Silence before the second storm

ROCK bottom in the polls, the ALP must consider the impossible, again.

Julia Gillard

IT'S too quiet at the moment. Between the sound and the fury of the opposition's calls for Julia Gillard to do who knows what exactly to further disassociate herself from Craig Thomson, there is a deafening silence coming out of Canberra.

The Prime Minister could refuse to accept Thomson's vote in a bid to refocus attention on the political debates that she wants to have, which should blunt Tony Abbott's attacks. But senior Labor strategists fear doing so wouldn't end the matter. The Opposition Leader would "just move the goalposts", as one strategist put it, and continue using the Thomson case as a political stick.

While the loud attacks from across the parliamentary chamber should certainly worry Gillard, it's the silence within Labor's ranks that must be more concerning.

How often is silence the dominant sensory experience when a political leader is under siege and their party's primary vote languishes as Labor's does now? Only when something is about to happen, history tells us.

That something may just be Gillard's removal.

Details are quietly being arranged. So quietly that analysis like this does more to hinder than help such scheming.

"Mate, if you write this you make it harder for us to make it happen," is the only comment one Kevin Rudd backer offers when contacted by The Australian.

Plotters (an unfairly pejorative term at this point) do not want free publicity right now. They seek silence. There has been little to no commentary by Rudd backers since Gillard supporters claimed such outbreaks were undermining her leadership and depressing support in the polls.

If Gillard survives into the winter parliamentary recess it will be only because no elder statesmen within the Labor Party and factional organisations were prepared to assume the task of tapping the PM on the shoulder. Or because Rudd refused to be drafted as her replacement.

Even then, Gillard's survival is far from guaranteed. So bad is Labor's standing -- Gillard's in particular -- that if Rudd refused the top job, a third candidate could yet emerge, despite the stigma of emulating NSW Labor's effort of cycling through multiple leaders.

If Rudd is willing to be drafted, as he surely must be, MPs with clout may soon come together and take that long walk into the Prime Minister's office in Parliament House to inform Gillard that she has lost the support of caucus.

Who will be willing to do it? "That, my friend, is the million dollar question," laments one MP who backed Gillard last time but will not do so again.

Mark Arbib has retired from politics. Bill Shorten has leadership ambitions of his own that precludes him from striking a prime minister for a second time, although he would need to privately make clear to colleagues that he would not block a Rudd return. Paul Howes -- apart from not actually being a member of the caucus -- has made it abundantly clear he will take no part in another coup, however necessary one may become.

Optically, names such as these playing no role in convincing Gillard to fall on her sword may be no bad thing for Labor. They were tainted by the previous challenge and would add little to -- and could perhaps even subtract from -- the optics of removing Gillard.

The tap Gillard receives -- if it happens -- needs to come from traditional party elders: John Faulkner, Anthony Albanese and Simon Crean are the only names in the parliament who fall into that category.

Faulkner and Albanese never walked away from Rudd in the first place, and could in all likelihood be convinced to intervene. However, for Crean to find it within himself to return to Rudd is a more difficult hurdle to overcome given his musings ahead of the February challenge.

On January 31, Crean told 3AW: "(Rudd) can't be prime minister again. So, the question for him is, he's got to accept that." Simply put, finding a way back from those remarks would be difficult for Crean.

Others such as senators Don Farrell and David Feeney, who each played a leading role in removing Rudd, are needed to count numbers again, only this time for Rudd. Feeney in particular must overcome what colleagues have described as "a near-toxic hatred of Rudd" for the way he was treated in Labor's first term.

Mark Butler, an up-and-coming factional powerbroker from the Left, is an important figure to round out the Left's desertion of Gillard.

But these, to be sure, are secondary players in this emerging act of mercy, which some say Labor must engage in to preserve what it can of its dignity and its parliamentary numbers.

Finance Minister Penny Wong is another important figure in any removal of Gillard. A largely non-factional actor respected across the party and in the public, were she to make the case for change internally it would be a powerful voice in convincing Gillard to step aside without a fight.

