tends to be undervalued. This is not so in America. It could be argued that in a contest of "unlikeables", Donald Trump was less unlikeable than Hillary Clinton, and thus prevailed. According to Newspoll this month, Turnbull has a likeability rating of 58 per cent compared with Shorten's 47 per cent. In the battle of "unlikeables", Turnbull is less unlikeable, apparently. This sort of polling will be encouraging a blitzkrieg in the forthcoming election against Shorten on likeability and character issues - assuming the main players remain in place. Not least of the surprises of the 2016 campaign was the Coalition's failure to drive up Shorten's negatives. This was both a tactical and strategic error that is still confounding Labor strategists.

It won't happen again, although a reasonable question arises for the Coalition: did it miss an opportunity to kill off William Richard Shorten in 2016? When speculation turns to the relative two-party-preferred Labor-Coalition prospects in the forthcoming election - whenever it is held and, given political instability, it could be sooner rather than later - Labor strategists fall back on the stability of the polls. Loading These have shown over many months a consistency around 52-48 per cent for Labor, according to Ipsos. However, you can be sure that what is keeping party strategists awake at night is whether this margin will hold given the electorate's reservations about the leader. Tony Walker is a vice-chancellor's fellow at La Trobe University and a Fairfax columnist