Making history of wrong kind

THIS year's election may just see the Prime Minister making history, for all the wrong reasons. If the government loses the election, Kevin Rudd will go down as only the second leader, after James Scullin in 1931, to have taken his party to a defeat after one win.

Australians have a record of giving their governments a go. If Rudd wins, his record may be far more devastating. It's hard to think of another modern Australian political leader who has taken his party to a second election win, only to be deposed by his own party soon after.

If this transpires it will be a first.

So win or lose, Rudd looks set to lose. And he will have only himself to blame for the looming ignominy.

Some commentators blame conspiratorial forces for Rudd's demise in the polls. Peter Hartcher in The Sydney Morning Herald summed up the "conspiracy of events" as follows: the failure in Copenhagen, the rise of "retail politics" under Tony Abbott, the "frenzy" of climate change sceptics, the threats of increased electricity prices.

In the same paper, Mike Carlton put Rudd's tarnished reputation down to "a relentless media campaign to destroy the Rudd government . . . naturally this has been led by the forces of darkness at News Limited".

No. The PM is responsible for his fall from grace in the polls. Rudd will never acknowledge that. But, then, leaders rarely do.

Certainly, the climate changed on climate change. But the blind insistence of Rudd and his senior ministers that the emissions trading system legislation had to be enacted by one afternoon in late November 2009 was always a ludicrous stance. Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about the unwieldy UN would know that consensus in Copenhagen among 190 governments was highly unlikely.

Instead, Rudd staked his political credibility on pushing through the ETS ahead of other countries.

At the Lowy Institute last year, Rudd mocked those who criticised precipitous action for their "endless cycle of delay", their "absolute political cowardice", their "absolute failure of leadership" and their "absolute failure of logic." That was in November. This month, a different Rudd is delaying the ETS until at least 2012 and, according to the budget overview, "only when there is clarity on the actions of the major economies, including the US, China and India".

Instead of winning back voters, the PM has earned voter disrespect for his lack of conviction, not to mention cowardice, failure of leadership and logic. After all, logic says the policy backburner is no place for the greatest moral issue of our time.

Now attuned to the unfortunate history he may make, the Prime Minister was hot under the collar last week on ABC1's The 7.30 Report when questioned about trashing "brand Rudd". Rudd's normally pasty white complexion turned a glowing shade of scarlet as he attacked the messenger. When Kerry O'Brien asked a timely question of Rudd, never mind a double dissolution, "Would the PM put an ETS at the centre of his next election mandate?", Rudd could manage only confected outrage and meaningless spin. "The bottom line is this: there is no way you can stare in the mirror in the future and say that you had passed up the core opportunity to act on climate change. I will not do that," Rudd said. In plain English, Rudd's answer is no. He will not be putting an ETS at the centre of his re-election campaign.

Rudd's essential problem is that when he looks in the mirror, he sees many faces staring back at him. His 2009 face. His 2010 about-face. And the smiling faces of John Howard, Brendan Nelson and Tony Abbott, whose policies Rudd has mirrored, so to speak. While Rudd's credibility problem is only confirmed by botched policies such as the home insulation scheme and cost blowouts under the school buildings program, the broken climate change promise has damaged him the most. His most recent big-ticket attempt to win back voter appeal with a 40 per cent mining tax on "super profits" raises more questions about his political judgment and grasp of real economics.

Rudd's clumsy efforts to explain why profits that exceed the 10-year government bond yield (about 6 per cent) are "super profits" must surely have met an icy reception at the Rudd dinner table. Therese Rein, a highly successful business woman, clearly understands about the risk-reward equation behind successful businesses. According to recent polls, so do most voters. Ignoring the soaring rhetoric of Rudd, most oppose a punitive tax on an industry integral to Australia's economic good fortune.

Rudd's dilemma is that he cannot afford another big policy U-turn. Financing his budget promises depends on his resource rent tax as it stands and any backdown will only confirm the PM's lack of political conviction.

To be fair, most leaders are the architects of their own demise. And each fall from high office is preceded by a particular set of emotions among voters.

In 1996, voters famously gathered on their porches with baseball bats, such was their anger with Paul Keating. In 2007, there were no baseball bats, just weariness that Howard had overstayed his welcome. In 2010, a different set of emotions underpin the PM's poor polls. A sense of confusion, followed by disbelief and disappointment, has set in among many voters, and certainly within the Labor Party, after the growing realisation that Rudd has failed to stand for anything except the pursuit of power.

At the Lowy Institute last year, revealing his taste for country music, Rudd quoted Kenny Rogers, who once said of gambling: "You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em. Know when to walk away, know when to run." Rudd must be a lousy poker player.

As a politician, his fold 'em, not hold 'em approach to policy in favour of populism reveals his core political weakness. Rudd's success depends on nothing but popularity. There is no rump of loyal party support to sustain him during the tough times. In other words, without a bounce in the polls, the PM will make the worst kind of history, at the hands of voters or his own party.