Nothing surprising has happened, so why are people surprised?

In the last week, the general perception of Australia’s latest season of So You Think You Can Govern has shifted. In the aftermath of the election, despite a hung parliament, most commentators seemed to consider an Abbott government to be a foregone conclusion. In the last few days, that has changed, with Gillard now the hot favourite to get a majority. What I’m struggling to understand is why there’s been such a dramatic turnaround – not in the likelihood of Gillard forming government, but in people’s perception of such. Nothing has changed in the last week. Nothing has come out of left field to rain on Abbott’s parade. The big three ‘events’ – Bandt, Wilkie and Abbott’s costings – were all practically set in stone the day after the election (or before).

Bandt

Adam Bandt

Wilkie

Andrew Wilkie

Adam Bandt’s support for a Gillard Government should not have come as a surprise to anyone with even a vestigial hint of common sense. It would have taken a commitment on gay marriage, a bigger mining tax, and ETS and a whole lot more for Bandt to even consider getting on board with the climate change-denying, homophobic, neo-libertarian (leader of the) Coalition. He even said straight up (before the election) that he wanted to work with Gillard, while part of his mantra about what he was looking for was progressive government. Sure, Labor might not be a beacon of progressive politics, but there are at least people left within the party who remember what progressive actually means.  The Coalition used to have some fossils in the bottom drawer, but during the Howard years they were used as (literal) ammunition, pegged at anyone who got in the way.

One of those who got in the way was Andrew Wilkie. For the casual observer, he’s not as obvious a Gillard supporter as Bandt. He was playing coy. But this is the man the previous Coalition government denounced as an enemy of the state and a traitor. From that alone, anyone who thought he’d consider getting in bed with Abbott (apart from fleetingly, to spoon and make him feel uncomfortable) has a few ‘roos loose in the top paddock (I’ll get to Katter later). Aside from that, he’s an ex-Green. He’s from Tasmania, where the Coalition is practically a minor party. Even a bribe of a billion dollars wouldn’t get Wilkie onside. The guy jettisoned his career to call bullshit on government lies, did he really strike Abbott as the kind of guy to be bought?

And that billion dollar offer brings us to costings. That amazing turnaround of perceptions where suddenly the Labor party is the bastion of fiscal responsibility while the Coalition just can’t get anything right. Ok, a bit of an exaggeration (only a bit), but for the debacle that has been budget costings, it rings true. From the moment Abbott refused to give his costings to Treasury, it was obvious there was something up. His reason? Someone spotted a gaping hole, and told people about it. And he didn’t want that mystery leaker to… what? Tell the media about all the other holes that didn’t exist? He may as well have strapped a sign to his back saying “Ask me what I’m hiding”. Oakeshott, Windsor and Katter were always going to want to see costings. They were always going to want scrutiny. Even if you weren’t convinced about Abbott having something to hide before the election, it should have been plainly obvious the moment Abbott refused their request for scrutiny. If you’re trying to win support, you bend over backwards, you don’t stonewall – unless you have something to hide. Little wonder, then, that when he finally succumbed, Treasury found a $10 billion hole.

And yet, in each of these instances, commentators were surprised. Bandt, for obvious reasons, was the least surprising. But really, none of this was ever in doubt for anyone who cared to look. The only question was when it would happen (And the timing – at least of Bandt and Wilkie’s support – seems to have been deliberate. I’d be very surprised if in negotiations, Gillard had not suggested to Bandt and Wilkie that staggering their announcements would provide an image of momentum from what should really have been ‘well duh’ moments.)

Nothing has happened that wasn’t obvious (to anyone who cared to look) the day after the election. Then, we were looking at 72-73 Labor-Coalition. We had a Green, an ex-Green whose career was ruined by the Coalition, three independents who all have very good reason for not being Nationals, and a big credibility issue over Coalition costings. Hardly a good recipe for Coalition government, yet for some reason Abbott was odds-on favourite to be the next PM until only a few days ago. A few days ago, three pieces dropped into their natural, obvious, predictable places. And commentators finally got around to realising how much trouble Abbott is in.

Bob Katter

And he’s in a lot. Even with all three independents on board, he would barely scrape majority support with 76 votes (Gillard could have 77). Of those 76, 2 are absolute wildcards. Abbott’s current 73 includes Tony Crook, the WA national who has said he doesn’t want to be part of either prospective government – and the WA Nationals have form for sticking it to the Liberals. Then there’s Bob Katter, who… well, who’s Bob Katter. He’s an irrational (yet amusing) dinosaur. Yes, he’s done a decent enough job of being a local MP, for which he’s due respect. But Windsor and Oakeshott have to be painfully aware that a government dependent on Bob Katter and Tony Crook staying in line is not going to be even remotely stable. They will also be aware that Julia Gillard can form government without having to rely on either of those unstable votes.

If they’re truly serious about stable government being their top concern, they really don’t have that difficult a choice to make. Cynically, I would suspect they’ve known this for a long time, but are delaying as long as they can, putting on a big show of agonising over the decision, to minimise the backlash from their electorates. Here’s hoping that enough people recognise the situation they’re in that they don’t lose their seats next election for doing what needs to be done.

None of this – not one single bit of any of this – hasn’t been public knowledge since election day. So why has it taken the Australian media so long to get their heads out and think about it? Is it just that a ‘last minute’ turnover and win for Gillard makes a much better story? Perhaps it’s in the media’s interest to pretend to get it wrong for a little while. But the bookies? Their whole business depends on them being right, and they’ve been backing Abbott far longer than any reasonable person should have.

Are so many people really this stupid?

You must be logged in to post a comment.