It’s one of the most misattributed quotes in political conversation: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?”

Most people say former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill is the author while a smaller number reckon it was one of the most influential economists of the last 100 years, John Maynard Keynes.

It was probably US economist Paul Samuelson but regardless, it’s time Australia’s prime minister had a look at the available evidence around the referendum to change the Constitution to “alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice”.

At the moment this referendum is on a fast track to emphatic defeat and there is nothing suggesting that will change in the coming nine weeks leading up to a vote likely on October 14. In fact, things are probably going to get worse.

Albanese should do himself, his government, the country and, most importantly, the indigenous population a favour and call this vote off. A delay until after the next election could be the one way to salvage this runaway disaster.

First, let’s look at what we know. Public opinion has been moving against the proposed Constitutional change for more than a year, first slowly, then at a greater pace and, in the last few weeks, again gradually.

The dramatic fall in support from a high of more than two in three voters backing change to a net deficit today prompts some observations.

The suggestion commonly made that the collapse in support for the Constitutional change appeared when Liberal National leader Peter Dutton announced his party’s opposition is only partly true.

The slide was on ahead of the Aston by-election at the beginning of April. It was plain to see over the Christmas New Year break when Albanese and Labor went to the beach and left the political arena to Dutton.

This was when Dutton kicked into gear with his mantra that more detail was needed. He was sowing seeds of doubt without taking a stand but anyone watching this unfold couldn’t have missed his language.

Meanwhile, most of those who were listening were nodding in agreement with Dutton.

The referendum faded into the political background after summer but bounced back once Dutton made his post Aston loss declaration that he would oppose Constitutional change and campaign against it. It was then a serious political contest, whatever Albanese might say about waiting for a 33-day period on the hustings.

Dutton has been strategically clever in pursuing Albanese on the issue, testing softness in the arguments of the government and the Yes Campaign. The danger for the Yes proponents has always been that they were arguing a case based on limited or no risk.

The Yes camp said: Vote for change and there won’t be any radical difference to how Australia operates – one of the early shibboleths seen off the field was that there would be a “third chamber” of the Australian Parliament established exclusively for indigenous peoples.

This has faded but is still whispered about by some in the No Campaign and features in those apparently rogue leaflets that pack in lies and scares but lack any legally required authorisation.

More troubling for Albanese has been the recent charge that Constitutional recognition – the first step to a Voice – was part of a three stage process that included a “Treaty”.

Given there is an understanding treaties will be pursued and enacted – there are various processes underway in every state except New South Wales and Western Australia as well as talks in the Northern Territory – this was always going to be a political problem for Labor and the Yes campaign.

Both sides of the issue report a hardening belief showing up in focus groups that the Voice is “a too tricky by half” way of sneaking in a treaty. This is a political wedge you can’t miss.

All this suggests the next nine weeks – including the 33-day “official campaign” beginning at the end of the week of September 11 to 16 – is going to be unattractive, hand-to-hand political combat.

Right now, the numbers from Victorian pollsters Redbridge and an aggregated poll from YouGov published under the Newspoll banner tell one similar story – one that’s backed by today’s Essential survey in The Guardian.

The Yes Campaign is losing or struggling in every state and within a majority of demographic groups. These numbers don’t appear easy to turn around, especially as the momentum has been going the other way for most of this year.

The government and the Yes camp need to have a tough love talk.

The Redbridge polling had two flashing red lights for the Yes Campaign. The stark 54-46 result, in favour of “No”, in a basic forced choice, goes deep into the danger of 59-41 against when the exact wording of the change is used in the poll.

“The other flashing red light in Redbridge is the hardness of the No vote. The No vote has a softness of just 12 percent while the Yes vote softness comes out as 38 percent – these caveats come from the cross tabs measuring No and Yes supporters who are “certain”, “somewhat certain” or “not at all certain” about their votes.”

The cross tabs suggest one in seven No voters might be susceptible to a Yes case but more than two in five Yes voters could switch. In stark terms, there are more than twice as many Yes supporters than No voters who could still change their vote.
The technical term for this is ”Yikes!”.

It would be a great setback to reconciliation and indigenous rights if this referendum question failed – especially if it failed badly.
It’s nonsense for Albanese to say this is a “once only” chance for change but any do-over would need the skills of a gifted campaigner.

The better thing to do is accept things have gone badly, explain it to the public and put the referendum off until the next general election.
With a war in Ukraine, a global inflation crisis driving punishing cost of living pressures and climate change – as well as the broader challenges of implementing the Labor agenda – this was always going to be hard in this time of what Treasurer Jim Chalmers calls a period of polycrisis.

Done properly, the public would accept a delay. It would be better for everyone.