By ABC's Barrie Cassidy
Posted Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:48am AEDT
Photo: The already difficult task of winning the next election is a lot harder for the Prime Minister thanks to the current leadership speculation. (AAP)
Related Story: An imminent assassin or Gillard's final shield?
Related Story: Greens in 2013: between a rock and a hard place
Labor's political divorce from the Greens this week proved just how far Australian politics has ventured into the 'anything goes' zone. From here until the election nothing can be ruled in or out, writes Barrie Cassidy.
Even under Australia's no fault divorce laws, the break up this week between the Greens and the ALP was hard to figure.
Greens leader Christine Milne put most of the emphasis on the Government's failure to wring any real money from the major miners.
But that tax agreement was negotiated before the last election - and before the alliance was agreed to. What's more, when the Greens amendments were lost, they supported the legislation that they now say is so flawed.
So the published grounds for divorce were decidedly shaky. The truth is the Greens married for the money, only to discover their partner was a disappointment and a potential embarrassment. Better to run away now and seek a better life before it gets any worse.
Labor on the other hand, merely shrugged and said good riddance.
They do, after all, retain the one undertaking that really matters: the Greens will guarantee supply and never support a vote of no confidence. As Insiders colleague, Malcolm Farr, observed: that's like getting a divorce and keeping the kids. Not bad in the circumstances.
Now the focus for the Greens is on saving Senate spots and the single seat of Melbourne in the House of Representatives.
It's always difficult to judge why people vote as they do in the Senate. It is easier for me as a constituent in Melbourne to analyse why they voted as they did in that seat in 2010.
With the departure of the popular local member, Lindsay Tanner, the electorate walked away from Labor for essentially two reasons: the softening of its position on a carbon tax and the toughening of its policy towards asylum seekers.
Since then, the concerns on climate change have largely been met. The asylum seekers issue, on the other hand, still rankles with some. They would have understood the breakup a little better if that had been put forward as the key reason.
The sitting member, Adam Bandt, will struggle if the Liberals this time around choose not to direct preferences to the Greens. Even if they do, it will be tight.
Bandt is seen as a conscientious and capable representative, but his opponent in 2010, Cath Bowtell, who is running again, is popular as well.
Bandt's chances will improve if – in September – the electorate thinks Labor is a lost cause and the seat doesn't matter.
And certainly that impression gained currency this week.
The already difficult task of winning the next election got a lot harder for the Prime Minister - and not just because of worsening opinion polls.
Troubling for the Government, Fairfax at varying levels has joined News Ltd in baying for Julia Gillard's blood.
Caucus members will deny it, but most of them are heavily influenced by opinion polls and media coverage.
And while they stress about the poor polls and the increasing number of media commentators calling on the Prime Minister to resign, Tony Abbott is simultaneously starting to get his political act together.
He is using short, sharp doorstop interviews to get out a single uncluttered message every day. For example, "The faceless men cut down Kevin Rudd, and now they're coming for Julia Gillard. I say it's time to get rid of the faceless men!"
Abbott too, is refraining from the tackier issues like the AWU scandal, eschewing the worst elements of political dialogue while adopting a more Prime Minister-in-waiting persona.
All the while, those around him are working hard at softening his image with women voters.
It's a comfortable place to be, sitting back and observing media reports on their opponents' various leadership scenarios.
That exercise has so far been unhelpful for the Government to say the least. What none of the private and public procrastinators have so far provided is a viable, credible alternative to the status quo that has a half-way reasonable prospect of improving the situation. That tends to be the result whenever the party infrequently looks over the cliff and thinks about its options.
In that context, it is worth going beyond the scenarios themselves and looking at the flaws in each and every one of them.
(a) Julia Gillard resigns
That of course is not going to happen. She is far too determined for that. Only one Prime Minister since the war has given up without a fight; without a party room ballot. That was Kevin Rudd in 2010, because he knew that about 80 per cent of the caucus had deserted him.
(b) The Prime Minister's supporters have a change of mind and tap her on the shoulder
They will not do that in the absence of the credible alternative referred to earlier. The third man - or woman - has been mentioned, but who among the leading contenders would want to be Prime Minister for a few months and then almost certainly preside over a thrashing at the polls?
It would be obvious to all of them that the electorate would punish a party that needed to sack two Prime Ministers, in three years.
That leaves (c), a return to Kevin Rudd.
The polls suggest that might work. The trouble with the polls is that Coalition voters get a voice in the Labor leadership. Given a choice between the incumbent Julia Gillard and the hypothetical Kevin Rudd, of course they go for Rudd.
It's in part mischief making from a solid 30 per cent of the electorate. At the federal election, they'll vote not for Rudd, but for Abbott.
The situation is further complicated because Rudd so firmly rules out a challenge. Drafting him is the only option.
However, if the party was to do that, some of the most senior ministers would have to roll over and they are showing no signs of doing that. And if they did, who among them would explain why they were bringing back somebody they sacked three years ago; then humiliated again just a year ago; somebody variously described by them as chaotic, dysfunctional, and contemptuous of colleagues.
Australian politics entered the 'anything goes' zone more than a year ago. It is deeper into that territory now than ever before. Nothing can be ruled in or out.
But such a dramatic gesture as a second change of Prime Minister in three years - outside of the election cycle - would only be done if backed by a high degree of confidence that such a change would help. As it stands, that doesn't exist.
Those in the Coalition who promote the idea and suggest Rudd would be a more formidable opponent don't really believe it either, otherwise they wouldn't be promoting it in the first place.
Barrie Cassidy is the presenter of ABC programs Insiders and Offsiders. View his full profile here.
