Feel that zing in the air, dear reader? It's the fizzing electricity of a thousand political think pieces being written in the wake of the 2017 federal budget, the hardest reboot of an established series since Disney took Star Wars off George Lucas.
And there is a lot to unpack. Why are we seeing a pre-election-style budget when the next election is two years away? Why is the government adopting so many of the policies they mocked when Labor suggested them? Is insisting welfare recipients submit to drug testing a cruel joke, or just an especially vile bit of victim-blaming?
But here's the biggest question of all: is Tony Abbott going to smile and agree that everything his government tried to do was terrible?
See, there are two things this budget sought to do - and, at first blush, seems to have largely succeeded at doing.
The first is to go through all the things Labor were successfully attacking the Coalition about during the 2016 election campaign - housing affordability, Medicare, Gonski, the devil-may-care attitude of the banking sector - and attempt to neutralise them as issues.
In some cases they've done more than Labor could have hoped to achieve. Heck, had Labor attempted a needs-based school funding model or a rise in the Medicare levy they'd have been howled down by the conservative media and opposition alike, so this is basically a progressive policy win.
But the other thing this budget needed to do was draw a line under the catastrophic political disaster that was the 2014 budget of Joe Hockey.
The "zombie saving measures" which the Abbott government spent the rest of their time in office failing to pass? Gone. The debt and deficit emergency rhetoric? Gone. The "age of entitlement is over" stuff? Almost completely gone (except for the aforementioned drug tests, which is hopefully the first thing the senate will laugh out of the chamber).
Even the cigars that Joe Hockey and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann smoked in celebration of the 2014 budget have been taxed this time around, in what seems like a particularly sharp backhander to Hockeynomics.
Abbott attempted a bit of a feint on Tuesday morning when the former PM tried to spur a party room protest against the planned school funding plans which, in his opinion, unfairly disadvantages Catholic schools. And, aside from the predictable backing harmonies by his BFFs and fellow dumped frontbenchers Kevin Andrews and Eric Abetz it was clear no-one else was interested in having that fight.
But is he going to just sit back now and allow his dented and degraded legacy to undergo further tarnishing? Because that's not going to make his comeback happen.
After all, he transparently wants to be leader again, and making a case for his return will require him to maintain the notion that his almost two years in the top job was actually a time of unparalleled policy success undermined only by the ambition of lesser colleagues.
It's a tricky situation for the plucky backbencher for Warringah, because the only way a return to being PM is achievable at this point is to sit back and let Turnbull take the party to a humiliating loss at the polls.
At that point, Abbott can reassure the Liberals their fatal mistake was abandoning the conservative base, magnanimously accept their apologies, and get back to the business of deregulating universities and reinstituting knights and dames again.
That requires him to defend his time in office. But to undermine the budget would be to make clear he puts his own ambition ahead of the wellbeing of the party.
This is going to be a delicate piece of surgery for a man more skilled in working with blunt instruments, which is why you should expect the Abbott cheerleaders in the conservative media to do most of the work for him.
And let's be clear: the 2017 budget is refreshingly policy-heavy. At the risk of being overly optimistic, we could be about to see Australian politics deal with the best way to address national problems rather than endlessly throw blame around for the deficit and snipe about which party's patriotic dinkum is the most fair.
But even so, for a government with a one seat majority, this budget is still based on the precarious premise that the remaining architects of the government's first two budgets will be comfortable with being painted as fools.
74 comments
Comment are now closed