In falling behind so quickly, the government has set a new record; this despite having taken over from a Labor government that even sympathisers would quietly concede was unelectable, despite facing an opposition that has hardly been rampaging. History says it's very unlikely, but it's possible Abbott will be a one-term prime minister. Like Gillard. And Rudd. Maybe it's too early to say a cross-partisan pattern is emerging in Australian politics, but it's certainly not too early to ask. There are lots of explanations available for the government's early slide. Its botched education policy. Its attempt to trim its media profile runs the risk of looking evasive, particularly on its signature policy area of immigration. The relationship with Indonesia has taken a beating on its watch, even if the spying activity that has so enraged the Indonesians came from Labor's time in office. Coalition MPs have been caught spending taxpayers' money in dubious circumstances. And, perhaps most importantly, Australia never heartily embraced Abbott's Coalition. That much was evident the morning after the election, when it became clear that most of the swing away from Labor and the Greens went to novelty parties, with the Coalition picking up less than a quarter of it. If it's true the electorate never really warmed to Abbott, it's because his style in opposition was so aggressive that there was little warmth to go around. But it's also true that this is exactly the reason he's now Prime Minister. It was a stunningly successful method that had Labor on the ropes for almost an entire electoral term. His critics will say he bludgeoned the electorate with simplistic sloganeering, and that the noise made life impossible for a government running a complex series of arguments. Maybe. But why did it work?

I think it's because Abbott's approach was so perfectly suited to the age. Much has been written about the 24-hour news cycle, and the culture of sound-bite politics it generates. All that is true. But the problem is much bigger than that. It's society-wide. Our entire mode of living is now built on speed. We communicate instantly and constantly, and we command an impressive array of gadgets to facilitate this. The very moment we receive news, we're reacting to it, usually with virtual people whose role - either as ideological friend or foe - is pre-determined. A political development is not as important as the immediate argument we intend to prosecute with it. We've arranged ourselves into teams, and we take our cues from our teammates. We're becoming captive to a kind of digital tribalism. This is a whole new sociology, and it brings with it a whole new politics of obstinate, snap judgment. Put simply, we commit too hard, too early. That's why political parties take the huge step of replacing leaders so much quicker than they used to. They know we're not really for turning any more. And that's because, while we're smothered with information, we simply don't have time to digest it. But since we all have megaphones now, it's unthinkable to be silent; to have nothing to say. So we make noise. And, in the process, what we're losing as a society is the capacity for reflection.

That is a social environment fundamentally suited to the task of opposition. Abbott seemed to know that instinctively. He asked us to judge, rather than reflect. And he set up rapidly digestible templates to help us make those snap judgments. Templates that would undermine any government, like: unpredictability and crises in government are a result of incompetence. Hence ''no surprises, no excuses''. Thus did he vanquish two prime ministers. Now, as his government faces its own surprises, and necessarily must find the odd excuse, it fails its own tests from opposition. Sure, every government is wobbly early, and there's every chance this one will find its feet and recover. But if it doesn't, it could be that Tony Abbott is his own third scalp. In a sense, he's running against himself. More profoundly, he's running against the times.