Because the enemy is from within, the next election is probably the most crucial in our nation’s history. If the parties who hate traditional Australia – the anti-Australia axis – remain in power, we will follow Argentina and Venezuela: a rich country becoming irreversibly poor.

The inescapable truth is that this election should be in the bag, yet the Liberals – and to an extent the Nationals – seem almost determined to throw it away again. Instead of presenting a serious alternative, the party establishment is busy throwing childish tantrums over the One Nation surge, blinded by an arrogant sense of entitlement to conservative votes. Liberal power brokers must admit their base was driven away by compromise and condescension. The way back for the Liberals is to swallow their pride, face reality and demonstrate that their overriding objective is to defeat the Labor-Greens, not wage an ego-driven war to crush One Nation. As for the Labor-lite ‘moderates’, they were completely incapable of stopping the loss of blue-ribbon seats to the Labor front otherwise known as the ‘Teals’.

Australia is now a country increasingly dependent on a vast central government, sacrificing wealth and independence to socialist-style centralisation never approved by the people.

The overriding objective of the patriotic parties, One Nation and the Coalition, should be to defeat Labor. The ‘uniparty’ two-party system should not be restored; it is a significant reason for the mess we’re in now. Nor can voters who have left the Coalition simply be ordered back.

The Utting–Hawker survey of 1,014 intending One Nation voters, conducted in September, illustrates why. It found that 38 per cent had voted Coalition at the last election, 17 per cent Labor and about 30 per cent One Nation. Treating One Nation merely as a temporary departure from the Coalition misunderstands the electorate and risks alienating people whose cooperation could help change the government.

The patriots’ number one objective must be at least 76 seats in the House of Representatives. Government formation can wait, while cartoon squabbles only damage the cause. Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan must from now on emphasise the elementary fact that, to win, voters must prefer One Nation ahead of the Labor-Greens.

Polling shows a substantial and, I suspect, increasing opportunity for the patriotic parties, provided they do the obvious – translate their combined support into seats through effective preference cooperation.

In percentages, YouGov’s poll published on 9 September gave One Nation 30 and the Coalition 18, a combined 48. Labor had 26 and the Greens 12, together 38. Roy Morgan’s survey likewise gave the patriots 48 against 41.5.

Even with Newspoll’s prediction of a combined vote of 49% that does not necessarily indicate a win. With even the legacy media tiring of the Albanese government, this will probably improve. The problem remains, polls are still placing Labor ahead on preferences. In percentages, YouGov showed Labor leading the Coalition 52–48 and One Nation 53–47; Morgan’s respondent-preference figures were 53–47 and 53.5–46.5 respectively.

DemosAU’s July report estimated that while 80 per cent of One Nation voters would preference the Coalition, only 67 per cent of Coalition voters would preference One Nation. So, do one in three Coalition voters really favour Labor over One Nation? Or, as is more likely, do they not fully appreciate what they are doing? Their confusion must surely be at the top of Taylor and Canavan’s agenda.

They must take charge and stop the Coalition’s preference leakage, reminding voters that the only reason Labor governs with barely a third of the primary vote is that nearly 90 per cent of Greens preferences flow straight to Labor. The patriots must try to emulate that.

Hard intelligence comes from three sources: the last election (mostly irrelevant, except for the NSW Senate seat contest between Labor and a winning One Nation), recent by-elections, and polling sub-samples.

As for the Rockingham by-election, the published Liberal preference tally from a Secret Harbour early polling place sent 70.2 per cent to One Nation with 29.8 per cent to Labor; Antony Green estimated the full electorate flow was below 70 per cent.

In Farrer, 59 per cent of Liberal first-preference voters ultimately supported One Nation, compared with 69.1 per cent of National voters. But the opposing finalist was independent Michelle Milthorpe, not Labor.

Parties recommend preferences at the election; electors make the final choice. The crucial task is for Taylor and Canavan to explain now, and then regularly, why One Nation must be placed ahead of the Labor-Greens. Pauline Hanson will undoubtedly reciprocate – she has repeatedly called for formal preference cooperation.

It is easy to demonstrate why this is important. Take a seat reduced to three candidates after earlier preferences have been distributed: in percentages Labor has 40, One Nation 33 , and the Coalition 27. The Coalition is eliminated next. If only 60 per cent of its remaining votes reach One Nation, One Nation finishes on 49.2 per cent and Labor wins. If 67 per cent transfer, One Nation finishes on 51.1 per cent and wins. At an 80 per cent transfer, its final share rises to 54.6 per cent.

This demonstrates that even a combined 60 per cent primary vote can be squandered through leakage. If it occurs in the next election, it will be the result of poor leadership.

Let’s be clear. A serious leakage of preferences could keep us under the anti-Australia axis, which is already wrecking this country. The patriotic parties cannot guarantee victory just by handouts on preferences at the election. National polling is even now warning that despite a high primary vote, the patriots could still lose.

It’s time for the Coalition high command – essentially Taylor and Canavan – to do their duty and adopt and apply a winning strategy by closing the preference leak now.

They should not expect that everyone understands how crucial preferences are, especially if the Coalition continues to try to damage Pauline Hanson with irrelevant distractions.

Without preference leakage, winning is within grasp and the chances are likely to improve. Ensuring this is their first duty; failing to achieve this would be a disaster for this nation.