Liberal frontbencher Paul Fletcher got a big shock last election in his Sydney seat of Bradfield. Teal candidate Nicolette Boele pushed the result to preferences, leaving her within striking distance for next year’s poll. She has been further helped by the redistribution.

Now the usually mild-mannered Fletcher, a moderate within the Liberal party, has apparently decided no-holds-barred attack is the best form of defence as he and other Liberals fight the teal wave again. But he’s at risk of alienating and insulting the voters he needs to get on side.

In an address to the Sydney Institute on Monday, Fletcher prosecuted two points. He claimed the teals “are a giant green left con job”. And he maintained a minority government would be bad for the country.

There are arguments both ways about minority government. The case Fletcher makes about the teals, however, is hyperbolic.

The teals, he argues, “are very much in the tradition of front groups established by left-wing political operatives which are designed to lure votes away from the Liberal Party by tricking voters about their bona fides”.

The “look and feel” of the campaigns run by teal candidates, including slogans, T-shirts, and videography – “was extremely slick” and “highly consistent across multiple electorates”.

So too were their key campaign issues – “climate change, an anti-corruption commission and the treatment of women in politics.”

“Of course it is not an accident that these issues were deployed across multiple campaigns. They were chosen through expensive polling work across the country,” he says.

Fletcher cites as compelling evidence of the teals being a “green left con job” the fact these community movements appeared in Liberal seats, with no sign of them in Labor electorates.

And evidence the teal campaign was designed to “dupe” Liberal voters was that a third of the successful new teal MPs  – that is, two of six – “was the daughter or niece of a long time Liberal MP, with the same name”.

“The strategy was clear: to appeal to traditional Liberal voters who would never vote Labor but who were disenfranchised with the Coalition.”

“The intention was to get people to think, ‘That nice teal candidate could almost be a Liberal. I’ll vote for her.’”

This was “trickery, backed by big money,” according to Fletcher.

Yes, the teals had some big (Climate 200) money, very big, in some instances; yes, they shared some common campaign approaches, and ran on similar issues. And yes, they pitched to disillusioned Liberal voters.

But none of that amounts to “trickery”. The community candidates push in Liberal seats was a loose movement, candidates “networked”, gaining strength from sharing experience and resources. That’s different from a plot or some sort of conspiracy.

The specific teal geography and issues were substantially a reaction against the performance of the Liberal Party and Scott Morrison. This manifestation of the community candidate movement  also grew off the back of the successful push by Cathy McGowan, a regional “community candidate” elected on a different platform, who dislodged an unpopular Liberal in 2013 in Indi.

Fletcher’s reference to the two successful relatives of one-time Liberal MPs just draws attention to the fact that in other days, those women (Allegra Spender, Kate Chaney) might well have been attracted to the Liberal Party. Of course some voters thought they “could almost be a Liberal”.

Fletcher also claims the teals “exploited” the preferential voting system. If we had first past the post voting none of the teals would have won, he said. Indeed. But if we had had first past the post voting, many Liberals would have lost in many elections. Does he want to change the voting system?

He complains the teals were helped by Labor and Greens supporters voting “tactically”. “Left-wing voters saw a chance to unseat a Liberal incumbent and voted in large numbers to do so.” No doubt. But if the Liberals had been a more acceptable alternative, they would have had a stronger primary vote and not been so susceptible to being undermined in heartland seats.

Among other lines of attack, Fletcher says the teals have voted with the Greens a lot in parliament. They’ve both “made little difference”, because it’s not a hung parliament, and “made it easier for Labor to govern”, because there are few times when Labor’s majority is on a knife-edge in divisions in parliament.

He says the teals reduce scrutiny of the government because they are allocated question time slots that cut the number of opposition questions, and  shadow ministers have less opportunity for a run of questions. From my observation, the teals’ questions are often sharper than most of those from the opposition.

Fletcher is on stronger, though much-contested, ground on the issue of majority versus minority government.

He argues minority government “leads to chaotic processes” and makes it “virtually impossible to achieve  substantive reform”.

“The stability of the two party system is a good thing.  It has delivered many benefits to Australia.  Stable majority government is a foundational requirement for achieving any serious reform and advancing our nation’s prosperity.”

Anthony Albanese  would agree with him. But critics would counter that minority government can lead to compromise and better outcomes.

“Majority government is at real risk in Australia – in large measure due to the cynical green left con job perpetrated by the political operatives behind the teal movement and their big-money backers,” Fletcher says.

Majority government is at “real risk” at this election. The reason is not because all those voters are “conned” but because they have become increasingly fed up with sub-optimal performances from the major parties.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra. Republished from The Conversation.