History may repeat in options to replace Gillard

THERE has been so much written and said about Julia Gillard's messy ministerial reshuffle that I can't be sure that the following observation doesn't constitute plagiarism, but here goes anyway.

The person who had the power to knife Kevin Rudd 18 months ago didn't even have the power to remove Robert McClelland from cabinet when she wanted to.

That says it all about Gillard's diminished authority as Prime Minister. But people shouldn't worry about a small matter such as diminished authority for a PM because Gillard has ensured freshly promoted Assistant Treasurer and Small Business Minister Mark Arbib retains his sports portfolio. Why? For continuity leading up to the London Olympics next year. And Gillard's tone was serious when she said it.

I could just imagine all the potential Australian Olympic athletes crowding around Sky News to watch David Speers discuss the new ministry, breathing a collective sigh of relief when Arbib was retained in sport. Fears that their training schedules would be thrown out of whack by the loss of continuity were allayed.

No concerns, however, about a loss of continuity in other portfolio areas that came in for changes: health, science, industry, attorney-general, indigenous affairs, economic development and industrial relations to name just a few. From health reforms to the fallout from the Qantas IR dispute and ongoing government litigation, these portfolios have far more justifiable continuity excuses, if avoiding changing personnel were the goal.

The PM told us halfway through the election campaign last year that she was going to reveal the "real Julia" from that moment on. A good way to do so at Monday's press conference would have been to simply note that the well-regarded Arbib wanted to still be able to go to the Olympics as Sports Minister. What red-blooded Aussie wouldn't?

Momentum for Labor and the PM leading up to the January holiday period has been well and truly killed off this week. Gillard now appears to be a political carcass, twisting in the breeze. She is unlikely to have the power to retain the prime ministership next year without drastic improvements in her polling numbers. However, she may have the power to play a role in nominating her successor, and this would be the piece of information that worries Rudd the most.

History may repeat itself inside the Labor Party, given the fear of what a Rudd return could mean among some of Gillard's backers. In late 2003, then opposition leader Simon Crean was too damaged to survive, so he and his supporters (who included Gillard) threw their lot into finding a replacement other than the man seen as undermining Crean, Kim Beazley. That led them to Mark Latham.

This time - with Rudd and his supporters seen as undermining Gillard - I am betting on a similar process leading Team Gillard to Defence Minister Stephen Smith. By the time that happens, the question will be: has Rudd's elevation become an unstoppable movement? Do not, however, underestimate Rudd's unpopularity in the caucus. Bill Shorten has the potential to emerge as the counterweight to Rudd now that he has been elevated to cabinet. But Shorten needs time to grow into becoming a viable alternative PM, and the way Gillard is travelling time is fast running out.

At the moment Gillard has the numbers to survive a challenge from Rudd; that much is clear. But for how long? Panic is one thing MPs are very good at and it will become the overwhelming emotion next year.

Deciding whether to return to Rudd in the new year or support a third prime ministerial candidate will be an important moment for Labor. There are two considerations worth thinking about: what effect will the choice have on electoral chances and what effect will it have on the party's long-term standing if Labor does lose the next election, as is likely?

Separating emotions from decision-making is always hard, especially in an emotion-charged environment such as Labor's federal caucus. But a calculated decision on both these criteria leads to only one answer: Rudd's return as PM. I am just not certain that will be the answer the powerbrokers come up with.

Animosity between Gillard and Rudd is toxic, and why wouldn't it be? She took his job in the most dramatic circumstances, and he has deliberately undermined her ever since. Gillard supporters worry that Rudd's return would spark payback instituted on a grand scale, understandably so. He has shown few signs of rising above potential retribution if returned as PM. Crazy, really, given the absolute victory a return would represent for him.

No one could seriously claim a third force would stand a better chance of winning the next election than Rudd, certainly not with the carbon tax now law. The time for a new candidate was before it was legislated, not after. It is too late in the game for a relatively unknown option to be handed the poisoned chalice.

If Labor can't win the next election because too much damage has already been done, containing that damage to a clash between Gillard and Rudd, rather than going for a third option, at least helps the party more neatly move on from its present divide. It would avoid wiping out another generation of leadership candidates ahead of their time.

The tragedy of Gillard's demise has been that it has happened at the same time as she deserves credit for what she has achieved in the minority parliament: passage of not just the carbon tax but numerous other pieces of legislation; holding together the alliance with the Greens and gaggle of independents; massaging competing interests across the caucus, all the while being undermined by opponents. If you impose the degree of difficulty to the task of governing with minority status, not to mention the relentless negativity of Tony Abbott, the year was a triumph for Gillard.

But that is not how politics works. The minority parliament was of her own making, brought about by a poor performance during the election campaign. And Gillard's set speeches, her performance in the media and her inability to recover from the opposition's implanting of Lady Macbeth imagery (with all the sexism that entails) have defined her as an irrecoverable failure. Superficial, I know, but that's modern politics.

If Rudd wants to reclaim the main prize, he needs to stop looking as if he is enjoying the situation so much, even if that emotion is entirely understandable.

Peter van Onselen is a Winthrop professor at the University of Western Australia.