Labor leadership is a poisoned chalice IT is a truth, universally acknowledged, that a Labor MP such as Kevin Rudd will seize the leadership whenever it is available. But on this occasion, Rudd has convincing arguments to avoid such a folly.
Rudd's ambition is an elemental force. Nobody in politics doubts that it beats as powerfully as ever. Yet Rudd's rational mind is a refined instrument that governs his choices. The truth is that, on the leadership, Rudd faces a conflict between his vaulting ambition and his calculating mind.
The Labor Party does not want Rudd. Period. It deposed him in June 2010 as prime minister driven by tactics and loathing. It humiliated Rudd in February's 71-31 vote when he offered the caucus another choice. He was treated with contempt and the Gillard camp, in an act of denigration, tried to destroy his reputation forever.
There is only one situation in which Labor would reconsider the Rudd option. It is when Labor's prospects are finished. It is when the party has passed the threshold of utter despair, after it has entered the gates of hell, when its soul is lost and its pain unbearable. Only when Labor's doom is irreversible and all hope is abandoned, only at this point might the caucus, weak, frightened and shamefaced, ask Kevin to forgive and return. Only then. It would require a politician of rare self-belief to accept such a poisoned chalice. Many caucus members are sure Rudd would accept. Indeed, this is the assumption on which the entire political debate is framed. And it may be right. Rudd's extraordinary rise over 2006 and 2007 testifies to a tenacious will to power.
But Rudd is not a fool. He is a rational thinker. He calculates relentlessly. He is alert to his self-interest. So what might Kevin think?
He might think that Labor's judgment deserves to be taken at face value. If Labor refuses Rudd until its fortunes are finished, then a rational Rudd should accept such logic. He would leave the caucus and Gillard to each other. This is the logical conclusion; it is the moral conclusion. Rudd would be irrational to accept.
The caucus might fool itself that a resurrected Rudd could win the election. But it doesn't believe that. It would be electing Rudd not to win but to save the furniture. It would be electing Rudd not in faith but in despair. It would be electing Rudd to save the necks of caucus members, most of whom have repudiated him and many of whom loathe him.
Above all, it would be electing Rudd to minimise the damage, to reduce Tony Abbott's majority and to give Labor a better position to strike against a detested Abbott government.
And who would lead a defeated Labor's re-grouping against Abbott PM? Kevin Rudd? No way. Rudd would be liquidated post-election for Bill Shorten, the party's long-run prospect. Labor, you see, doesn't really want Kevin. It might pretend it does, but a majority would show him no loyalty and no thanks. So how long would Rudd have as a resurrected PM? Two months? Possibly. Four months? Maybe. Nine months? Unlikely that long. There is a compelling argument that Rudd would seize his honeymoon and call an election instead of letting the parliament run full-term. His honeymoon surge might just provoke panic within the Coalition.
For Rudd, it would be one of the shortest recalls in history. The caucus would pretend he was a saviour but leave him the dregs. What would be the point of moving into the Lodge?
Even worse, Rudd would not own the party. He would be a leader without authority because he would be without policy options. It is often said Gillard has "Abbott-proofed" her policies. But that means they are Rudd-proofed too. Could he amend the carbon tax? No way. Could he amend the mining tax? No hope. Could he stop the boats? Of course not. Could he solve the Craig Thomson problem? The damage is done. Can he halt the European crisis? Enough said. Rudd's options would be limited in the extreme to confront any of the core problems.
The Coalition-Greens legislative majority would deny Rudd any of the above policy changes in this parliament. He could only make election promises. Let's say he stood by his February position and promised to move to a floating price for carbon after one year, not three years. That would mean a lower price.
It sounds good but think again. The Greens would attack Rudd for abandoning the scheme they legislated. The Left would be outraged. "He's ditched the climate change cause again" would be the cry, referring to Rudd's 2010 retreat. As for Abbott, he would welcome Rudd making carbon pricing the election issue. Abbott's slogan would take about 30 seconds to write: "The only good carbon tax is no carbon tax." How long would Rudd's honeymoon last? Ask the unions. They resent Rudd, and the chances of them accepting his elevation would be remote. But that's a secondary problem. The primary problem is Rudd has no hope of returning in a smooth transition.
This is the test that matters. It's the test that determines whether the transition works or fails.
Will Gillard curtsy and step aside for Kevin? Will Wayne Swan apologise to the nation and declare Kevin a great man? Why would Rudd, for a third time, consign himself to the epicentre of another leadership blood-letting?
There is no prospect of Rudd being drafted the way the Liberal Party drafted John Howard in early 1995. Then, the leader, Alexander Downer, stood down and pledged to Howard. The deputy, Peter Costello, stepped aside and pledged to Howard. It was a three way compact, genuine and enduring. What chance of a Gillard-Swan-Rudd compact? Forget it.
If Rudd's recall is mired in blood and thunder, then its downward spiral is foretold from its inception. And what chance a united Labor election campaign under Rudd if the party remains a house divided against itself? Rudd's recall might be in Labor's interest by delivering a higher vote. But how does it satisfy Rudd's interest? He would become the PM who was played for a mug twice -- the first time deposed by the party and the second time rejected by the people. What an ignominious record before history. No matter what you think of Rudd, he's better than this.
Am I expecting Rudd, therefore, to decline the leadership? On the contrary, he is likely to accept because he will think he can defeat Abbott. It is the way leaders think.
The real point lies elsewhere. If Labor wants any Rudd recall to work it must grasp the unique conditions that are required -- the party must surrender itself to Rudd and allow him to project as an agent of sweeping change in contrast to the failed Gillard era. And for Labor that is just a bridge too far.
