Andrew Carr got it right when he described Niki Savva's book as 'Gossip Girl for the Canberra Bubble.' Except it's worse than that, and far more disappointing, without the original intrigue and drama of elite American teenagers.
Let's start with missing the mark of the target audience. As a science communicator, the importance of knowing your audience has been drilled into me. Clearly, this book is pitched to a wide audience, a general audience with some interest in politics. And that's certainly how the book is marketed, with the "Bulldozed" title latching onto a defining political moment in the federal election campaign that every Australian who hasn't been living under a rock would be familiar with. The lay person who does not rigorously follow every political development should be able to understand what Savva discusses. And, as someone in that category, I think Savva did a good job of providing enough context for the average Aussie reader. Of course, political afficiandos are likely familiar with many of Savva's examples and their political context so might have been a bit bored, but you can forgive Savva that since they're not really the primary audience. However, where Savva truly let's her lay audience down is on insights.
It's an "insiders' story" without insight.
While Savva's excellent connections in the Liberal party and politics more broadly come through as she outlines a range of quotes from ministers, political staffers and others, there's no real analysis. The book is pretty much just a list of quotes that Savva has helpfully put in context. It provides a decent summary of Morrison's time as leader, but that's it. It only goes into the second lowest level (out of six) of Bloom's Taxonomy of learning: comprehension or understanding of the facts. It doesn't extend up to any analysis or insight, let alone synthesis, comparisons, evaluations etc. It doesn't even group these facts into themes. For example, Savva could have examined Morrison's time in office as a demise of the traditional Liberal party and structured the book into areas that the Liberal party needs to look at if it wants to win back it's heartland - women, integrity, climate - topics that are clearly pretty topical right now as the media and many experts were quick to point out. That's just one example Savva could have picked from the smorgasbord of available options. My other suggestions as an interested voter (and not any kind of political expert) would be the past and future of the Liberal party given Savva's tight connections there, comparison with past Liberal (and/or other) leaders, Scomo as a case study for leadership in general, or a more even comparison between Scomo and Albo with insights into Albo's future (this last one is definitely what I expected based on the book's front cover). Instead, it seems that Savva chose none. This lack of analysis is a devastating disappointment for someone who read this book with the hope of gaining a few political insights. I think it's an especially big let down given the target audience are people interested in politics but who aren't experts and aren't across everything and therefore would be eager for some guidance on what we can learn from Scomo's and the Libs' colossal failings and what it means for current and future governments. But sadly, the only tidbits of analysis were limited to a few isolated sentences that had already done the rounds in the media, e.g. "There's no such thing as a safe seat anymore" and "The Liberals need to work hard if they want to win back their heartland." It's as Andrew Carr says: there are 'few revelations' (even for the lay person with little political engagement, like me).
Carr also highlights how there was 'lots of repetition '. And there certainly was lots of repetition (get it?). Repetition is another key tool in a communicator's arsenal and I'm all for gently reminding the reader of key topics or examples. However, recycling sentences word-for-word between chapters and using the same quotes more than once, or even twice (not to mention how many times was "I don't hold a hose" splashed around!?) was a bit much, not to mention confusing as I found myself repeatedly asking "Didn't I read this sentence already?".
Another critical theme for communicators is the message and a primary embodiment of this is the title. So, as a science communicator, I can't help but highlight a few critiques of the communication and messaging of the front cover. The title "Bulldozed" doesn't seem to align with the subtitle "Scott Morrison's fall and Albanese's rise", unless Albanese is meant to be the bulldozer. Second the image of Albo rising above Morrison does not reflect any kind of bulldozer imagery. Instead it reflects the subtitle and suggests a focus on Albo, leading readers to assume the book might cover the decline of Morrison and the policy and power vacuum he left, to be followed by a substantial discussion on how Albo rose to fill that gap and his future leadership. Except that it doesn't. At all. Albo barely gets one dedicated chapter, and again, there's not much that would be new and interesting to the target audience. But fair enough if Savva didn't want to focus on Albo. If so, it would have been better to highlight Morrison in the image, maybe with a photo of him driving a bulldozer? Or the image that made the sobriquet famous: poor little Luca Fauvette being knocked to the ground by a man twice his size. And speaking of sobriquets, I don't know about the "Bulldozer" title if it's meant to be an analogy of Morrison's leadership. The term "bulldozer" signifies someone "exercising irresistible force, especially in disposing of opposition" and in politics, this is presumably so they can push through their own agenda and policies. Except Morrison had no policies to push through. He was only concerned about his image, pulling a range of stunts to get himself in the limelight and hopefully ingratiate himself with voters, which obviously failed abysmally as he had no substance at all behind his various fake facades, and Aussies knew it. So if we're going for a short phrase analogy of Morrison, I would say "Scotty from marketing" is much more apt. But of course, that's been thrown around a lot, so I can see the marketing benefits of "Bulldozed". If that's the go, then please at least make sure it's framed in a way that fits the narrative of the book. For example, Savva could have interpreted the bulldozer analogy with a blokey Morrison sitting high up and isolated in his bulldozer cabin, cutting himself off from all his advisors and knocking down any who got in his path. The accompanying cover picture could have been a cartoon reflecting this, or a collage of Scomo in his truck and the trail of destruction (like the fires, Hawaii, the vaccine roll out...) behind him. And the subtitle should be moulded to match.
My final comments are that despite clear criticism of Morrison most of the time, Savva seems to give him too much undeserved credit, especially at the start of the pandemic. As a Victorian, I'm not sure anyone was enamoured with Morrison even in the early days. Sure we got more furious as time went on, but Scomo never started on our good side as he was so speedy to sanitise his hands of responsibility and sweep it all onto state leaders like Dan Andrews. Only to then attack Dan and fellow Victorians of doing everything wrong.
It seems appropriate to conclude with the conclusion, which I'm sorry to say was another disappointment. This should be Savva's chance to tie things together, return to the start with an insight for the future (maybe lifting up the limp bulldozer analogy in the process) and hammer home the key message. But you can't give future insights without insights. And sadly again, Savva concentrates on transcribing quotes rather than adding substantive analysis of what Albo's past actions might say about his future. In the absence of analysis, I hoped I at least might enjoy a laconic last line from a talented journalist. But alas, disappointment strikes again, so there wasn't even that.