It’s a time of advancing polls and retreating sneers.

Writing in the Australian Financial Review on June 2, election analyst John Black, a former Labor senator for Queensland, had this to say: “On Monday’s Redbridge Poll, taken after a federal budget which has slugged small business and investors, the Coalition parties would lose every House of Representatives seat they now hold – but their preferences could elect Pauline Hanson as prime minister.”

There would be an almighty shock if the Liberal Party and the Nationals held no seats in the House of Representatives after the next election. But perhaps a bigger shock would be if a second-term Labor government were replaced by One Nation. With, possibly, Pauline Hanson as prime minister and Barnaby Joyce as her deputy.

Sure, the next election is not due until May 2028. However, on primary votes, One Nation is scoring 31 per cent on Redbridge, 27 per cent on Fox & Hedgehog, and 29 per cent on Sky News Pulse/YouGov. This compares with Labor at 28, 29 and 26 per cent and the Coalition at 20, 25, and 20 per cent respectively.

The authoritative Newspoll is awaited with interest when it next appears in The Australian. For the moment it is clear that, unlike a year ago, One Nation is likely to be a key player in determining which party will prevail in a couple of years’ time.

And that’s why members of the left intelligentsia, who self-indulgently regard themselves as “progressive”, have had to desist from sneering at Hanson and her team. With support for One Nation at about a third of Australians, Hanson has to be taken seriously by critics and supporters alike.

There are exceptions, to be sure. For example, Nine newspapers columnist Peter FitzSimons posted on June 2: “I repeat: One Nation is a circus, Senator Hanson is the ringmaster, and Barnaby Joyce the clown. #Discuss.” This is undergraduate hyperbole. Whether you agree with them or not, Hanson and Joyce are among the best communicators in Australian politics.

As I wrote in these pages on May 30, the surge in support for One Nation occurred over the Christmas holiday period. In mid-November Newspoll registered the One Nation primary vote at 15 per cent. By early February, it had risen to 27 per cent.

In between, the terrorist attack took place at Bondi, aimed at the Jewish Australian community, a part of Australian society. This was the worst terrorist attack on Australian soil. And it was followed by the return of what have been called the “ISIS brides”. Reminding all Australians that there are some radical Islamist individuals in our midst who do not – or perhaps did not – accept the values of democratic Australia.

It’s true that the increase in support for the populist One Nation is consistent with what is happening in such Western democracies as Britain, France, Germany, Italy and more. A large number of citizens of such nations, especially those outside the inner city, believe their standard of living is declining and that their elected leaders are not interested in their plight. In part, they maintain, this reflects too large an immigration intake.

John Howard’s memoir, Lazarus Rising (HarperCollins, 2010), contains a perceptive chapter titled “Pauline Hanson”. He recounts how, in 1996, Hanson won the former Labor seat of Oxley in Queensland with a massive swing. She benefited from being on the Liberal Party ticket – despite the fact that shortly before the election, Hanson had been disendorsed for inaccurate comments she made about Australian Aboriginals.

On September 10, 1996, Hanson made her first speech in the House of Representatives. This contained the infamous statement: “I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians” who, Hanson said, do not assimilate. She also claimed that Indigenous Australians were not the nation’s most disadvantaged group. Howard was critical of Hanson with respect to both statements. But he acknowledged that she “echoed community sentiment” on many issues such as multiculturalism.

At the time, I wrote that, in his capacity as prime minister, Howard could have been more confrontational in this approach to Hanson. However, with hindsight, I believe his approach was essentially correct.

Hanson’s instant success was followed by total failure. As the editors of The Rise and Fall of One Nation (QUP, 2000) wrote: “Pauline Hanson’s One Nation was a shooting star that blazed spectacularly across Australia’s political skies during 1997 and 1998 before crashing to Earth in 1999.”

But Hanson came back and she learnt a lot along the way. In Lazarus Rising, Howard spoke respectfully of Hanson as an “Aussie battler who had run a fish-and-chip shop in Ipswich”. He mentioned her “faltering manner” when speaking on occasions. But Howard saw this as part of Hanson’s popular appeal. These days Hanson’s faltering manner when speaking is a thing of the past.

On February 23, ABC TV Media Watch presenter Linton Besser referred to Hanson as a “one-time peddler of fish and chips from Ipswich”. It’s unlikely that he will continue with such intellectual snobbery.

ABC types at the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster are also known to sneer at what they call “Sky News After Dark”. Meaning when the subscription television’s opinion programs commence at 5pm (AEST).

If ABC journalists got out more (as the saying goes), they would understand the impact of Sky News – before and after dark – within Australian society. Over recent years, Hanson has appeared regularly on Sky News and spoken directly to Sky subscribers, as well as Sky News Regional (which is free to air) viewers.

Unlike the ABC, Sky News presents contesting views. On the voice referendum, Chris Kenny (for Yes) disagreed with Andrew Bolt (for No). Currently, Paul Murray is in One Nation’s corner while Peta Credlin is in the Coalition’s corner.

The tendency of the ABC to dismiss Sky News led to a situation whereby it missed a big story in Australian politics. Namely, the growing disenchantment of many Australians with politics – particularly after the Bondi massacre on December 14.

On the current figures, the short-term political outcome will turn on the distribution of preferences – which all parties will take seriously. One Nation may, or may not, falter.