Strategic gaming in forming a minority government

Comments on Peter van Onselen “Labor ahead in strategic power game” 4/09/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/labor-ahead-in-strategic-power-game/story-e6frg6zo-1225914014166
The strategic game has not necessarily been won by Gillard yet. To the contrary, the current state of play may present a dilemma for the other trio independents and could prove strategically fatal for Gillard.

Just consider it is a game for the trio as a whole - would they be more important to Gillard or Abbott now?

To Gillard, one of them may be redundant and therefore they could be divided on different issues and as a result they would lose out collectively if they support Gillard.

On the other hand, each and every one of them would be indispensable under Abbott and would have to be accommodated all the time. There is no case or condition that they could be divided and conquered at all.

So from their point of view, which is the best for them?

It is obviously it is the one to support Abbott.

Further, with $1 billion offer from Abbott for the other independent now unnecessary and unused, the three independents would have even more to gain.

A better and much superior gaming for Gillard could have been to secure the support of that independent and keep it undisclosed until after the securing of the other trio independents!

So it appears that Gillard is to clever by half as opposed to strategically smart!I could be wrong, but it is highly likely that now Abbott will form the government.

PS: the announcement of the last agreement was a win for that independent, but a loss for Gillard.