Tony Abbott has won one of the great victories of Australian politics with the ABC predicting a likely 24 seat majority to the Coalition.
This compares to 29 seats in 1996 when John Howard beat Paul Keating and 27 seats in 1975 (in a smaller parliament) when Malcolm Fraser beat Gough Whitlam.
It is certainly more resounding than the victory Kevin Rudd achieved over John Howard in 2007 with 18 seats, or the 12 seat majority Bob Hawke achieved over Malcolm Fraser in 1983.
Advertisement
But as Abbott said in his victory speech "The time for campaigning has passed, the time for governing has arrived."
And these election results demonstrate that the size of the result is not a good predictor of how well you govern, measured by the length tenure of the government.
The Hawke Keating government lasted longer than any of them despite having the narrowest victory.
Before governing it is important that Abbott reflect on the election result, because there are important lessons there for how he might govern.
Arguably his win should have been larger.
The Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government was one of the worst that Australia has seen. It was economically and managerially incompetent, dishonest, philosophically lightweight, and out of touch with the hopes and aspirations of the bulk of the populace.
Advertisement
It debased and demeaned public discourse and ran a regime based almost solely on public relations, prepared to deny any fact to win a vote.
Rudd claimed he saved Australia from the GFC, but this was a hollow claim on two counts – the facts, and how Australians felt their economy was travelling.
On the facts, the Australian economy was in tip-top shape because of the previous reformist governments of Hawke and Howard. It had already passed through the Asian crisis unscathed because of its strength and flexibility.
It could have passed through the GFC much the same way.
All Rudd needed to do was guarantee the banks deposits (which he did) and keep an eye out for some opportunities to pump prime the economy if need be by building some vital infrastructure while prices were low.
Instead he threw billions of dollars at consumers, which they promptly and rationally saved, and implemented schemes to build infrastructure that no-one needed, like school halls, which were still being built years after the crisis was over.
You can't point to a single policy change that Labor has implemented in office which has improved the efficiency of the economy (and quite a few that have done the opposite).
Instead, by insisting that now is not the time to run a surplus (if not in the greatest boom of our lifetimes when?) their economic policy boils down to spending $50 billion more than we earn each year they've been in power.
They're right, our government debt is small compared to other countries, but at the rate they were increasing it, it wasn't going to stay that way, and voters, who've been consolidating their debt ever since the GFC, know this.
In fact, as the NDIS and Gonski are unfunded past the forward estimates, which is when their biggest impact will hit, debt is likely to accelerate.
Added to this, when they did see the need to get spending and income back into balance, it was almost always by seeing which sector of the economy they could rob.
The mining tax and bank tax are examples of kleptocratic policy where the government hit-up an industry for money it had no legitimate right to using an excuse.
At the same time, changes to the industrial relations laws, plus plenty of nods and winks to the union movement, have been moving Australia in the direction of a less flexible, and ultimately less profitable and fair, economy.
So, the economy was a looming disaster.
But what contributed far more to their defeat was the fact that they were out of touch with the average Australian.
Their response to boat arrivals was one example.
The carbon tax and ETS are another. Of course ordinary Australians are worried about global warming – if they weren't it would prove that propaganda never works.
But the problem for propagandists is that propaganda generally wilts when confronted with reality. And the reality is that the tax was raising household energy bills and destroying Australian industries at the same time it was having no measurable effect on global temperatures.
Abbott was on the side of middle Australia when he opposed it. And Kevin Rudd and Julie Gillard had both repudiated it, then to embrace it, making Abbott look steady.
Then there was Gillard's rhetorical perfection of the undergraduate rant. Labelling Abbott a misogynist was a huge mistake, and it wasn't Gillard's alone.
Labor has been traducing Abbott for decades using phrases like the "mad monk". The politics of smear is ingrained in Labor psychology, but as we've seen at recent state elections, and now this federal election, most of the public, apart from the Twitterati and the fringe dwellers of fringe comedy festivals, literary festivals, universities and some back alleys of the mainstream media, don't like baseless personal vilification.
In fact you could see Abbott occasionally bate the chatterers to provoke another rush of outrage. It worked a treat.
