Why the constant retelling of Abbott’s downfall stings so much

THE humiliations just keep coming for Tony Abbott. And there’s one group of people for whom the constant chatter really burns.

TWAM 14 Nov 2015

OPINION

There is perhaps nothing more infuriating for the small band of dedicated Tony Abbott loyalists than having their noses constantly rubbed in the ordure of defeat.

Rarely have accounts of a Prime Minister’s ouster been so intimate, so comprehensive, so prolonged — and so one-sided.

One book on the Turnbull challenge already has been published, two more are on the way, Fairfax is running a multi-part dissection of events and participants, and there frequently are reports on the pre-Abbott vs. post-Abbott policy debates.

The political drama of the past two years almost begs for storytelling, but there is a broader interest, one which particularly affects younger voters.

An Australian in their early 40s who first voted in 1993 has been through seven prime ministerships. An Australian who first voted 14 years later in 2007, who is now in their mid to late 20s, has been through six.

So that’s seven prime ministerships in 22 years, and six in just the past eight years.

There is a strong demand from all Australians, particular the young who know little else, to have this extraordinary turnover explained and to understand whether this now is standard procedure.

The story telling seems without limit. Almost invariably the former Prime Minister and his supporters are portrayed as incompetent — if not as villains.

And this flood of attention and detail has not helped mend rifts within the Liberal Party.

The eight per cent boost to the Government’s primary vote after Malcolm Turnbull took office, and his less belligerent style of prime ministership, has salved some hurt feelings.

But a small group remains resentful and their mood is not improved by multiple accounts of how they were done like a dinner.

When Julia Gillard removed Kevin Rudd and Kevin Rudd then pushed out Julia Gillard there was plenty of analysis and blow-by-blow detail. The coverage, however, was relatively straight recording. The ALP likes its history and is not put off if it is frank and brutal. The Liberals are not used to this type of frankness and self examination.

Further, the replaying of the Abbott saga has been more like a soap opera script with all the attractions of characters so much larger than usual political life, and raw conflict.

Mr Abbott’s own performance was controversial enough, but was magnified by the stories around his chief of staff Peta Credlin. Few voters don’t have an opinion — sometimes lengthy — about one or both.

The interest in Mr Abbott and his office has made the multiple accounts of his defeat appear one-sided. Right wing columnists keep trying to counter this with various attacks on Malcolm Turnbull and any minister who stopped short of signing a suicide pact with Mr

Abbott.

Mr Abbott himself sees nothing to repent and rates his administration a winner. He would resent being relatively lonely with his opinion.

He and close admirers genuinely believe they saved Australia after Labor’s turmoil. Not only is there no gratitude, but their legacy is being denied repeatedly in accounts of the Turnbull challenge, which usually depict Abbott government chaos and incompetence.

This has made sure subterranean grumbling will continue.