Three years is a long time in politics

An illustration by Bill Leak

THE fragile balance of parliamentary numbers means the campaign must go on.

TONY Abbott's desire to win the rural independents over to the Coalition's cause by convincing them to switch allegiance without going through another election conjures images of the Opposition Leader perched outside the parliamentary chamber clutching how-to-vote cards as the crossbenchers file in.

That would be a new paradigm.

The concept of a government changing without an election is not new. In fact, it is a frequent occurrence in continental Europe, where the multi-member electoral systems make such happenings likelier.

Minority government is almost a way of life in Europe, and minor parties that switch allegiance without an election at least save voters the inconvenience of another trip to the polls as well as the expense of an election campaign.

Although Abbott's plea for Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor to rethink their positions is unlikely to succeed - self-interest is a powerful motivator and it is in both men's interest, having backed Labor, to make it work - that doesn't mean the campaign is over and the traditional job of government and opposition can resume.

Because of the volatile nature of the parliamentary numbers, we are guaranteed to remain in a permanent campaigning environment for the duration of this term.

A pair of political scientists first coined the term "permanent campaign" to describe the way US politics functions. Central to Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein's thesis was the need for American politicians to fundraise around the clock, especially in the case of members of the House of Representatives, who faced the people every two years.

It barely gives representatives time to catch their breath before they are again required to fundraise to defend their seats.

Our electoral system at least affords governments and MPs three years before having to face the public's judgment again, but few people believe the Labor government will last a full three years, despite the best of intentions.

We are only one by-election away from a forced change of government or general election, and historically there is at least one by-election during each term.

Combine that with the conservatives' self-interest in trying to tear down the government to secure another shot at victory and the situation is even more volatile. Abbott may have committed himself to a new, more consensual politics while he was trying to win the backing of the independents, but since they declared their support for Labor he and his team have used adjectives such as "illegitimate" to describe the government, and "ferocious" to describe the way they intend to hold Labor to account.

The interesting thing about the way both political leaders are going about their business is that one is over-complicating what they need to do while the other is oversimplifying their task. (I deliberately exclude the third leader, Bob Brown, from this analysis. It is high time the Greens were reminded that 10 per cent of the vote is little more than a mandate to be left on the fringes of the debate.)

Abbott thinks all he needs to do is maintain party discipline and in time his alternative government will be irresistible to voters or the independents.

That's too simple by half.

This week Julia Gillard served up a complicated and messy new front bench, in the process raising questions about her competency and whether voters are about to get more of the same from Labor rather than a fresh approach from our first elected female Prime Minister. All Gillard needs to do is keep it simple and Labor should be able to extend its dominance over the Coalition so it is in the box seat for the next election, whenever it takes place.

The reason Gillard's task should be simple is Labor has so many unfinished initiatives that don't require new legislation for them to be completed. From the GP super clinics to what's left in the Building the Education Revolution rollout, Labor doesn't need to worry about passing legislation through a volatile parliament to win back voters' trust.

If it can show early in this term that it is bedding down achievements rather than biting off more than it can chew, the difficulties of passing legislation through the parliament could be the sort of handbrake that helps Labor politically.

Instead, so far, Gillard couldn't even name a new education minister without raising doubts about her capacity to lead. Instead of one person being appointed to oversee the so-called revolution, a coalition of the ugly has been established. Damaged former environment minister Peter Garrett will be in charge of schools (but not the BER), Gillard's left-wing mate and factional warlord Kim Carr is in charge of innovation (how ironic), and another factional lefty, Chris Evans, is in charge of skills.

And after pressure from universities, tertiary education has been added to Evans's job description. (Yes, that's right, Labor forgot universities existed when it divvied up the portfolios.)

A post-election reshuffle for Labor was always worthwhile and on the cards, but changing department names and being forced to rename almost a half dozen portfolios after they were announced was too complicated. Gillard should have kept it simple, stupid.

In contrast Abbott is good at keeping things simple (remember stop the boats, stop the tax, pay back the debt). However, the Coalition's situation isn't simple and neither should his response be.

The Liberal National Party is dividing the conservatives in Queensland, and Liberals who opposed the merger are facing serious payback. There will be a lot more to be said on this issue in the months ahead.

It started with Abbott's demotion of Steven Ciobo from the shadow ministry and it will lead to many preselection challenges later this term.

Then there is the polarising issue of how to approach climate change, made even more complicated by the comments this week by BHP Billiton chief Marius Kloppers, who said Australia should get on with putting a price on carbon: a position Abbott is fundamentally opposed to. The payback former Malcolm Turnbull supporters (including Ciobo and Michael Ronaldson) are facing from the leader's office could see Abbott come under pressure if his polling numbers don't hold up.

And while the conservatives did well at the election given the depths of despair they faced during the first term in opposition, Abbott needs to understand his authority came from a fear of annihilation, and that fear is no longer present.

Colleagues' gratitude for the job he has done will be short-lived in opposition if he doesn't set about rebuilding the Coalition's economic credibility (which he, not Joe Hockey, put in jeopardy), improving the organisational parties' efficiency in campaigns (especially in NSW) and developing a positive message to go with his well-worn negative lines.

The task is complex and certainly not beyond Abbott, but only if he moves on from the simple slogans that have served him so well until now.