These are the names necessary to make a change at the top happen. Of course an easier scenario that would remove the complexity of fashioning a Gillard departure is if the Prime Minister independently chose to step down off her own bat, saving all and sundry the hassle of making it happen. But few see such an action as likely given her tough persona.

Perhaps as important to the success or failure of any change of leader are those destined for promotion and demotion in the aftermath of a shift. A Rudd return immediately puts the heads of Wayne Swan, Stephen Conroy, Nicola Roxon, Tony Burke and Peter Garrett firmly on the ministerial chopping block.

The first four instigated brutal public attacks on Rudd's competence and character in February. And Garrett told Sky News's Australian Agenda that he would refuse to serve in a Rudd ministry were the former prime minister to return to the top job.

Crean's name ordinarily would be part of this grouping given his public comments about Rudd. But were he to act as an agent for change he could perhaps climb down from earlier commentary and survive on the front bench.

"You'd be surprised how capable of eating humble pie some of those names you've mentioned might be if it meant staying in the game," one Rudd backer notes. "And anyway it would be better for the party if they did."

Others, however, are not so sure. In February, the forces ruining Rudd's reputation to preserve Gillard's leadership -- and who came up with the strategy of vetoing Rudd via senior ministerial character assessments in the media -- thought that doing so would rule out the former PM once and for all. Their argument was that if the senior ministers attacking Rudd would need to stand down along with Gillard, it would make his comeback impossible because the ranks of cabinet would be gutted. It was the insurance policy to guard against a bottom-up push from the backbench gaining momentum and overrunning the powerbrokers.

Three months on and the notion of a clean-out in the upper echelons of the government, with the opportunity to promote fresh talent, may be an added advantage of a change of leadership. Apart from Burke, who in the line-up of names that attacked Rudd has a political future worth preserving?

Perhaps not Swan, whose political performances include backflipping on the mining tax and delivering a series of record budget deficits. Perhaps not Conroy, whose approach to the National Broadband Network and the Australia Network tenders lacked proper due process. Perhaps not Roxon, although many see her as a true intellect within the caucus. She failed to adequately sell healthcare reforms and may have turned off traditional Labor voters with her nanny state crusade against (among other things) smokers. And perhaps not Garrett, who -- however unfairly -- is blamed for the pink batts failures, which represented the first serious disaster during Rudd's time in power.

If Burke as a potential future leader is saved, albeit put in the freezer, that still leaves at least four cabinet ministers whose departure from frontbench duties would likely help, not hinder, Labor's political fortunes. And for each cabinet minister who stands down, three promotions will usually follow: a junior minister into cabinet, a parliamentary secretary into the ranks of the junior ministry and a backbencher moving into the parliamentary secretary position.

Andrew Leigh and Melissa Parke could move up from the backbench. Mike Kelly and Mark Dreyfus are parliamentary secretaries in line for ministerial positions. David Bradbury and Jason Clare are obvious junior ministers ripe for cabinet promotion. Were he willing, Faulkner resuming a senior ministerial role would send a powerful message, alongside promoting fresh talent, that the adults were back in charge of the government.

Showcasing the talent Labor does have in its soon-to-be-decimated parliamentary ranks if polling numbers don't improve may be one of the ways to help save seats. However, the more blood on the floor caused by a transition, the harder it will be to come back from it in the aftermath, so the argument goes. That may mean only removing the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for the sake of unity.

While the opposition has been relentless in its attacks on the government, and Gillard in particular, it should be careful what it wishes for. Collecting a second prime ministerial scalp would confirm Abbott as the most successful Opposition Leader in Australian political history. But if it happens early, Abbott's success could be at the expense of him becoming prime minister.

Rudd is a far more popular leader than Gillard and a formidable campaigner, but Abbott would be favoured to win an election, so bad is Labor's standing.

And how the independents would react to a change of leader is hard to predict, potentially threatening the longevity of the current parliament.

But the change to the political landscape that may follow a change in Labor's leadership brings with it risks for the opposition -- probably more so than for the government.