Dennis Shanahan, Political editor From: The Australian
September 23, 2011 12:00AM
IT has begun.
The destabilisation of Julia Gillard's leadership is under way, there is no knowing where it will end or what the result will be, but be in no doubt - it has begun.
No leadership challenge is under way. There is a huge reluctance for many MPs to even contemplate the thought of knocking off another leader, it's not clear who would emerge as a contender or contenders, and the Prime Minister has overwhelming support.
But the frustration and desperation of Labor MPs, who simply can't believe the dire and bizarre situation they find themselves in only two years after being on top of the world with a fair expectation of being in office until the end of the decade, are eroding reason and creating a febrile atmosphere.
Related Coverage
- How low can you go? The Australian, 6 Sep 2011
- Media obsess over Gillard leadership The Australian, 4 Sep 2011
- Leadership ructions loom large The Australian, 2 Sep 2011
- Lack of heir is protection for PM The Australian, 2 Sep 2011
- Gillard 'can't win without Rudd' Courier Mail, 20 Jun 2011
What is different now within the caucus is that some Labor MPs have decided the Prime Minister's leadership is terminal and they are determined to convince their colleagues that it is so.
These MPs are active in the first phase of destabilisation, whereas previously they just have been gloomy and grumbling.
If they can recruit enough people to their view that Gillard can't revive her leadership then they can move to the second and third phases, which are to consider change and then put up an alternative.
Given the speed with which momentum for change moved against Kevin Rudd, it is impossible to provide any timetable for the development of these phases, or whether they will even be reached. But it would be a mistake for Labor to deny such a change is occurring and simply deflect attention on to the intense Coalition campaign to unseat Gillard and force an election.
The two campaigns cannot only coexist but also feed off each other.
Tony Abbott, desperate for an election as soon as possible, is trying to do everything he can to destabilise Gillard. He is trying to give encouragement to those on the Labor side who see Gillard as irrevocably damaged, to feed the public perception that there should be an election, and he is arguing that a defeat on the floor of the House of Representatives means the Prime Minister no longer has the confidence of the parliament and should resign.
Abbott's preparedness to sacrifice sensible long-term policies in pursuit of this aim means that it is hardly surprising that he will inflate and exaggerate Labor indiscretions and cross-party gossip to heighten a sense of crisis.
But it would be a foolhardy leader who dismissed the latest change in some Labor MPs' attitude as a "Liberal beat-up".
Central to this change of attitude has been the rejection by some of the argument that Gillard's personal satisfaction rating and Labor's primary vote are no worse than the darkest days of Paul Keating and John Howard, who managed to recover and win an election.
When Gillard's personal ratings and Labor's primary vote dropped to record lows in the polls there was a defence that Keating's personal ratings were worse - and they still are by a few points - and that both he and Howard had recovered from bad ratings to win a subsequent election.
This argument fitted with Gillard's own plan to have a year of delivery on policy and then wait for the public to form the view that Abbott's claims about the carbon tax was empty fear-mongering and the public would realise the compensation was more than adequate for price rises.
The theory was that Gillard and Labor could recover to a winning position and that others had done so previously.
The problem now is twofold. Some Labor MPs who remember the Keating government recognise the same sense of electoral doom, and that the Gillard government's primary vote polling, at a new record low of 26 per cent in the latest Newspoll survey published on Tuesday in The Australian, is the longest, worst period of polling in modern political history.
The government is now in a worse position than the Keating and Howard governments at their worst, and even they were at the depths for a shorter period.
One Labor MP this week pointed to the Howard government's relatively short period at 35 per cent in March 2001 and a rise back to the 40s by April-May, and the Keating government's worst was 31 per cent in August 1993 from which it quickly recovered although it lost the next election.
"In 1993 Labor went from 31 per cent to 39 per cent in a very short time, just under three months," one Labor MP told The Australian.
"We've been under 30 per cent now for three months, how long can we bear this?"
Another Labor MP told The Australian he didn't support Rudd previously but could now. He said if he had to pick a Labor leader to save his seat "it would be Kevin".
The point of Labor MPs analysing these polls and sharing them with their colleagues is to emphasise that Labor can't recover.
The other argument being put forward by those supporting Rudd for whatever reason is that the former leader has been absent from the political scene and parliament for weeks because of his heart-valve operation and duty overseas as Foreign Minister. They say Labor has plumbed new depths and become tangled in its policy failure on asylum-seekers while Rudd has been completely absent.
And they are making these points because, despite the ill-feeling towards Rudd in the Labor caucus, there are different groups with the potential to change sentiment and shift away from Gillard.
There is a small core prepared to be recognised as outright Rudd supporters, a group that numbered less than 10 a few weeks ago. Then there are those who felt sympathy towards Rudd for the way he was treated as prime minister. There are some who have never liked Gillard, and then there are those who are looking at the margins in their own seats from a point of survival and think Rudd's popularity is a better bet. The first group doesn't include ministers or factional leaders, but the other groups are showing signs of firming in favour of a leadership change, even if it isn't in favour of Rudd.
The other problem for Gillard and those who argue that any change of leadership would be suicide is that people operating on behalf of Rudd could trigger a crisis that forces a premature challenge or another contender into the field. It's all part of the destabilisation phase.