It also demonstrated that modern Labor doesn't stand for anything. If the basis of your attack is a juvenile barrage of personal denigration, then you don't have any feathers to fly with.
As many people old enough to remember the 70s frequently remarked to me – Gough Whitlam might have led a bad government, but at least he stood for something.
This standing for nothing was demonstrated throughout the course of the campaign by the frenetic, narcissistic campaigning of Kevin Rudd, which ended on a few bum notes with average voters, including his denigration of a Christian Pastor for holding a view that 4 months ago he held himself.
Contrast that to Abbott's laconic media conferences (the derided "three word slogans") and his continuing dedication to a punishing morning exercise regimen.
So, if this government was so bad, why did Abbott achieve a good, but not record breaking result? Why, for example, does Labor still hold seats in Queensland, like Liley, Griffith and Moreton that it lost in 1996?
There are a number of reasons for that.
One is that expectations ran too strongly in Abbott's favour. As the pre-poll votes show, a swing similar to the Queensland or NSW state elections was on, but disappeared in the last days.
If voters think a result is going to be too strong one way or the other they will vote strategically to narrow the gap. One sign of that is large swings in safe seats, and small or no swings in marginals – there is plenty of evidence of that happening.
Another is that Abbott ran a "Rudd-lite" strategy, just as Rudd ran a "Howard-lite" strategy in 2007.
While this has the benefit of making it difficult for people to find reasons not to vote for you that aren't reasons not to vote for your opponent, the small target strategy also opens up options for third parties prepared to take a risk.
Many voters have a perception that politics is a confidence trick run by two identical teams who just swap the premiership between themselves. This made micro parties, particularly Clive Palmer's Palmer United Party, attractive.
That allowed voters to vote against Labor, but then direct a preference back to them. In the absence of Palmer more than 50% of them would probably have voted Coalition.
The small target strategy also makes it difficult to claim a mandate for too many things.
Another factor affecting the vote, particularly in Queensland, has to be the state government. While there is little evidence that Campbell Newman has cut anything severely, the unions have been waging a relentless PR campaign alleging this to be the case.
The perception that Newman did this, while promising not to in the campaign, and the reality that Labor ran an advertising campaign alleging Abbott would do the same, has to have had some impact, and could easily account for the slender margins of safety for Labor in seats like Moreton and Lilley.
Incumbency also played a factor.
So, how should these results play into government?
The greatest lesson probably is that it is OK to be unpopular at times, as long as you are unpopular on a point of principle. Electors are more likely to reward governments that stand for something than those who stand only for their own continuing reelection.
The second is to stay humble, disciplined and hooked-in to the public. If you align yourself with their concerns then they will reward you, and what's more you will be likely to be governing well.
A third is not to get carried away by the result. Abbott won largely because he wasn't Rudd. The rise of new micro-parties demonstrates how disillusioned voters are with almost all politicians.
And a fourth is to build a coalition for change and not to attempt too much. If a first term Abbott government turns back the boats, abolishes the carbon tax and the ETS, and delivers on most of its other promises, while establishing a case for economic reform, it will probably have done as much as it feasibly can.
While I favour rapid economic reform on the Kennett model, Abbott does not have that opportunity because of the small target strategy he adopted. He will need to be more like John Howard.
There is a lot of potential in an Abbott government. Many of the media organisations concentrated on policies and facts this election, but in truth elections are about trust and tendencies.
Any party can promise anything, but that doesn't mean they will deliver.
I'd like to see Australia as a more self-confident country, realistic about its place in the world, and full of citizens who are creative and take responsibility for themselves and care for others.
Abbott models a lot of those virtues. He is strong and resilient, and also a deep thinker. He is adaptable, and cautious, and not ostentatious. He has a moral base that doesn't appear to have changed much in at least 30 years.
I don't agree with everything that he says, but I do believe that there is generally a deeper reason for it than "Will it get me elected?"
Which is the strongest lesson from the election – if your only gauge of whether you should do something or not is whether you will in a vote, then in the long run, you probably won't win that vote.
As Abbott says, now is the time for governing. He's had a good win, and deserves to be given a fair run.